*runs in and pops head around door* It's not theft... it's unlicensed and unauthorised redistribution of an intellectually copyrighted material... not theft. If you take a 3D wooden Puzzle game and scan it then print it out on a 3D printer.. have you stolen the 3D Puzzle game? No... Not at all.. "THEFT" implies taking something which isn't yours, however saying that somebody creating a copy from an original that was purchased is taking something from somebody else is absurd, it's not theft. End of. Simple as that. Nobody lost anything that they had prior to the act taking place. Something hadn't gone POST copying that was there PRE copying, get me? No I don't condone it, yes I can understand why some people do it, yes I think the cost of games are way too high, no I don't think piracy will ever stop, yes I do think developers earn too much (especially for some of the **** they're churning out nowadays), no you won't convince me that it's theft and finally... *hammer time* ps, if you like a Game, Software and or anything else. Support the developers and buy the product. *runs back to the Demote thread in General*
A contradictory statement here - greed can't be the only cause when you so persuasively highlight convenience and lack of accountability. There have been plenty of other causes mentioned by others here too: inability to pay (most applicable to youngsters without their own income using a PC purchased by their parents); avoiding DRM (a legitimate purchase may have been made but the individual prefers a cracked copy); an unofficial demo which may or may not result in a purchase; "Collectors" who just download without actually playing (if that sounds stupid, there are many here - myself included - who have bought games and have yet to play them); possibly the greatest portion - idiots who can barely muster enough cognitive skills to click an icon, who have yet to figure that most software needs to be paid for (and who desperately need an update to "Don't Copy That Floppy" - perhaps "Don't Warrant That Torrent"?). People who think this the result of criminal enterprise are being naive - if anything the availability of content online has crippled that part of the black economy that used to profit from unauthorised duplication - why pay Dodgy Denis for a DVD full of warez when you can download it yourself? If this was the case, then nobody would be buying games at all and the industry as we know it would not exist. Indeed society as a whole would not exist if people were "inherently bad" since it relies on the majority following accepted codes of behaviour (aka laws) without constant supervision. Absolutely correct - theft is legally defined in the UK by section 1 of the Theft Act 1968, which states: A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly. See above... You're not alone (see How Steam Stopped Me From Pirating Games And Enjoy The Sweet DRM Kool-Aid) yet I find this the most depressing statement in this thread. Steam's DRM is so tight (only Ubisoft can claim to have stricter system for now) that no-one can claim to "own" anything they purchase there - Valve can pull the plug on anyone's games collection and regularly do. In buying from Steam, you effectively forfeit your consumer rights (Valve have no European presence, any legal remedy can only be sought via a US court and the US has recently - in Vernor vs Autodesk - ruled that EULAs can override consumer rights, specifically their First Sale Doctrine) and are tied to Steam's EULA which allows Valve to: revoke your purchases at any time for virtually any reason (section 5: "Valve may terminate your Account...for any conduct or activity that Valve believes...negatively affects the enjoyment of Steam by other Subscribers"); charge extra amounts to your credit card as they please (section 4B: "Valve reserves the right to change our fees or billing methods at any time...") - they have to give 30 days notice but closing your account (and losing access to everything purchased previously, whether you backed them up or not) would be the only way to avoid any such charges; avoid liability if your system is hijacked by malware transmitted through Steam (section 9C: "VALVE DOES NOT GUARANTEE CONTINUOUS, ERROR-FREE, VIRUS-FREE OR SECURE OPERATION..."). This should be particularly significant given Sony's recent problems - at least Playstation owners didn't have to worry about their system being infected with malware allowing others access to their online bank accounts. Now I've never used Steam myself (and would never do so, with conditions like these) so I have no personal axe to grind - but there are an increasing number of Steam-compulsory games (Napoleon: Total War and Civilization V being recent examples) which, if the trend continues, would give Valve monopoly power over the gaming industry, to the detriment of both gamers and developers.
I agreed with you entirely up until the point of blaming the order of society on society its self. Which is not entirely true ( I agree with this guys theory on morality, I know his argument is about how religion defines morality but... I like his argument. ) But yeah, I'm not going to get involved in the huge debate over right and wrong however I would like to state that Statutes, Acts and Bills aren't LAW. I'm not going to go into the whole contractual law and law of the land, but people who care to look it up can.
Thought I'd watch it out of curiosity and when he first mentioned "secular" I thought "oh" because I'm a Christian so what he says isn't going to be compatible with what I believe. I have to say that he presents his opinion very eloquently and clearly, but it's still inconsistent...but that's for another thread. Ditto.
Actually, Acts of Parliament are law. I think you may be confusing the distinction between criminal law and other types. If a person or organisation breaches an Act, they are acting unlawfully but not necessarily criminally.
That was rather depressing to read as a person who has a huge steam library I'm in the position now of just hoping Steam never turn nasty. It's not a very dignified position to be in, I must admit. I'll say this now, though, and ban me for it if you like - if Steam pulled the plug, I'd pirate and crack every game I'd owned on there. I see no wrong in that at all.
**** like this really pisses me off. Kiddies? I'm 32 and have owned almost every console ever made. You know why? Because I like games. Whether that's on PC, console or handheld. Dick head. And at no point have I EVER paid £45 for a game, even a major new title.
It's this whole PC gamer versus console war thing. It was dumbly worded of me though so sorry for being a dick. The name's Dick.... Dick Head. I would also pirate all of my Steam games if Valve turned nasty or if the Valve empire collapsed. For the time being a like the Simplicity of the Steam delivery. A game I buy there will work even if it's really vintage. I must say there's a more selfish reason not to pirate and that is that so many pirated games are more trouble than they're worth. When you see the problems people have with installation and instability or the number of steps they need to go through to bypass protection. Or the limitations imposed by using the cracked software. When Crysis 2 1.9 + DX11 was released on the pirate network, I had received my legitimate copy of the game in the post a week earlier and had no problems installing and updating. I read some of the comments from people who were running the cracked version and it was like "why is the game crashing?".
Ok guys, you are all proving that LEGALLY piracy is not theft, so in a court you would be charged with something else. I'm happy to agree with that. Morally though I was always bought up with "if you take something that isn't yours that you have no right to have, it's theft" Regardless of the words used I think it is agreed that it is wrong to pirate software. I'm glad to see the OP has changed his stance. Interesting about steam though, I never read the eula as I'm sure a lot of people don't. I would like to think that those clauses are there to cover them, and would not be used in a way that is detrimental to the end user but time will tell.
This may be slightly off topic, but something that really gets me is download pricing. I've been trying to pick up a cheap copy of GTA IV, and the cheapest place is GAME, with the physical box version costing £5.99 (sadly out of stock). Listed right below that is the option to download it from GAME, costing £19.99 How can this be?! There is no physical good changing hand whatsoever, yet still costs an extra £14? So £5.99 including the disc, paper manuals, the DVD case, the shiny leaflets, packaging, transport, shelf space, petrol and the wages of the people that run the shop. Or £19.99 including bandwidth and an electricity bill? This just seems wrong, and rampantly unfair.
+1 to this. Even at best it's a sadly blinkered and uneducated analogy. Take MMO's for example. Guild Wars worked on the principle of no subscriptions but with an expansion being released every 6 months or less as opposed to once every 18 months to 2 years like satandrad MMO's. I spent well in excess of 3000 hours playing Guild Wars and during that time paid for the original game and 2 expansions all at £29.99. £90 for over 3000 hours enjoyment compared to £20 for, at best(since all but the most well produced movies have complete bollocks in the extra's) 3 hours. No contest. Best examples for me are either Final Fantasy 7/8. £25 new when i bought them release day offers and both gave me well over 200 hours each or Lord Of The Rings Online which had a special offer of £75 for lifetime subscription ages ago and i'm currently at about 5000 hours and counting. Let's not even go further afield to things like books. I have books which we're £5.99 brand new and have been read dozens of times.
I doubt anyone would argue with that - software piracy is immoral. What tends to get my back up is posters who try to argue legal specifics without bothering to review the legislation in question. As for Steam, people can best protect themselves from future abuse by considering other sources - retail (plus a crack from GameCopyWorld to disable disk checks) is as easy to play and usually cheaper. Yes, you have to patch manually but it is a once-off (mostly) and means you keep control over your system (i.e. can avoid patches that invalidate savegames or cause other problems). Most other online stores pose similar risks though to a lesser extent (Direct2Drive, GamersGate, Impulse all check per install rather than per play) but the DRM-free outfits (GOG, GamersFront) pose no such risk - as long as downloads are backed up, no-one need worry if these sites changed their T&Cs or shut down.
I don't see a difference between going in Game and stealing a game or downloading a copy, ur not being charged for the stupid box or disk that's worth about 10p, but what's on it.
I think the UK law's definition of theft is stupid. It implies that depriving the original owner has to be part of the intention, even though it's just a side effect due to the nature of physical property. But okay, let's not call it theft then, maybe then you'll stop nitpicking about the definition and start using "common" sense. Also trying to justify it by saying that you didn't take the original copy from the publisher, and that they "earn too much money" is just ridiculous. If you don't agree with the asking price of a service or you don't want to support the provider, then you don't use it. Plain and simple. Or if you do use it, you keep it to yourself instead of arguing with others to try and convince them that it's right.
If you've bought software legitimately but then been screwed some time later by excessive DRM then you could make an exception and screw that publisher. I read stories of people buying EA games in one format then later being told they need to buy it in another format if they want to keep using it. I've not really had any probs with the EA games I've purchased. I did spend several days trying to get BF 2142 to work on my windows 7 a few months ago. I even downloaded a pirate copy to see if that would run. It crashed on play like my legit download version. Contacted EA and they emailed me a solution which actually worked albeit not in quite the order they listed. I'm not gonna play with semantics and say using software you haven't paid for isn't theft. In my view it is, whatever word you want to call it, ultimately it amounts to the same thing. I think there are some hideous alternatives to buying software that you then own legitimately - subscription games. Bloody awful drugs designed to suck you dry. I envisage a nightmare gaming world where every game u want to play requires you pay a monthly fee. If that ever happened I'd stop playing games. I detest the likes of World of ******s and that crappy space game you pay for again and again but never own. I guess though u can even argue in defence of such games by saying if you don't want to subscribe then move on. I just don't like the principal of renting a game. A game that's designed to keep you hooked.
The only time I ever pirated a game was when my mobo broke got a new one and then the serial key didn't work. Serves them right for screwing legit customers!
As many have said, if you can't afford/don't agree with the pricing of games, don't buy them. Either wait until they drop to a price you consider reasonable, or play one of the literally thousands of free games available on the internet. I think there are justifiable reasons for downloading a pirate copy of a game, such as if DRM causes problems (as I had to with GTA IV) or if the game just isn't available anymore (/available where you live).
I disagree - it is the deprivation aspect that causes the harm/loss for an individual. It is also important that there is an intention to deprive permanently - if someone takes your wallet and throws it in a ditch, that isn't theft (since you can get it back again - they may well have committed other illegal acts like assault in the process though). If they took it and put it up on eBay, then that would be theft (regardless of whether it sold or not) since they've shown the intent to permanently deprive. If the DRM was not specified in advance then I would agree with you - however virtually every review of GTA IV highlighted the obnoxious nature of its dual activation requirements (Rockstar Social Club and Games for Windows Live) so the appropriate action for those objecting would be to boycott the game (as I did). Choosing to buy and copy instead sends the wrong message on two counts - it gives publishers the impression that such DRM is acceptable (you paid means you agree in their eyes, regardless of what you feel afterwards) and that piracy is causing them greater financial loss.
- if someone takes your wallet and throws it in a ditch, that isn't theft (since you can get it back again Seriously?! I'm not sure that is that is true. If I took your car but left a note saying I will give it back next month, that is not theft as I'm not permanently depriving you of it? I smell bs!
