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

[GaryJohnson]

This is what I was getting at. Several people have basically said: "Whether you think it's OK to pirate or not, it's against the law, which therefore makes it morally wrong." However, you don't apply that same thing to other laws that you knowingly choose to break. That is the very definition of hypocrisy.

That's quite the straw man argument. Who here that said they were morally opposed to piracy because it's illegal also said they knowingly choose to speed?

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Several people have basically said: "Whether you think it's OK to pirate or not, it's against the law, which therefore makes it morally wrong." However, you don't apply that same thing to other laws that you knowingly choose to break. That is the very definition of hypocrisy. You can say all you want that traffic laws are morally OK to break but copyright laws fall into the category of laws that are morally wrong to break, but that's not true. The law is the law. If you think that breaking the law = immorality, then breaking any law (jaywalking, speeding, or copyright infringement) = immorality.

Not one single person made the claims you are arguing against. This is a classic, pathetic strawman argument.

You are the one directly equating legality with morality. Not once did I say that breaking "the law" is of itself immoral. It is my opinion that piracy is immoral, and that opinion is the basis of my belief that this law should be followed, not the other way around. I have plainly stated my reasons for that belief. That's all.

If you take issue with my reasoning, I'm all ears, but give up on these pitiful semantic traps.

Again, I'll say that I haven't pirated in over 5 years, I know it's illegal, I'm not sure whether it's morally OK under certain circumstances, and I do think it's morally wrong to just pirate it and use it forever. With that being said, I don't think that taking the stand of "That's what the law is for, and I have seen no valid justification for breaking the ones we have" is where someone should get their morals from. If you do, then you are going counter to your morals every single day on your commute to and from work.

My statement was intended to mean, "The law, not individual morality, is the avenue by which society dictates acceptable behavior," not that morality flows from law or blind obedience. As stated over, and over, and over again, it is up to each person to decide if they can or should deviate from any given norm, rule, or law.

Which is worse: someone who has loose morals but adheres to them fully, or someone who has strict morals and knowingly breaks them daily? I'll let James 4:17 clear that up:

It seems quite fitting that someone who deals largely in logical fallacies would harness the Bible to make pronouncements about morality.

 

[Pacemaker]

First of all any software I buy that doesn't work in my system should be returnable for a refund, period (well assuming the system meets the requirements on the box). If not then they are in violation of the implied warranty of the item. (and it could be considered fraud if they don't refund the money)

Secondly, can someone explain to me why the penalty for walking into a store and taking a copy of the game off a shelf and stealing it has less penalty if caught than downloading it from a website? How does that make any sense?

I'm all for compensation for people who make creative works, but they need to fix copyright law because right now it is heavily weighted to the seller/creator side and not nearly enough rights are given to the purchaser of the item.

 

[borisvodofsky]

Morally, it depends on what your personal morals are. Legally, it's illegal, plain and simple.

dguy, you may think it's BS, but nothing is stopping you from not buying the game if you don't like the terms the manufacturer/producer/vendor put forth. Don't pirate games if you don't like those terms. It's that simple. You have absolutely no right to try the game before you buy it unless there's a legitimate, legal way to do it.

The power/ability to do something, GIVES me the right. This might hurt someone in the end, sure. It might also be against the greater good, but if I can do it, WHY NOT. .

Besides the OP has FAR more good intentions than most, as he actually MIGHT buy the game.

 

[kalrith]

That's quite the straw man argument. Who here that said they were morally opposed to piracy because it's illegal also said they knowingly choose to speed?

Not one single person made the claims you are arguing against. This is a classic, pathetic strawman argument.

It's so easy to throw the word strawman out there without explaining how it's a strawman argument. Well done!

As stated in my previous post, CoinOperatedBoy said that individual morals cannot be used to dictate general policy, "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." Then he went on to say that he knowingly breaks the "general policy" regarding traffic laws. I suppose that he didn't say that he gets his morality from laws; however, his statement implied that if something is a law, then it is morally wrong to break it, and you should simply try to have it overturned or rewritten in lieu of breaking it. I'm not sure how that thinking could apply to one set of general policy (copyright laws) and not another (traffic laws).

My statement was intended to mean, "The law, not individual morality, is the avenue by which society dictates acceptable behavior," not that morality flows from law or blind obedience. As stated over, and over, and over again, it is up to each person to decide if they can or should deviate from any given norm, rule, or law.

I didn't get that from your statement at all, and that's why I don't think I made a strawman argument at all. It sounded (as I stated above) that you were saying that because the general policy of a society is reflected in the laws, it is morally wrong to break them simply because they are laws. Then you went on to say that you knowingly broke traffic laws. My interpretation of your post does not jive with your intended meaning, but that does not make my argument a strawman. It makes it a valid one based on what you originally wrote. Next time I'll ask for the Cliff Notes on your post before replying .

It seems quite fitting that someone who deals largely in logical fallacies would harness the Bible to make pronouncements about morality.

Many glean their morality from the Bible, so based on that, I thought it was better to post that rather than my individual feelings on morality. Obviously every poster in this thread has more moral credence than the Bible, so your statement seems quite fitting.

 

[SunnyD]

what part of i agree its illegal did you miss?

you still can't compare data to something physical though. you are not removing the physical ability to sell that product. if you stole the actual game dvd thats different. you are preventing the sale of that physical product. if someone takes a copy of that product and puts it online, you are not removing the ability to sell the product. if i steal a car from the dealer lot, there is no way to recoup that cost. they would have to create a new car from scratch.

i don't see what's so hard to understand here.

so you would purchase the regurgitated cake? sounds like you have more problems than just trying to understand this concept.

Regarding physicality: It's no different, though the only difference (you like what I did there) is the medium is intangible. Apples and oranges time: Pain and suffering is intangible to you and me, but people are still awarded damages of it (rightfully or not). It's the act that matters, not the physicality of it.

Incidentally - in many states there is a separate and distinct penal law for possession of stolen property as opposed to the act of burglary or larceny. For example: New York Penal Law Section 165.45 - Criminal Possession Of Stolen Property In The Fourth Degree.

Regarding the cake: It's still a cake... Would you purchase street corner knockoff DVD? It's still a DVD. Extreme reasoning demands extreme (and yes, stupid) examples.

Also, see next comment...

I'm not entirely sure about what you're trying to say here. The cake scenario is not an example of theft of services. Copyright infringement is also not an equivalent crime, although I'm not sure you were trying to form that link.

Sorry, I made 3 disjoint comments which both you and pontifex were assuming referred to the same point. That wasn't my intent.

The power/ability to do something, GIVES me the right. This might hurt someone in the end, sure. It might also be against the greater good, but if I can do it, WHY NOT. .

Besides the OP has FAR more good intentions than most, as he actually MIGHT buy the game.

So just because you have the ability to drive a car without a license gives you the right to do so? How about driving said car without a license, while drunk and high, plowing over a dozen pedestrians on the sidewalk at 90MPH? Just because you have the ability to do so gives you the right? Have fun explaining that one to the judge and jury.

 

[smackababy]

The majority of laws are written with morallity in mind. Whose? Certainly not mine. It is against the law in the United States to gamble online. Why? Because someone (George W. Bush I believe) deemed it immoral to gamble, therefore nobody should be able to. It is against to the law in quite a few states to perform the act of sodomy, simply because it is immoral. Again, some, but not all, laws attempt to dictate the morals of the people.

The original post was if it was immoral to "sample" the game prior to purchase. Only you can answer that question. Is it illegal? Yes, as it should be. Does that stop me, and countless others from doing it? Of course not.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

It's so easy to throw the word strawman out there without explaining how it's a strawman argument. Well done!

I did. You misrepresented my position and argued against it. That's the definition of a strawman, and that's what I said.

As stated in my previous post, CoinOperatedBoy said that individual morals cannot be used to dictate general policy, "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." Then he went on to say that he knowingly breaks the "general policy" regarding traffic laws. I suppose that he didn't say that he gets his morality from laws; however, his statement implied that if something is a law, then it is morally wrong to break it, and you should simply try to have it overturned or rewritten in lieu of breaking it. I'm not sure how that thinking could apply to one set of general policy (copyright laws) and not another (traffic laws).

The position put forth by some posters was that they break copyright law because they consider it unjust, not just because it benefits them. This is its own kind of moral crusade, which I suspect is a disguised effort not to fix an unfair law, but to avoid legal judgement and punishment, although that's irrelevant. In this context, I was not condemning the lawbreaking morally, only pointing out that it does not do anything to address the stated root cause. Breaking the law is not the way to change it.

I already said that I do not consider your cited traffic laws unjust, and fixing them is not my goal. I have no justification for breaking them, and won't cloak myself in some false altruism about it. My reasons for breaking traffic laws have no relationship whatsoever with my reasons for not breaking copyright law, and I never said I was perfect.

I didn't get that from your statement at all, and that's why I don't think I made a strawman argument at all. It sounded (as I stated above) that you were saying that because the general policy of a society is reflected in the laws, it is morally wrong to break them simply because they are laws. Then you went on to say that you knowingly broke traffic laws. My interpretation of your post does not jive with your intended meaning, but that does not make my argument a strawman. It makes it a valid one based on what you originally wrote. Next time I'll ask for the Cliff Notes on your post before replying .

I never said, nor implied, that it is categorically immoral to break the law. It is your misinterpretation that led to this pointless digression.

Even if I meant what you thought, what difference does it make to this discussion? Is it really important to you that I might consider you or others "immoral" for breaking some law? If so, you would be doing nothing to prove me wrong just by pointing out my own perceived shortcomings in other areas. That's the strawman.

Seriously, just give up on this whole line of attack, I'm begging you. If you're that interested in my opinion, ask me for more detail on why I think copyright law is sound (for the most part) and why people should follow it. If not, I won't be offended, but what I won't do is participate in any more of these brainless games. Wheel of morality, turn turn turn...

Many glean their morality from the Bible, so based on that, I thought it was better to post that rather than my individual feelings on morality. Obviously every poster in this thread has more moral credence than the Bible, so your statement seems quite fitting.

I have no idea what this means.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

The majority of laws are written with morallity in mind. Whose? Certainly not mine. It is against the law in the United States to gamble online. Why? Because someone (George W. Bush I believe) deemed it immoral to gamble, therefore nobody should be able to. It is against to the law in quite a few states to perform the act of sodomy, simply because it is immoral. Again, some, but not all, laws attempt to dictate the morals of the people.

The original post was if it was immoral to "sample" the game prior to purchase. Only you can answer that question. Is it illegal? Yes, as it should be. Does that stop me, and countless others from doing it? Of course not.

The president does not create laws; that's a function of the legislative branch. The idea is that Congress creates laws that represent and protect society and its constituents, and the president (or the governor, in the case of state law) approves or disapproves based on his assessment of the policy and its constitutionality.

The People elect all the members of this process, so it is assumed that the laws they enact represent the interests and, yes, the morality of at least those people who vote. If that's not the case, we can petition our representatives, or seek new ones, who have the power to overturn bad policy.

Of course, this whole thing doesn't always work as planned, but you have a gross misunderstanding of it if you think the president can just say "gambling is illegal" and suddenly it is so.

The point is that personal morality informs the law, but no one individual's will is carried out by it.

 

[smackababy]

The president does not create laws; that's a function of the legislative branch. The idea is that Congress creates laws that represent and protect society and its constituents, and the president (or the governor, in the case of state law) approves or disapproves based on his assessment of the policy and its constitutionality.

The People elect all the members of this process, so it is assumed that the laws they enact represent the interests and, yes, the morality of at least those people who vote. If that's not the case, we can petition our representatives, or seek new ones, who have the power to overturn bad policy.

Of course, this whole thing doesn't always work as planned, but you have a gross misunderstanding of it if you think the president can just say "gambling is illegal" and suddenly it is so.

The point is that personal morality informs the law, but no one individual's will is carried out by it.

I did not mean to imply that Bush spoke and it was. Bush, IIRC, did however speak out against vetoing any bill that repealed the past legislature making gambiling illegal. Congress itself made a complete mockery of themselves on the subject as well. "People could be gambling in their bathrooms" was one such example.

And as for the elected being a representation of the people: that is completely false. It is a representation of the minority who take the responsibility to vote and those who are nuts with an agenda willing to work the system. Informed voters are an even smaller minority I'm afraid.

 

[kalrith]

I did. You misrepresented my position and argued against it. That's the definition of a strawman, and that's what I said.

Misinterpreted != misrepresented. Therefore, no strawman here.

Even if I meant what you thought, what difference does it make to this discussion? Is it really important to you that I might consider you or others "immoral" for breaking some law? If so, you would be doing nothing to prove me wrong just by pointing out my own perceived shortcomings in other areas. That's the strawman.

I no longer think that's what you thought, but I do think that it would make all the difference in the world regarding this topic. If I were to say that the OP was immoral because he broke the law (and not because I deemed that action immoral apart from the law), and I sat back and knowingly broke the law daily, then that's the pot calling the kettle black.

However, all that is moot now that I know your stance. I feel that this point has been explored enough (probably too much), and I'll just drop it.

 

[Coldkilla]

I see no reason to buy a game that proclaims its "replayability", doesn't give out a demo, and expects me to dish out $60 to play it. The only reason to dish out that kinda cash is not to play a 5 hour single player, but a multiplayer that could be played for a long time. Then your getting you moneys worth.

So far I've only played one game that lives up to that, Operation Flashpoint. Played every evening for 7 years @ 9:00pm-11, never got boring or repetitive. I'm not saying I pirate every game in-between, but if a company flat out says "its good", I'm supposed to believe that? They're like politicians. They promise everything but do absolutely nothing. I know the argument here is "legality", and not personal opinion. I think the real legality should be that you can look at your product before you buy it. Just like everything else, buying a car, groceries, ipods, TVs, surround sound, furniture, etc.

All the "popular" online MP games are psychotic. Spawn, 3 seconds, die. Spawn, 3 seconds..

 

[frozentundra123456]

what if you bought the game, lost the disk, then pirate it because you don't want to buy another copy?

This is the only case where to me "piracy" might be morally acceptable. It would still be legally wrong, but you did pay for the game.

The same thing happened to me, except that the disk got damaged and could not be read by the computer. Therefore, I would consider it a gray area if I downloaded it off the internet since I have a valid CD key.

However, one could also argue that if you lost the disk or allowed it to become damaged, it is the owners fault and he should have to purchase the game again.

 

[tuskers]

In order to argue the morality of the original point, let's examine it a little more closely.

What moral justification is there for breaking the letter of the law, even if you don't think it's breaking the spirit of the law? How, morally, is two days of personal entertainment greater than obeying rules agreed upon by your representative government?

When you agree with the law and ignore it, that's not civil disobedience.

Also-- if you steal money from a bank and return it the next day, you broke the law. If you borrow money from a bank and pay it back the next day, you didn't break the law. Consent of the person you're taking property from is the difference between grand theft and a credit card.

 

[smackababy]

However, one could also argue that if you lost the disk or allowed it to become damaged, it is the owners fault and he should have to purchase the game again.

This is the problem. Companies want to say they are selling you a license to play the game and the physical media for which to play it. They want everyone to accept that your "right" to use the software you purchased is limited to the copy they gave you. This can't work. Either you sell me the license or you sell me the copy. If you sold me the first, make the software available for download but require a key, and if the latter, allow me to make back up copies.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

This is the problem. Companies want to say they are selling you a license to play the game and the physical media for which to play it. They want everyone to accept that your "right" to use the software you purchased is limited to the copy they gave you. This can't work. Either you sell me the license or you sell me the copy. If you sold me the first, make the software available for download but require a key, and if the latter, allow me to make back up copies.

I believe most EULAs do stipulate that you are permitted to make a backup copy for purposes of reinstallation.

 

[fantolay]

It is illegal. Also, you will reach a point where you decide that you want to save your money since you already have the game downloaded, and you will stop purchasing them after downloading them. It is really just a bad path to go down.

 

[BenSkywalker]

So I walk into a barbershop at 3 in the afternoon, place is empty except the two barders reading their newspapers talking about the game. I get myself a haircut, then run out the door before paying. I want to wait a couple of days and decide if I like the haircut or not, if I do, I'll pay for it. If not, I'll just mess up my hair and call it good.

Moral?

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

So I walk into a barbershop at 3 in the afternoon, place is empty except the two barders reading their newspapers talking about the game. I get myself a haircut, then run out the door before paying. I want to wait a couple of days and decide if I like the haircut or not, if I do, I'll pay for it. If not, I'll just mess up my hair and call it good.

Moral?

I do this all the time. But my barber is particularly understanding.

 

[gimmewhitecastles]

After thoroughly enjoying this flamewar I'll note just a few observations.

CoinOperatedBoy made his good points but delivered it like a douchebag.
kalrith also made good points but since there can be only one winner all counterpoints were dismissed as petty trolling.
All throughout everybody else was throwing the morality and technicality card with reckless abandon.

Most responses were based on reaction rather than reason.

In the end everybody likes to wear the "morality" badge but doesn't really give a rat's ass about it if it inconveniences them.

Case in point: Prohibition
An arguably "dumb" Constitutional Amendment that was added based on "moral" grounds but eventually got repealed because it became infeasible to enforce and indirectly led to organized crime.

 

[borisvodofsky]

So just because you have the ability to drive a car without a license gives you the right to do so? How about driving said car without a license, while drunk and high, plowing over a dozen pedestrians on the sidewalk at 90MPH? Just because you have the ability to do so gives you the right? Have fun explaining that one to the judge and jury.

Yes it DOES give me the right. If i get away with murder how is that in anyways a problem. Like I said, Sure it may not be for the greater good. BUT knowing the consequences ONE should not be hindered simply by what they're told to do, they should be the sole decider in their decision. NOW whether someone else decides to STOP you is another matter.

IT IS ALWAYS YOU vs ALL OTHERS

 

[GaryJohnson]

If i get away with murder how is that in anyways a problem.

Wow. Just wow.

 

[KeithTalent]

Yes it DOES give me the right. If i get away with murder how is that in anyways a problem. Like I said, Sure it may not be for the greater good. BUT knowing the consequences ONE should not be hindered simply by what they're told to do, they should be the sole decider in their decision. NOW whether someone else decides to STOP you is another matter.

IT IS ALWAYS YOU vs ALL OTHERS

Wow, I sure hope you are kidding. You don't even know how to do laundry, so I'll just assume you are clueless on this as well.

KT

 

[bullbert]

So taking something that is not yours is not a moral issue? What day does it become a moral issue? The fifth day you do not pay for it, the sixth day, two weeks, a month?

It is a good thing that you have never been a library. Your head would explode.

 

[Modelworks]

This is the problem. Companies want to say they are selling you a license to play the game and the physical media for which to play it. They want everyone to accept that your "right" to use the software you purchased is limited to the copy they gave you. This can't work. Either you sell me the license or you sell me the copy. If you sold me the first, make the software available for download but require a key, and if the latter, allow me to make back up copies.

The license concept failed in court recently.

A federal district judge in Washington State handed down an important decision this week on shrink-wrap license agreements and the First Sale Doctrine. The case concerned an eBay merchant named Timothy Vernor who has repeatedly locked horns with Autodesk over the sale of used copies of its software. Autodesk argued that it only licenses copies of its software, rather than selling them, and that therefore any resale of the software constitutes copyright infringement.

But Judge Richard A. Jones rejected that argument, holding that Vernor is entitled to sell used copies of Autodesk's software regardless of any licensing agreement that might have bound the software's previous owners. Jones relied on the First Sale Doctrine, which ensures the right to re-sell used copies of copyrighted works. It is the principle that makes libraries and used book stores possible. The First Sale Doctrine was first articulated by the Supreme Court in 1908 and has since been codified into statute.

I have no problem with a game or any software having whatever conditions they want to put on the product, BUT all that information must be provided BEFORE I pay for it and cannot be changed after the fact. I can then be an informed consumer and decide if I want to buy it or not. The idea that buy it , bring it home and then read the EULA should be illegal.