What is the legality behind pirating and then buying a game?

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Most people that want a game will buy it. The ones that don't generally are in no positon to buy it anyway.

Plus there's also the people that pirate games they are only semi-interested in, and they would never have bought it in the first place. Therefore you can't count that as a lost sale.

I'm not saying sales aren't lost, but the lost sales are way less than these companies suggest.

I don't think you can safely generalize in this way. You may be right that publishers inflate "lost sales" figures, but that doesn't affect the legality of the act.

Even if someone is so desperately poor that they will never have the money to purchase a game, that doesn't mean they are entitled to play it for free. It may be true that the company did not "lose" a sale since it would never have happened in this hypothetical, but a crime is committed nonetheless.

In the real world, how can one really say with any confidence that someone else definitely would or would not have made a purchase if piracy wasn't an option? It's a pretty pointless endeavor.

 

[Craig234]

On the morality of the issue.

One problem is that it creates something not part of the business model.

Some purchases have 'buyer risk' as part of the price.

If I go to Disneyworld, and two hours in say "this isn't as fun as I expected, can I have my money back', they say no, probably. They don't have 'free trials'.

They sure don't pay for the air and hotel that were part of the expense.

There are some varied models for 'trials'. If you buy a book at a bookstore, you can browse it and get a partial 'free trial', and you can read reviews of the book as well. But not buy a book and read it more completely, and then not like rest and return it. (And if you use the bookstore for the 'browsing' benefit but buy online, using the bookstore's rent and staff and stocking expenses for free, that's not too moral).

You can test drive a car. You can walk through a house and have it inspected. You can hold a pet, but if it later bites you on sight, rarely return it.

There are variations even on these, like the 'as-is' versus the limited warranty versus the full warranty.

Now about games, take movies as an analogy. Say a new movie makes $20 million its first week. The buyers had the right to read reviews, expect reasonably accurate marketing. But some of those customers will walk out saying 'that movie sucked, wish I hadn't spent the money'. They're part of the business model - all movies have them.

If the customers were able to just create for themselves a new option, the 'watch the movie for free and then pay for the ticket if they liked it enough', what would happen?

That $20 million would drop. Maybe to $2 million or $10 million or $15 million - but it would drop. Do customers have the right to evade the law and do that?

It's one thing if the seller offers a 'money back guarantee'. Buy a new item at the Trader Joe's grocery, don't like it, they'll refund it - it's their policy.

This 'try the game illegally and buy it if you like it a lot' invented by the customer reduces sales, however compelling you the customer find it - as you might with movies.

I just say all this to add one way in which the company can be 'ripped off' that isn't so obvious s customers have not much sympathy for it - the customer who didn't like it.

Most of us have bought computer games we didn't like - and it supported the industry, just as the filmmaker made more money including those customers' tickets.

If the industry doesn't give you a trial - limited playtime, demos, etc. aren't enough - you have an option such customers don't like: don't buy it.

We can't have that - they WANT the game for a trial, and it's pretty easily to rationalize 'an unauthorized trial and possilble purchase is better than none'.

But consider the net loss to the movie's take, and it might help suggest how customers taking some risk and buying is money for the companies they lose by the 'trials'.

This is simply exploiting the technology letting them get away with it - easier to pirate than get in a theatre.

There are two sides - this is one part of them.

Even products with 'money back guarantees' make a lot from customers who don't like the product after buying but don't get the refund.

 

[kalrith]

I think this about sums up the attitudes of so many people these days, especially younger people. So many believe they are entitled to everything these days without having to pay for it. It is stealing, plain and simple. It's black and white. No question.

Something not matching up to your expectations does not give you the right to steal it.

KT

I think this thinking comes into play because (almost) all other copyrighted material besides PC games can be legally tried before purchased: books, CDs, movies, magazines, console games, etc. Sometimes you can try them for free (listening to music online; checking out CDs, books, or movies from the library; or reading books and magazines in a bookstore). Sometimes you have to pay to try them out through renting console games or movies.

However, without a demo, the only way to legally try out a PC game is to go to a friend's house to play it on his computer. He can't loan you the disc and let you play it for a couple hours at home. You can rarely (if at all) try out computer games at retail stores unlike being able to try out many console games for free.

As already stated, no one's arguing that pirating is legal, just that the OP's situation might be viewed as morally OK by some people (Edit: I just realized that the OP himself was asking about the legality of this. It's absolutely illegal. However, most other posters realize that, and the argument has now turned to one of morality rather than legality).

I've read entire books and magazines at Borders before while giving the publishers $0 for their material. I've rented and beaten console games for $2 before instead of having to buy the game. I've avoided purchasing a lot of movies and console games by borrowing them from a few friends who have hundreds of movies and games in their collection.

AFAIK, all of the above is legal, but there's no legal way to play a PC game even for a few hours before spending sometimes $60 on the game. For the OP's situation, I would personally be OK with that as long as I set a time limit for myself before uninstalling it. I've bought games that I've only played for 3-4 hours before realizing I wasted my money and wish I could have my money back.

If I were treating a pirated copy as a demo, I would limit myself to 4 hours of play and then uninstall it whether I planned to buy it or not. I would know by then whether I liked it enough to purchase it, and if I weren't purchasing it, then I wouldn't feel right playing it for dozens of hours. I'm also in the camp where I've purchased several games that I wouldn't have if I hadn't had the opportunity to try before I buy. Those were games that seemed meh to me until I tried them and really liked them, so I went out and bought them.

 

[coloumb]

Wow, really clever trap. No, downloading a game is not valid "research". I'm talking about legal ways to learn about a game prior to buying it. The point is, you as the purchaser are bound by the law and the store's return policy, so it would be in your interest to make an informed decision, but not if that means committing a crime.

So what happens if the game gets rave reviews yet you find out it's not your cup of tea? Or the game doesn't run properly on your computer [some games which were developed for XP/Vista won't run properly on Windows 7]. You're screwed out of ~$50 because the publisher wouldn't release a demo. Why should we have to be forced to take a chance of throwing away hard earned money?

It amazes me that the no return policy has managed to be tagged to PC games - I sure as hell wouldn't just blindly buy a new card without a test drive, nor would I pay for a meal that tasted like crap, and most music stores have a place setup to allow you to listen to the latest CD. Does this mean publishers are afraid to release a demo = possible lost sales?

[btw - unless I missed it - AVP demo was pulled from STEAM shortly before/after the full game was released... WHY? And why was Left 4 Dead demo pulled?]

One way around the "research" is to start your own "game review" blog [youtube or build a website] and ask publishers to provide you a copy for review. Just drum up a few good reviews, submit them to the publisher, and see if they'll send you a copy.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Some good points, Craig.

One interesting thing that sets software piracy apart is is that the experience of the pirated version is usually better. Barring a decked-out home theater system and a bit-perfect copy of a movie, a viewer will get a better experience in a movie theater than through downloading.

Software publishers tend not to do enough to make legit copies more attractive than their DRM-stripped counterparts. Unfortunately, that just contributes to the notion that piracy is morally justifiable.

 

[KeithTalent]

AFAIK, all of the above is legal, but there's no legal way to play a PC game even for a few hours before spending sometimes $60 on the game. For the OP's situation, I would personally be OK with that as long as I set a time limit for myself before uninstalling it. I've bought games that I've only played for 3-4 hours before realizing I wasted my money and wish I could have my money back.

If I were treating a pirated copy as a demo, I would limit myself to 4 hours of play and then uninstall it whether I planned to buy it or not. I would know by then whether I liked it enough to purchase it, and if I weren't purchasing it, then I wouldn't feel right playing it for dozens of hours. I'm also in the camp where I've purchased several games that I wouldn't have if I hadn't had the opportunity to try before I buy. Those were games that seemed meh to me until I tried them and really liked them, so I went out and bought them.

That's all fine and dandy, but who are you to decide what is the correct amount of time to keep an illegally downloaded game before either deleting it or going out and purchasing it.

Are some companies not releasing demos with the supposition that many people are just going to download it and try it anyway, or are they making the decision that the product they are selling speaks for itself and you either purchase or do not based on that.

I wish every single game out there had a demo, but if it doesn't I do legal research on it and make my decision to purchase based on that.

I know we are in a different time now, where piracy is so easy to do with the click of a mouse, but think back to before the internet. We had a few options when a game was released:

1. Play it at a friend's place
2. Research with magazines, friends, etc
3. Rent the game
4. blind-buy based on whatever desire you believe the game fulfilled.

I can't imagine option 5. Take the game from a store, play it to see if you like it, then return it if you don't or give them money if you do was something most right-minded people considered ok.

Legality aside, who actually morally believe option 5 is ok? If you do not, as I assume most would not, why would downloading it be ok? Just because it is easy, readily available, and relatively anonymous? Absurd.

KT

 

[Mem]

So what happens if the game gets rave reviews yet you find out it's not your cup of tea? Or the game doesn't run properly on your computer [some games which were developed for XP/Vista won't run properly on Windows 7]. You're screwed out of ~$50 because the publisher wouldn't release a demo. Why should we have to be forced to take a chance of throwing away hard earned money?

It amazes me that the no return policy has managed to be tagged to PC games - I sure as hell wouldn't just blindly buy a new card without a test drive, nor would I pay for a meal that tasted like crap, and most music stores have a place setup to allow you to listen to the latest CD. Does this mean publishers are afraid to release a demo = possible lost sales?

[btw - unless I missed it - AVP demo was pulled from STEAM shortly before/after the full game was released... WHY? And why was Left 4 Dead demo pulled?]

One way around the "research" is to start your own "game review" blog [youtube or build a website] and ask publishers to provide you a copy for review. Just drum up a few good reviews, submit them to the publisher, and see if they'll send you a copy.

I have yet to buy a retail game that would not run sooner or later, I think the only game I had trouble with was Bioshock when their online activation server was overloaded,anyway after 4 hours or so that was sorted/fixed.

Game specs are listed on game boxes and its not rocket science to know if the game will run or not through reviews or research,end of the day if you can't handle that then stick to console gaming.

Btw some of the big retail stores have games up and running on their PCs for you to try out before you buy,same goes for console games.

 

[Nik]

I can't imagine option 5. Take the game from a store, play it to see if you like it, then return it if you don't or give them money if you do was something most right-minded people considered ok.

That's a kickass option.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

I've read entire books and magazines at Borders before while giving the publishers $0 for their material.

This is acceptable simply because Borders allows it. They've already purchased the book or magazine direct from a publisher or other distributor, so the content provider already got the money. Borders offers comfortable seating and a cafe; it's part of their business model and they assume the risk that people will do what you describe. It's up to them to decide whether or not to kick out the guy who does this every day and never buys anything.

There is no equivalent scenario in the software world that I'm aware of.

If I were treating a pirated copy as a demo, I would limit myself to 4 hours of play and then uninstall it whether I planned to buy it or not. I would know by then whether I liked it enough to purchase it, and if I weren't purchasing it, then I wouldn't feel right playing it for dozens of hours. I'm also in the camp where I've purchased several games that I wouldn't have if I hadn't had the opportunity to try before I buy. Those were games that seemed meh to me until I tried them and really liked them, so I went out and bought them.

That's all well and good, but it's a slippery slope and you've simply chosen an arbitrary point at which to draw the moral line. Naturally, I don't expect you'd find it reasonable to assume everyone will impose strict limits on their own usage. Can you honestly say that you've set a timer and cut yourself off after four hours? There's no way for anyone to verify this behavior, so it again comes down to personal feelings on the matter.

Personally, I don't feel I would be in the moral right, even if I limited my playtime to a single minute, and even if my "trial" led to a purchase. That is, unless the content creators expressed some acceptance of this behavior.

 

[Nik]

I like how people are using morals to pick apart pirates while completely ignoring the antics that game developers take trying to thwart pirates. You know, the antics that significantly inconvenience legit gamers (Bioshock's 3-installation limit, anyone?) but don't actually do anything to thwart pirates.

Morality should have no part in this discussion. Morality, really, is subjective.

 

[kalrith]

Personally, I don't feel I would be in the moral right, even if I limited my playtime to a single minute, and even if my "trial" led to a purchase. That is, unless the content creators expressed some acceptance of this behavior.

I think that sums up this thread pretty well. I have a personal set of morals. You have a personal set of morals. They don't necessarily match. One person's morals might say that you're going to hell if you're not in church every Sunday, and another person's morals might say that the previous person is violating their rights by shoving that religious crap down their throat.

I think it's good to discuss these things in a calm, collective manner. However, some people get a bit heated and result in talking down to other from their moral high-horse because they uphold the absolute letter of the law and moral code (which happens to be their own moral code that they think should be applied to everyone else).

On a completely different note, I'm sure that not a single person on here who is berating dguy for his stance has ever jay-walked or gone 1 mph over the speed limit. Because if you've broken the law by jay-walking or going 1mph over the speed limit, you've done something morally wrong and just as wrong as going 30 mph over the speed limit. Just like me pirating a game for a few hours of testing purposes is just as morally wrong as people who pirate hundreds of games and never ever purchase a game.

The above paragraph is directed at those who think that because something is a law it equals immorality (i.e. jaywalking, spitting publicly in some places, speeding 1 mph, etc.).

Edit: None of the above was meant for a specific person; it's just from the general vibe I got after reading this thread. Hopefully no one mistakes it for something personal .

 

[KeithTalent]

I think that sums up this thread pretty well. I have a personal set of morals. You have a personal set of morals. They don't necessarily match. One person's morals might say that you're going to hell if you're not in church every Sunday, and another person's morals might say that the previous person is violating their rights by shoving that religious crap down their throat.

I think it's good to discuss these things in a calm, collective manner. However, some people get a bit heated and result in talking down to other from their moral high-horse because they uphold the absolute letter of the law and moral code (which happens to be their own moral code that they think should be applied to everyone else).

On a completely different note, I'm sure that not a single person on here who is berating dguy for his stance has ever jay-walked or gone 1 mph over the speed limit. Because if you've broken the law by jay-walking or going 1mph over the speed limit, you've done something morally wrong and just as wrong as going 30 mph over the speed limit. Just like me pirating a game for a few hours of testing purposes is just as morally wrong as people who pirate hundreds of games and never ever purchase a game.

The above paragraph is directed at those who think that because something is a law it equals immorality (i.e. jaywalking, spitting publicly in some places, speeding 1 mph, etc.).

Edit: None of the above was meant for a specific person; it's just from the general vibe I got after reading this thread. Hopefully no one mistakes it for something personal .

I don't actually think legality = morality, though I guess my posts could have been construed that way. :hmm: Point taken, though I do think for every 100 people that go over the speed limit by 1 MPH there is 1 that goes over by 25 and causes the greater harm, while with piracy I would argue the opposite, for every 1 person that downloads briefly to try a game, there are 100 that download automatically and never pay for anything. Hopefully that makes sense (it does in my head).

Of course I'm just pulling numbers out of my ass there, so take it with a mine full of salt.

KT

 

[kalrith]

I don't actually think legality = morality, though I guess my posts could have been construed that way. :hmm: Point taken, though I do think for every 100 people that go over the speed limit by 1 MPH there is 1 that goes over by 25 and causes the greater harm, while with piracy I would argue the opposite, for every 1 person that downloads briefly to try a game, there are 100 that download automatically and never pay for anything. Hopefully that makes sense (it does in my head).

Of course I'm just pulling numbers out of my ass there, so take it with a mine full of salt.

KT

It actually makes perfect sense (kind of, I guess ), and it goes along with what CoinOperatedBoy said before. There are probably a lot of people who would download the game, and even if they had the best intentions of uninstalling the game after a brief demo period (which they probably don't), they might still not buy or uninstall the game. Whereas the people who are going 100 mph on the highway instead of 71 mph are the exception rather than the rule.

I get that, and I get that it might be morally wrong depend on what standards of morals you adhere to. I personally haven't pirated a game in several years, and I now look to reviews to help decide which games I want to buy. However, I have wasted my fair share of money on crap games that I really wished I could've easily and legally tried before I bought them (because I wouldn't have bought them). That's why I don't buy any games without reading boatloads of reviews (unless it's a game I know I'm going to want like SC2 or Diablo 3).

I was simply arguing the other side of the coin and trying to show that someone could rationalize themselves to that point while still trying to maintain some level of a moral standard. I'm actually not sure if it's morally right or wrong, and in cases like that I'd rather err on the side of right than the side of left (err, I mean wrong ).

I just wish PC game demoes would make a resurgence. I remember trying all sorts of demoes back in the day, but not so much any more (hey, I just found something else to post in the Things you DO miss about the good ole days thread).

 

[Cogman]

Most major titles now a days do not have demos...

http://store.steampowered.com/app/40140/
http://store.steampowered.com/app/410/
http://www.bigdownload.com/games/call-of-duty/pc/call-of-duty-demo/
http://download.cnet.com/Call-of-Duty-2-demo/3000-7441_4-10440599.html
http://www.filefront.com/8774322/Call-of-Duty-4-Modern-Warfare-Demo/
http://blog.eu.playstation.com/2010...demo-now-downloadable-from-playstation-store/
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/02/23/mlb-2k10-demo-available-on-xbox-live-coming-to-psn-next-thursda/
http://battlefield.ea.com/battlefield/bf/BF2142_Demo_News.aspx
http://www.crysisdemo.com/
http://www.warcraft.com/

Ohh, Which major titles were you referring to? With a single exception (I couldn't find a demo for dragon age: origins), every major title I could think of had a demo with the game.

Most of this stuff came up instantly after typing into google "game name demo"

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

I think that sums up this thread pretty well. I have a personal set of morals. You have a personal set of morals. They don't necessarily match. One person's morals might say that you're going to hell if you're not in church every Sunday, and another person's morals might say that the previous person is violating their rights by shoving that religious crap down their throat.

I think it's good to discuss these things in a calm, collective manner. However, some people get a bit heated and result in talking down to other from their moral high-horse because they uphold the absolute letter of the law and moral code (which happens to be their own moral code that they think should be applied to everyone else).

I think almost every single person who's participated has reiterated that morality is individually decided. My point is that neither your moral stance nor mine can be used to dictate any kind of general policy on software piracy, so that entire discussion is worth precisely nil. That's what the law is for, and I have seen no valid justification for breaking the ones we have. Overturning or rewriting them? Maybe.

I am more than willing to berate someone for attempting to morally justify their own actions with irrational or ill-conceived arguments. What I've seen in this thread mostly boils down to expressions of selfish entitlement, albeit adorned with notions of fairness and temperance, or naive idealism. "I can read a book in a bookstore, so I should be able to play a video game without paying for it" is a fallacious argument. I can totally get behind breaking a law if it is truly unjust and there is no reasonable recourse, but in terms of copyright law and piracy, the alternative is to not play the game and then go about changing the law. You do not need access to entertainment media, so there is no justification for taking what is not yours.

I will say plainly: if you post in this thread expressing your willingness to pirate software and your reasons for doing it, you are asking your readers to agree and justify it with you. I will not do that if those reasons are purely selfish, and I will continue to argue from my saddle up here until someone actually provides a rational reason for me to climb down.

 

[kalrith]

I think almost every single person who's participated has reiterated that morality is individually decided. My point is that neither your moral stance nor mine can be used to dictate any kind of general policy on software piracy, so that entire discussion is worth precisely nil. That's what the law is for, and I have seen no valid justification for breaking the ones we have. Overturning or rewriting them? Maybe.

So, I pose the question again. If you're standing at a crosswalk with a rrreeeaaalllyyy long red light and there's not a car for miles, would you wait patiently for the light to turn green or cross the street even though it's against the law? If it's the latter, then why don't you just abide by the law or write your congressman to try to change them? It's not up to you to decide what's morally right; "that's what the law is for." Another question is do you go over the speed limit at all? That's breaking the law, the last time I checked. If you don't like it, then you should abide by it until you can get it changed.

I love these threads that parade the law as something that anyone who's moral and just will abide by (and how dare you even think of breaking it!), when probably every poster breaks the law several times on their morning commute every day.

If breaking the law is so black-and-white wrong, then why is it OK to break some and not others? Who decides that? Is it decided by each individual's morals or by society as a whole? If a law is broken by the majority of the people (like how it's generally acceptable to go 5-10 mph over the speed limit and jaywalk), then does it make it OK to do so? What if enough people pirated PC games and felt it was generally acceptable to do so? Would you view it the same as jaywalking and going 5 mph over the speed limit?

I think law = morality is a slippery slope too. Stating to abide by the law until you can get it changed is all well and good, but that only stand up in this thread if you do indeed abide by the letter of the law (which I'm guessing you along with 99.9% of Americans don't).

Edit: Obviously I'm not saying that we shouldn't obey any laws. I'm just repeating what has already been said in this thread, which is "As long as pirating is against the law, then it's wrong. If you don't like it, then don't buy the game or try to get the law changed." If you feel that way about pirating, then you should feel that way about every single law including the afore-mentioned speed limit and jaywalking.

 

[Tristicus]

I dgaf what other people think.
I do what I want.
It is, however, not legal.

 

[SunnyD]

I dgaf what other people think.
I do what I want.
It is, however, not legal.

At least you're honest, and you also understand the situation perfectly. Sounds like you're also willing to accept the consequences for your actions - even if it's while kicking and swearing the whole way.

 

[citan x]

First, in the US downloading a copy of a game from an unapproved source is illegal. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Secondly, your chances of getting caught are practically zip since I haven't heard of any video game companies trying to crack down like the RIAA.

Third, don't get caught.


Morality is a gray topic.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

So, I pose the question again. If you're standing at a crosswalk with a rrreeeaaalllyyy long red light and there's not a car for miles, would you wait patiently for the light to turn green or cross the street even though it's against the law? If it's the latter, then why don't you just abide by the law or write your congressman to try to change them? It's not up to you to decide what's morally right; "that's what the law is for." Another question is do you go over the speed limit at all? That's breaking the law, the last time I checked. If you don't like it, then you should abide by it until you can get it changed.

I love these threads that parade the law as something that anyone who's moral and just will abide by (and how dare you even think of breaking it!), when probably every poster breaks the law several times on their morning commute every day.

We aren't talking about traffic laws. We're talking about copyright law. To say that breaking one permits or relates to the other is totally absurd, legally and morally. Do you want me to answer your questions just so you can cry hypocrisy? I would cross at your hypothetical light after checking for traffic, and yes, I break the speed limit on occasion. I do not think either of these laws are unjust, but I knowingly choose to break them, accepting that I may be penalized for it. Does that invalidate my claims about copyright? I don't believe it does.

If breaking the law is so black-and-white wrong, then why is it OK to break some and not others? Who decides that? Is it decided by each individual's morals or by society as a whole? If a law is broken by the majority of the people (like how it's generally acceptable to go 5-10 mph over the speed limit and jaywalk), then does it make it OK to do so? What if enough people pirated PC games and felt it was generally acceptable to do so? Would you view it the same as jaywalking and going 5 mph over the speed limit?

I think law = morality is a slippery slope too. Stating to abide by the law until you can get it changed is all well and good, but that only stand up in this thread if you do indeed abide by the letter of the law (which I'm guessing you along with 99.9% of Americans don't).

What do you mean by "OK"? All of these things are illegal. Are you asking if I personally find them acceptable? I don't know what you're trying to prove, or why you care to ask. If enough people commit a crime, it doesn't make the action legal, it just makes enforcement infeasible and increases the likelihood that the law could be repealed if there's enough support. I guess you're still trying to get others to validate your acts of piracy, only now it's indirectly through commentary on other, irrelevant laws.

Law, social acceptability, and individual morality are linked to some extent, but are not always in lock step and this is all wildly out of context. I never claimed that the law is infallible or that I uphold every law. Showing that I break one or another, or don't consider every infraction patently immoral, proves absolutely nothing.

You guys really need to shut up about this morality issue. You are the ones who keep bringing it up in the same breath as you claim to be judged. I personally don't give a rat's ass about your morality or lack thereof, except as it impacts me and the things I care about. Developers and artists deserve to be paid for their work, and you don't deserve to consume that work for free unless it's offered. On top of that, piracy is responsible for -- or is at least used as justification for -- DRM and price hikes, which makes my experience as a paying customer worse.

At least don't feed me a line of bullshit about "trial periods" or empty moralizing about how you should be allowed to do this or that. Have the balls to take Tristicus's line: I break the law because I want to, and I don't care who it affects. I'm less offended by that than I am by asinine analogies and meaningless hypotheticals designed to trick others into absolving you.

 

[GaryJohnson]

at least don't feed me a line of bullshit about "trial periods" or empty moralizing about how you should be allowed to do this or that. Have the balls to take tristicus's line: I break the law because i want to, and i don't care who it affects. I'm less offended by that than i am by asinine analogies and meaningless hypotheticals designed to trick others into absolving you.

qft

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

...did you retype that quote manually, GaryJohnson? What happened to the capitalization?

Anyway, apologies to the OP. I like discussing copyright law, but we've kind of shit up your thread with this other stuff. I think your question has been answered, anyway.

 

[happy medium]

More like you eat the Ice Cream Cake while walking around the store, and then pay for the empty package on the way out.

More like a girl walking around the store giving out free samples and then you buy the cake if you like it.
Or she gives you a free sample and you don't buy it because it taste like shit.

The developers should release a demo before they release the actual game.
I get to test drive a car before I buy. Why not a game?

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

More like a girl walking around the store giving out free samples and then you buy the cake if you like it.
Or she gives you a free sample and you don't buy it because it taste like shit.

The developers should release a demo before they release the actual game.
I get to test drive a car before I buy. Why not a game?

You don't get to take a copy of a car home with you, or eat that whole cake and then decide not to buy it. Please stop this.

 

[Raduque]

I dgaf what other people think.
I do what I want.
It is, however, not legal.

Quoted for the motherfucking truth.

Oh, I just thought of a question for the morality police: Is it moral or not to download a game you've already pre-ordered (and paid for), but haven't received yet?