Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever Thanks to DRM

L31mr0d

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Faulty analogy. Nobody is producing mona lisas (or any other classic painting) and making a living from selling them.
Your pixel perfect replica isn't taking away from anyones earnings.
The closest thing your analogy would come to would be legal abandonware.

No, faulty interpretation. Again with the hyperbole. There doesn't have to be people making a living from selling Mona Lisas for the original to have a value and be an item that can be stolen.

My point is that by making a copy of the original I have not stolen the original. Nobody has had anything stolen from them.

If you are going back to your original definition of a thief as someone who denies revenue to someone by taking a copy of a product instead of buying the original article, I have already proven this argument to be flawed in the case of showing people a DVD. if you show a DVD in your collection to anyone but yourself you are committing the same crime as a pirate by denying revenue to the producers by allowing people to view a movie they would of otherwise had to pay for.

Your definition of "theft" is purely subjective, as you are making the flawed assumption that everyone who pirates would of bought the media where piracy not available. Any argument based on assumption is doomed to be inherently wrong, as I can easily also assume that nobody who pirated that media would of bought it therefore nothing was stolen.

Canis Lupus

L31mr0d wrote: »

No, faulty interpretation. Again with the hyperbole. There doesn't have to be people making a living from selling Mona Lisas for the original to have a value and be an item that can be stolen.

My point is that by making a copy of the original I have not stolen the original. Nobody has had anything stolen from them.

If you are going back to your original definition of a thief as someone who denies revenue to someone by taking a copy of a product instead of buying the original article, I have already proven this argument to be flawed in the case of showing people a DVD. if you show a DVD in your collection to anyone but yourself you are committing the same crime as a pirate by denying revenue to the producers by allowing people to view a movie they would of otherwise had to pay for.

Your definition of "theft" is purely subjective, as you are making the flawed assumption that everyone who pirates would of bought the media where piracy not available. Any argument based on assumption is doomed to be inherently wrong, as I can easily also assume that nobody who pirated that media would of bought it therefore nothing was stolen.

Stop playing with words.

Maximilian

L31mr0d wrote: »

No, faulty interpretation. Again with the hyperbole. There doesn't have to be people making a living from selling Mona Lisas for the original to have a value and be an item that can be stolen.

My point is that by making a copy of the original I have not stolen the original. Nobody has had anything stolen from them.

If you are going back to your original definition of a thief as someone who denies revenue to someone by taking a copy of a product instead of buying the original article, I have already proven this argument to be flawed in the case of showing people a DVD. if you show a DVD in your collection to anyone but yourself you are committing the same crime as a pirate by denying revenue to the producers by allowing people to view a movie they would of otherwise had to pay for.

Your definition of "theft" is purely subjective, as you are making the flawed assumption that everyone who pirates would of bought the media where piracy not available. Any argument based on assumption is doomed to be inherently wrong, as I can easily also assume that nobody who pirated that media would of bought it therefore nothing was stolen.

Not wanting to repeat myself but by pirating software, you are taking a copy without permission of something that does not belong to you. That's stealing. The fact that what you copied remains in the possession of the legal owner is irrelevant.

Here's one legal definition of theft:

a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale).

How does that not not include copying software?

In any event, if you are correct then how is software piracy illegal in just about every country in the world?

thelordofcheese

L31mr0d wrote: »

No, faulty interpretation. Again with the hyperbole. There doesn't have to be people making a living from selling Mona Lisas for the original to have a value and be an item that can be stolen.

My point is that by making a copy of the original I have not stolen the original. Nobody has had anything stolen from them.

If you are going back to your original definition of a thief as someone who denies revenue to someone by taking a copy of a product instead of buying the original article, I have already proven this argument to be flawed in the case of showing people a DVD. if you show a DVD in your collection to anyone but yourself you are committing the same crime as a pirate by denying revenue to the producers by allowing people to view a movie they would of otherwise had to pay for.

Your definition of "theft" is purely subjective, as you are making the flawed assumption that everyone who pirates would of bought the media where piracy not available. Any argument based on assumption is doomed to be inherently wrong, as I can easily also assume that nobody who pirated that media would of bought it therefore nothing was stolen.

No. for that last time, by pirating a game or DVD or Cd you are getting a copy of that item without paying for it. You have it in your possesion you may view it at any time, or whatever you please.
It's exactly the same as having bought it, except of course, that you didn't.

Your Viewing a DVD analogy is flawed for the same reason, you don't have a copy of my DVD simply by viewing it, in the same way just hearing a song on the radio isn't piracy. You don't end up with a copy of the product at the end of it.

And that's why this is theft. By pirating something you now have a full copy of a product you didn't pay for.

All your attempts at cleverness aside the above is true, i really don't see how anyone could argue otherwise.
That's the end result of piracy, which is why it's theft.

Rev Hellfire

Its worth noting as well that you don't 'own' the software, you have purchased a limited license to use it.

L31mr0d

Maximilian wrote: »

In any event, if you are correct then how is software piracy illegal in just about every country in the world?

I never said piracy wasn't illegal, I said piracy is not theft.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

No. for that last time, by pirating a game or DVD or Cd you are getting a copy of that item without paying for it. You have it in your possesion you may view it at any time, or whatever you please.
It's exactly the same as having bought it, except of course, that you didn't.

Your Viewing a DVD analogy is flawed for the same reason, you don't have a copy of my DVD simply by viewing it, in the same way just hearing a song on the radio isn't piracy. You don't end up with a copy of the product at the end of it.

And that's why this is theft. By pirating something you now have a full copy of a product you didn't pay for.

I see where you are getting confused. You are basing your whole argument around the tangibility of the media and not the loss of revenue.

Regardless of whether someone views a DVD at your house, or if they download it to their PC and view it, the end result is identical. This person is not going to pay any money to see that movie. Do you agree?

Having a media file on my PC is beyond irrelevant, it would still be piracy if that movie was set to delete itself from my hard drive after viewing it once. What you are missing the point on is the purpose of the media and not its tangibility. When you buy a DVD your primary reason for doing so is to view the movie on the DVD, so you are paying for the right to view that movie. Piracy is identical to you showing your friends and family the movie because it allows others to view the media without paying for it.

Canis Lupus

L31mr0d wrote: »

I never said piracy wasn't illegal, I said piracy is not theft.

You're still playing with meanings. Seriously, if you agree piracy is illegal then what's the f'ing point you're trying to make?

MooseJam

I think he's trying to say piracy isn't theft

Canis Lupus

MooseJam wrote: »

I think he's trying to say piracy isn't theft

But no one cares when the point is it's still an illegal act which he agrees on. ie he's being pendantic for the sake of it.

MooseJam

I know, but a lot of things are illegal, calling it theft is deliberately making it out to be worse than it is to make those responsible seem nasty, when that isn't the case

GothPunk

L31mr0d wrote: »

Nothing is being taken. If I went into the Louvre and painted an exact replica of the Mona Lisa would you define that as "theft" of that painting? By making a copy of something you have not stolen it, which is why they use a different term for it. Someone who makes a copy of something is committing Piracy, not Theft.

Your analogy is not comparable to software piracy. You're not comparing like with like.

A comparable analogy would be someone who creates their own version of Spore using C++ and Photoshop. I would not define that as stealing.

You're getting into semantics about the meaning of the word 'theft' and 'piracy', when piracy is a subset of theivery. It has it's own set of laws because of this, although I would also argue that there are some grey areas.

There are very specific laws regarding digital media, which are different for each media. For example, it is not illegal to show a DVD that you have bought to someone else, providing that the number of people you are showing it to is not over ~10 (I'm not clear on the exact number, it could be 6, it could be 20). The same is true of music, although the limitation is upon whether the music is being played in a private or public arena. However it is illegal to copy these media and distribute them. I guess mixtapes are illegal, but like jaywalking, this crime is generally ignored because it's a miniscule offence.

Downloading a copy of something violates someone's intellectual property as you have acquired it via an unauthorised method. It is up to the developers to decide this, which is one of the reasons why abandonware is legal. Copying them in this way is illegal as it violates their copyright. There is an element of scale involved here too, as it is not illegal for other people (to a degree) to play the game you have paid for on your machine. There is no 'replicationright', so you can paint as many Mona Lisa's and programme as many versions of Spore as you like. (Obviously you couldn't distribute them though.) In the same way, I would describe conventional stealing as a violation of property rights as you are acquring someone elses property without their consent.


Personally my grey area lies with someone downloading a game to try that does not have a demo of some sort. I think that 'buyer beware' does not and should not apply to PC games especially as how are you to know whether the game runs properly on your machine? This is a problem as games stores have horrible policies regarding PC software and you really have to drive home your point to get a refund.


To all the EA bashers, what about poor Maxis? They're the ones who actually slaved over this game, why should they be punished for an association with EA? It's not their fault they were bought out. At least now there is a patch in the works to fix some of the activation issues (it will allow you to remove activations.)

MooseJam

what if I were to release a "game" or software that was nothing but 1 0 , are you now a thief for writing down 1 0, or is every instance of 1 0 on your pc theft ?

L31mr0d

Canis Lupus wrote: »

You're still playing with meanings. Seriously, if you agree piracy is illegal then what's the f'ing point you're trying to make?

my point is that with theft there is no gray area, but with piracy there is. Which is why there is so much debate over it. Humans have always shared media amongst each other. Like was said mixtapes are illegal but are ignored because, perceivably, they don't do any harm. Where I to make 1000 mixtapes and send them out to 1000 people then maybe it would be a problem.

The issue with piracy is not its legality but its scale. Its scale should be proof alone that the majority of people don't have any qualms with it. Instead of punishing the consumer with forced piracy ads and draconian copy protection they should be giving the people what they want which is easily accessible, easily downloadable, cheap media. The current model a lot of companies seem to be using seems to still be firmly entrenched in the 20th century.

GothPunk

MooseJam wrote: »

what if I were to release a "game" or software that was nothing but 1 0 , are you now a thief for writing down 1 0, or is every instance of 1 0 on your pc theft ?

I know you're kidding but I'll indulge you.

I'm pretty sure intellectual property rights come down to novelty. You can't copyright a spoon or another such existing or vague concept. Anybody could conceivably come up with the concept and create the game that was nothing but 1 0 (sounds more like modern 'art' to me). 1 and 0 already exist on computers, so you cannot copyright them they are an established idea/concept/thing. 1 and 0 also lack the complexity or novelty to qualify for copyright.

thelordofcheese

L31mr0d wrote: »

I see where you are getting confused. You are basing your whole argument around the tangibility of the media and not the loss of revenue.

i decided to make my point as simple as i could. More fool me......

It's beyond debating anymore, it's quite clear that i view piracy as theft, you seem to think it's not, or it's a lesser crime. Or maybe you're just playing devils advocate, it's hard to know.

I don't see piracy as any less of a crime than say, walking into game and just lifting a copy of the game from behind the counter.
Maybe i'm being overly harsh in some peoples eyes, but that's how i roll.

More to the point I have very little tolerance for the rubbish excuses people trot out to defend piracy.
"They cost too much", "DRM is teh evil", "it's a protest", "all PC games are rubbish", "try before you buy", "it's not theft, it's infringment". Bollox, all of them.

MooseJam

lol, dude thats a serious chip you got there, whats your story, do you run a game shop

Mr Bloat

MooseJam wrote: »

lol, dude thats a serious chip you got there, whats your story, do you run a game shop

I reckon he's seen too many of those ads they show in the cinema or before a DVD - "you wouldn't steal a car..."

L31mr0d

L31mr0d wrote: »

Regardless of whether someone views a DVD at your house, or if they download it to their PC and view it, the end result is identical. This person is not going to pay any money to see that movie. Do you agree?

thelordofcheese wrote: »

It's beyond debating anymore, it's quite clear that i view piracy as theft, you seem to think it's not, or it's a lesser crime. Or maybe you're just playing devils advocate, it's hard to know.

you never answered my question.

GothPunk

L31mr0d wrote: »

The issue with piracy is not its legality but its scale. Its scale should be proof alone that the majority of people don't have any qualms with it. Instead of punishing the consumer with forced piracy ads and draconian copy protection they should be giving the people what they want which is easily accessible, easily downloadable, cheap media. The current model a lot of companies seem to be using seems to still be firmly entrenched in the 20th century.

See now that's the ultimate goal. Developers would sell lots and consumers would buy lots. It would be great if a day came that game development wasn't so expensive and a large number of people had the (relatively) high powered computers to play the games on.

However, we havn't moved on from the 20th century model yet. Gaming PC's are still seen as too expensive by some people and developing games still costs a lot of money. Digital distribution is helping somewhat as it cuts out the bricks and mortar middleman to decrease the prices but I don't really blame companies for the current system at the moment when you look at the numbers.

When some games cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make and with a market of about 10-20 million consumers, we're stuck with the current model until the number of consumers goes up or game development costs decrease.

We may be seeing this with the DS - is it just me or have DS games gone from €45-55 for a new release to ~€30-40 in GameStop?

thelordofcheese

MooseJam wrote: »

lol, dude thats a serious chip you got there, whats your story, do you run a game shop

What difference would it make what i do for a living? Or are you just trying to make out that i have a vested interest in preventing piracy so you can feel free to ignore any point i might make?

L31mr0d wrote:

you never answered my question.

Your right, i didn't, because i was attempting to bow out of the thread.
But if you must know, i don't agree.

Maximilian

L31mr0d wrote: »

I never said piracy wasn't illegal, I said piracy is not theft.

God, you've backed yourself into a corner at this point

You ignored this point however:

Here's one legal definition of theft:

Quote:
a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale).

How does that not not include copying software?

That's a definition of theft no doubt created by somebody far more learned than you or I.

It also is pretty much the same as any other definition of theft you can find.

Frankly, I'm waiting for you to suggest theft is not the same as stealing because it's a different word or something to that effect :pac: Honestly, you simply cannot contend copying software is not stealing. I'm flabbergasted that you are to be honest. Does everyone do it? Yes, of course but is it stealing - yes. That doesn't stop the average joe though.

Maximilian

L31mr0d wrote: »

Regardless of whether someone views a DVD at your house, or if they download it to their PC and view it, the end result is identical. This person is not going to pay any money to see that movie. Do you agree?

I can answer this one. Watching at your house is fine and within the terms of the DVD license. Copying it is illegal and is theft.

Justifying the latter on the basis of an identical result is faulty logic. If somebody gives me a Ferrari, this is the same as me just stealing the Ferrari. After all in both cases I'm not paying for it and the result is the same. I have a Ferrari. A red one.

Mr Bloat

Maximilian wrote: »

I can answer this one. Watching at your house is fine and within the terms of the DVD license. Copying it is illegal and is theft.

Justifying the latter on the basis of an identical result is faulty logic. If somebody gives me a Ferrari, this is the same as me just stealing the Ferrari. After all in both cases I'm not paying for it and the result is the same. I have a Ferrari. A red one.

What if you painted the Ferrari green and stuck a Skoda badge on the front? You've just copied a Skoda, is that theft?

Maximilian

Mr Bloat wrote: »

What if you painted the Ferrari green and stuck a Skoda badge on the front? You've just copied a Skoda, is that theft?

No, that's what we call "not going to fool anyone for insurance purposes"

MooseJam

a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use


nothing is taken by piracy, a copy is made, it's not theft end of

thelordofcheese

MooseJam wrote: »

a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use


nothing is taken by piracy, a copy is made, it's not theft end of

A copy is made, which you then take and keep for yourself.

See, pointless semantic twisting is fun and easy

MooseJam

theres no semantics in saying nothing is taken by piracy when that is the definition of theft, just saying the word "taken" later in some random sentence and trying to equate that is rubbish

Maximilian

MooseJam wrote: »

a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use


nothing is taken by piracy, a copy is made, it's not theft end of

/facepalm.

OH GOD. You're right. but wait. If Knight takes Queen, Queen actually gets removed from play. Knight doesn't take Queen anywhere. I take Queen and put it with the rest of the pieces.

Seriously, this is taking the piss now.

I'm now expecting someone to argue that there can be no piracy except at sea and whilst wearing an eyepatch.

thelordofcheese

MooseJam wrote: »

theres no semantics in saying nothing is taken by piracy when that is the definition of theft, just saying the word "taken" later in some random sentence and trying to equate that is rubbish

He's another definition of theft
"you aquire a item that is not yours without permission or payment"

Do you see?

(+1 to whomever gets the reference)

MooseJam

yes but you don't aquire the item, you make a copy of it , how many times does it have to be said