Pretty much the only things I think could POSSIBLY be justified are
A) Cracking a game you already own. (Totally justified as far as I'm concerned)
B) Torrenting an abandonware game, and I mean TOTALLY abandoned, as in, not on sale anywhere online. Not that many examples for that reason.
Everything else is just stealing money from people. Although I would agree that CEO's salaries are still WAYWAY higher than they should be. They should be making a ton of money, but not 200 times the programmer slaving over the products.

I only mentioned you wouldn't download a car to point out the flawed anaology in the mafia MPAA's propaganda information.

You assume I made an nonsense and offtopic point, and countered with a retarded and off topic post, which only showed furthur the flaw in your understanding.

It's also scary how much power the RIAA/MPAA has.
There is an illegal prime number, which should be a universal characteristic of logic that is illegal under US law due to the fact that when converted to hex, yeilds a gzipped DVD ripper.

Fun how a lobbist group can claim ownership of a number, which is a property of mathmatics, which is orginated from logic which is surely a transcendent property of this or any universe.

The torrent is more like the van they use to haul the money off, but your point is valid.


With software pirating you're getting a copy of something without taking the original. While this doesn't justify it, it does make it different than regular theft.

Consider, hypothetically, there's a game I see as too expensive to buy. But then I illegally download it. The company creating the game has lost nothing; I wouldn't have bought it anyway. This is quite different than if I were to steal the disk from a store, as the store would have lost the value of the game they had bought it at. I'm not justifying it, but it is a separate matter.

Another thing to consider, let's say the price goes down, and I now see it as being worth the price. So, I buy it and replace my illegitimate copy with the legitimate copy. The company has lost absolutely nothing, as long as the option to illegitimately obtain it has not affected my decision as to whether to legitimately purchase it.


Completely hypothetical situations, I must again repeat. I'm just trying to point out that software piracy is a different matter than conventional theft; the 'victim' isn't necessarily affected. Without being affected, are they truly a victim? Is a victimless crime an oxymoron? Should it be? Consider it.

Here's my opinion on Piracy.

Dapaperboy is banned.

Forever.

Azukki,

You are still rationalizing theft. Someone has created intellectual property. By law, they are allowed to regulate access to that product as they see fit (typically through pricing).

By violating their access control methods (either through stealing physical media, breaking DRM, or downloading files), you are violating their intellectual property rights.

Just because you aren't taking money out of their hands doesn't mean it isn't theft. You still possess something that isn't yours: compiled code of a commercially licensed video game.

Most of you people have such a limited, narrow understanding of this subject, it astounds me that you are trying to have a discussion on this.


I admire everyone for their valiant attempts at justifying piracy, btu guess what: All of your arguments were heard and thrown out in Swedish court. You think you all are the first people to have these ideas? No. The Pirate Bay lawyers are some of the most competent patent lawyers, and they weren't able to argue TPB out of its legal dilemma. So clearly, your can posture and rationalize all you want, but as the law reads, its still theft of IP.

He didn't even post here though?

@thor
It certainly is illegal by the laws of nearly all civilizations, that's a solid fact and certainty.
Perhaps it should be, I made no input in that matter.
Yes is is still theft to illegally obtain something.
I've always been a fan of rationalization, making things rational, having or exercising the ability to reason, all that stuff.

It's a specific type of theft. Should it be treated any differently? Consider it.

Oh for ♥♥♥♥ sake.

"Rationalization" is not "making things rational." Good lord.

http://www.answers.com/rationalization
http://www.answers.com/topic/rationalize
http://www.answers.com/topic/rational
Also I am considering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(psychology)
But this still doesn't necessarily mean it's flawed reasoning.

At the first page...
Fallacy: double standard.

memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=5833

good riddance LOL

You reasoning is pretty flawed. Your reasoning is "LOL I WAZNT GUN BUY GAEM SO DEY DINT LOSE NO MONEY."

That is clearly not the point of IP law.

?
When did this happen?

Anyhow going with Azukki's post about piracy,

Someone would have to buy the game for it to even be spread, unless of course, an employee puts it up on a torrent client for download. Kinda like what happened to Rock Band PSP, that was leaked, a month before release. So a company would have to have gained at least 1 sold game for piracy for the game to even begin.

And if I already own the product?

Anyway, protection of IP does not justify utterly retarded restrictions.

See attempted illegalization of a prime number. See Sony rootkit. See DMCA. See the SecuROM/StarForce. See 09-F9 HD DVD key scandal.

If I remeber, copyright law in the us was not made to protect the company, or to protect the author. It was made to advance arts and science. It is not good to have works controll of a few companies, even if they are not using it, perpetually untill they degrade into nothing.

Take an example:
Person X makes movie Y under company Z.
Person X dies.
Company Z refuses to free movie Y to the public, even though they are not using it.
Company Z bribes goverment W into extending the copyright.
The last copies of movie Y degrade.

If I had a nickel for every time that method of defamation was used in an online discussion... Wow.

Maybe enforcing unchanging adherence to the intellectual property law under all circumstances isn't invariably suitable to a circumstance? The reasoning for IP law is to protect the creators or owners of the property.