The Witcher 2 Contains Secret Sauce To 'Catch 100% Of Pirates'

[Kreij]

Okay, let's look at this definition. If the personal property is the ownned digital work of the creator, made to generate money, the theif is depriving the owner of that income thus, stealing.

Hey ... that's what I said in post #84. Are you stealing my lines?

 

[entropy13]

Okay, let's look at this definition. If the personal property is the ownned digital work of the creator, made to generate money, the theif (sic) is depriving the owner of that income thus, stealing.

So now income is predetermined already...?

You sound like the RIAA now, where they have claimed that because of Limewire they lost their "potential" income which is 6x the total amount of money in the whole world.

 

[erocker]

If it's theft why is it legal?

Because of people with different opinions. I'm no lawyer... Maybe that's why I loathe these discussions.

 

[Damn_Smooth]

what are you talking about?

a)i don't pirate.
b)i said piracy is bad, it's just not theft.
c)i'd be in trouble, for copyright infringement. for piracy, but not for larceny or theft. because it is not theft.




great minds huh beat me by seconds!!!



the fact that our stance on the use of language makes you think you have any knowledge of where we stand morally or ethically makes me think less of you as a person.

Your opinions of me don't concern me in the least. Copyright infringement is basically another term for theft. Is it legal to pirate games? Is it not punishable by law? I know that I can't convince you not to pirate them, but on the other hand, you will not convince me to be ok with it. I don't know why people think they should be able to take things that they didn't earn. I guess that's just me.

 

[garyinhere]

I torrent... except for affordable non overpriced software and games... those are the only two things i don't torrent.

How many of you paid the artist or the photographer royalties to use your avatars... Enough said

 

[Kreij]

Someday before I die, I would like to get all the TPU'ers together in a hall we rented out exclusivley (with open bar of course) to discuss piracy.
I just can't think of anything that would be more entertaining and a once in a lifetime event.

 

[OneMoar]

Okay, let's look at this definition. If the personal property is the ownned digital work of the creator, made to generate money, the theif is depriving the owner of that income thus, stealing.

again ill quote my own post here
if I make my own beer that tastes as good as budwiser and all my friends drink my beer and not bud-wiser does that make me a thief ?
if I "copy" the process of beer making from a tv show I on the history channel about anheuser busch does that make me infringement on anheuser Busch's copy rights ? what if one of my friends has never had a anheuser busch products and after tasting mine decides he will buy a case of Budweiser for his next party ? what then
copy != loss
cut and paste = loss

 

[digibucc]

Okay, let's look at this definition. If the personal property is the ownned digital work of the creator, made to generate money, the theif is depriving the owner of that income thus, stealing.

the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

you are not being deprived of your property. you are possibly being deprived of monetary gain said property may afford you, but that is not definite and can not be assumed. and even if they could they are not stealing the money itself, and so it's not theft.

i'm not trying to lessen it's impact here. it's bad. maybe there's not a good enough word for it, but it very specifically is not theft.

 

[Maelstrom]

Oh, it matters all right, because it's assumed that copying the game/movie/song/whatever is "stealing" that intangible product and that therefore the creator has lost money. It frankly isn't stealing, it's copying since the creator still has their product and it's not true that it automatically leads to lost sales. That's the big lie that big content foist on us to push for draconian totallitarian control of the internet and our lives, all in order to keep their f* obsolete business models alive. Man I hate the bastards for this. It's indeed illegal to make these copies, but look at who drew up these laws in the first place. It's always powerful interests manipulating politicians into screwing over the litle guy.

While I hate draconian DRM almost as much as you, I have no problem with the bold part (well not the manipulation and screwing us over, but the idea that it is illegal ). And I see you're trying to get at, but ultimately whatever you call it, pirates are still obtaining a product that in a perfect system they wouldn't be able to get without purchasing it or knowing someone in person who has it. Even if they were never going to buy it, that doesn't give them the pass to do whatever they want.

As Valve's Gabe Newell (Half-life, Portal, Steam etc) said a while back "Pirates are underserved customers". He's got a point. There are quite a few reasons for copying, but the fact is that people will still buy your product even if lots of people copy it. A really good example are the DRM-free songs on iTunes. There's no toy "Fairplay" [sic] DRM on there any more to stop you sticking it on The Pirate Bay (it's only a search engine that links remember, another big difference) yet the market is vibrant and healthy. AFAIK sales actually increased after music went DRM-free - a rather inconvenient fact staring Big Media in the face that they don't like to acknowledge. So, WTF is all this BS with three strikes, SOPA and the rest of it that they're foisting on us? It's all about total control of the internet, nothing more, nothing less. Just another form of oppression that must be faught and stopped. Shit, I should be a freedom fighter, lol.

You make a good point, and one that I agree with to an extent, but I will not acknowledge the idea to just give up on trying to stop rampant pirates (the type who will always pirate no matter what). They don't deserve the product and they should be punished for bypassing the system.

 

[digibucc]

again ill quote my own post here
a)if I make my own beer that tastes as good as budwiser and all my friends drink my beer and not bud-wiser does that make me a thief ?
b)if I "copy" the process of beer making from a tv show I on the history channel about anheuser busch does that make me infringement on anheuser Busch's copy rights ?
c)what if one of my friends has never had a anheuser busch products and after tasting mine decides he will buy a case of Budweiser for his next party ? what then

a)no
b)yes
c)budweiser gets a sale, and you still broke the law.

it's really very simple. the ethics of it can all be argued, but if your intent is to get one over, you're in the wrong. if your intent is simply to make the best brew possible, you wouldn't be copying their brew anyway so no worries

 

[entropy13]

Based on the very few information I did get before, at least one of the "scene" groups for games is based in Eastern Europe. So I guess the only way for them to stop is if the United States (or the West in general) invades Eastern Europe.

 

[erocker]

again ill quote my own post here
if I make my own beer that tastes as good as budwiser and all my friends drink my beer and not bud-wiser does that make me a thief ?
if I "copy" the process of beer making from a tv show I on the history channel about anheuser busch does that make me infringement on anheuser Busch's copy rights ? what if one of my friends has never had a anheuser busch products and after tasting mine decides he will buy a case of Budweiser for his next party ? what then

These kind of beer companies don't let their recipe out nor do they condone selling their or your "copy" beer under their name. Of course you can homebrew a beer that tastes like Bud and give it or sell it to your friends.

So the theft part:

Stealing Budweisers name
Stealing their recipe

Everythnig else is legit. You (hopefully) bought/made the equipment, ingredients and put the work into making your beer that tastes like Budweiser. It would be legitmate.

 

[garyinhere]

again ill quote my own post here
if I make my own beer that tastes as good as budwiser and all my friends drink my beer and not bud-wiser does that make me a thief ?
if I "copy" the process of beer making from a tv show I on the history channel about anheuser busch does that make me infringement on anheuser Busch's copy rights ? what if one of my friends has never had a anheuser busch products and after tasting mine decides he will buy a case of Budweiser for his next party ? what then
copy != loss
cut and paste = loss

These kind of beer companies don't let their recipe out nor do they condone selling their or your "copy" beer under their name. Of course you can homebrew a beer that tastes like Bud and give it or sell it to your friends.

So the theft part:

Stealing Budweisers name
Stealing their recipe

Everythnig else is legit. You (hopefully) bought/made the equipment, ingredients and put the work into making your beer that tastes like Budweiser. It would be legitmate.

Don't sweat him. His curfew is about to hit and his mom will make him go to bed kid prob only tasted beer when he was at the Sanduski camp learning how to handle balls.

 

[pantherx12]

Copyright infringement is basically another term for theft. Is it legal to pirate games? Is it not punishable by law?

No it is not, it isn't at all.

Yes they both involve having something that you should not, but that does not make them the same. This is precisely why they have different terms.

Also pirating games is a Gray area they downloading of the content it's self a lot of the time is not considered a crime in it's self.

Hell there is countries that is NEVER considered illegal

It's the distribution that is illegal as well as profiting from the copied software/art.

 

[erocker]

the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

you are not being deprived of your property. you are possibly being deprived of monetary gain said property may afford you, but that is not definite and can not be assumed. and even if they could they are not stealing the money itself, and so it's not theft.

i'm not trying to lessen it's impact here. it's bad. maybe there's not a good enough word for it, but it very specifically is not theft.

Again, I'm no lawyer but in the definition of property we find this:

something to which a person or business has a legal title

Developers have legal titles to digital software. Taking it is theft.

 

[qubit]

While I hate draconian DRM almost as much as you, I have no problem with the bold part (well not the manipulation and screwing us over, but the idea that it is illegal ). And I see you're trying to get at, but ultimately whatever you call it, pirates are still obtaining a product that in a perfect system they wouldn't be able to get without purchasing it or knowing someone in person who has it. Even if they were never going to buy it, that doesn't give them the pass to do whatever they want.

Yes, in other words, the morality of copying is questionable - I agree, it's certainly iffy (but can have its justifications) and I forgot to make that point. Of course, Big Media can't make any money or pass any laws on a morality argument, so they invent bogus loss figures to justify their actions.

You make a good point, and one that I agree with to an extent, but I will not acknowledge the idea to just give up on trying to stop rampant pirates (the type who will always pirate no matter what). They don't deserve the product and they should be punished for bypassing the system.

Completely stopping it shouldn't be the ultimate goal. Offering customers a better product by going legit is the way to go, which would reduce it markedly. Once again, all those DRM-free songs selling well on iTunes are a terribly inconvenient truth to Big Music.

Again, www.techdirt.com says all this stuff much better than I can.

 

[pantherx12]

By the way folks, move to Canada or The Netherlands where you can download music freely so long as you don't sell it.

I imagine the same applies to other digital files but I will look into it.

 

[digibucc]

Again, I'm no lawyer but in the definition of property we find this:



Developers have legal titles to digital software. Taking it is theft.

right but as i bolded, the removal with intent to deprive the rightful owner. it's not removed. they are not deprived of the title. they own it, and still possess it. nothing was technically stolen.

i realize i am being very technical, but that's who i am. i think ethically they are very similar, though in my mind it takes more scumbaggery to be willing to physically remove an item from a store or home. for each individual, if they never would have bought the item, them having a copy does not hurt anyone. it really doesn't. think about it logically - they wouldn't have bought it, they didn't stop anyone else from buying it, the developer likely wouldn't even know in most cases.

that doesn't make it ok, but it is ethically very different from physically removing someone's property from their store home or person, etc.

 

[entropy13]

Developers have legal titles to digital software. Taking it is theft.

It has more to do with claiming it as yours though. Skidrow, Reloaded, Razor1911 never claims they own the games.


Anyway, it's interesting at least that for example, according to the Crysis 2 EULA, all the user gets is "access" to the software. So the discs you get are only giving you access to the software...so if you copy it, you copy "access", and not the software itself. If you follow the wordings of the EULA they themselves made. And therefore you can't be accused of copyright infringement because "access to software" is not by itself copyrightable. To circumvent that, they essentially have to void the EULA so that the discs revert to being the "software" themselves. lol

 

[Kreij]

Digi makes a good point. This does not fall under the definition of theft.
Let's look at the definition of "Stealing"

1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

Carry on.

 

[Damn_Smooth]

No it is not, it isn't at all.

Yes they both involve having something that you should not, but that does not make them the same. This is precisely why they have different terms.

Also pirating games is a Gray area they downloading of the content it's self a lot of the time is not considered a crime in it's self.

Hell there is countries that is NEVER considered illegal

It's the distribution that is illegal as well as profiting from the copied software/art.

So you honestly think that you're not effecting anything by taking a copy of a game that you didn't pay anything for? Why don't they just pass them out for free then?

 

[erocker]

right but as i bolded, the removal with intent to deprive the rightful owner. it's not removed. they are not deprived of the title. they own it, and still possess it. nothing was technically stolen.

i realize i am being very technical, but that's who i am. i think ethically they are very similar, though in my mind it takes more scumbaggery to be willing to physically remove an item from a store or home. for each individual, if they never would have bought the item, them having a copy does not hurt anyone. it really doesn't that doesn't make it ok, but it is ethically very different from physically removing someones property from their store home or person, etc.

The thing is, the title is worthless with no financial worth. Stealing/distributing it deprives the owner of its full worth and depriving the owner of the property.

 

[OneMoar]

the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

you are not being deprived of your property. you are possibly being deprived of monetary gain said property may afford you, but that is not definite and can not be assumed. and even if they could they are not stealing the money itself, and so it's not theft.

i'm not trying to lessen it's impact here. it's bad. maybe there's not a good enough word for it, but it very specifically is not theft.

agree
example A: lets say I would like to attend a ball game
a scalper walks up and says hey you look like a cool dude ill cut you a deal
now said tickets have already been payed for the stadium and team already got there compensation. is it theft if I buy said tickets

example b: I want to have the latest episode of my favorite tv show on my pc that I didn't get to watch because I was not home
so I download it ? am I a thief ? no I am not I pay my cable bill had I been home I would have watched it anyway so am I a Thief for downloading something I would have enjoyed anyway had I been home ? what if I buy the whole series on dvd at a later date what then ?

example c: there is this new game out all I know about it is what he reviewer and youtube tells me but I am still on the fence I download it I find it entertaining but not worth the 60 dollar asking price I complete the game and delete it a few months later I see it marked down to 45 bucks wanting to replay it I purchase it am I a thief ?

 

[pantherx12]

So you honestly think that you're not effecting anything by taking a copy of a game that you didn't pay anything for? Why don't they just pass them out for free then?

No I don't think it's affecting anyone at all.

Like I said if people could not monitor what was happening regarding file downloading etc how would people even know?

Piracy is the very definition of a victimless crime.



By the by @ Erocker in the UK property is defined as "A thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively."


And a "thing" is defined as a material object.



So again perhaps this all boils down to language.

 

[digibucc]

So you honestly think that you're not effecting anything by taking a copy of a game that you didn't pay anything for? Why don't they just pass them out for free then?

explain to me the effect then?

if jack was never going to buy mw3. ever.
but he got a copy for free, how did that effect anything?

buy | don't buy | pirate
spend $60 | save $60 |save $60
play game | don't game |play game

it's really very simple. now yes there are pirates that otherwise would have bought a game, but there are very definitely those that never would. how are they affecting anyone?

The thing is, the title is worthless with no financial worth. Stealing/distributing it deprives the owner of its full worth and depriving the owner of the property.

distribution of copyrighted content is different. but obtaining a copy in and of itself, if you never would have bought it, is not removing anything from the rightful owner. it's still wrong. it's only right that they are compensated for their work - but it is very different from stealing $60 from their wallet. it's not as if one pirated copy stops EVERYONE from buying it.