Which of these are piracy in your opinion?

[dguy6789]

Which of the poll options do you consider to be morally fine? I'm not asking what the law says, just what is okay by you personally. I want to know what most people consider to be within their rights when it comes to games they own.

 

[Newbian]

Is it piracy to let a friend borrow a game?

No since it's still a legal copy of the game as long as they don't copy it or you did and both play it at the same time.

Is it piracy to download and emulate an old long lost console game that you once paid full price for?

Technically it can be but if you had the game still I wouldn't view it as that since it can be a pain to hook up some of the old consoles with their old connections.

Is it piracy to burn backup copies of games you already own?

Absolutely not and that's practically the only thing they say you can legally make copies for.

Is it piracy to purchase a game for one platform, but download and play it on another?(As long as you don't play more than one copy at the same time to satisfy the fact that you only bought the game once)

That can be viewed as it since a different system means it's a totally different game.

Is it piracy to let a friend use your Steam account to play games?

Might not be piracy so much as something against the steam rules.

Is it piracy to burn a copy of a game and let a friend borrow that to play?(As long as you don't play more than one copy at the same time to satisfy the fact that you only bought the game once)

Big time piracy act since you are providing a game for free and it would be better if you gave the game away instead if you no longer play it.

 

[dguy6789]

It's my opinion that if you've bought the game once, you then indefinitely have the right to play it. It doesn't matter if you lose the original game media to me. The game has been paid for, the developer loses nothing if someone downloads and plays a game they already bought.

Edit: I'm a bit surprised by the Steam votes so far. I understand that it is against Steam rules to let someone use your account, but that's not what I'm asking. I don't see how letting someone use your Steam account is in any way different from letting someone borrow a group of games.

 

[Newbian]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
It's my opinion that if you've bought the game once, you then indefinitely have the right to play it. It doesn't matter if you lose the original game media to me. The game has been paid for, the developer loses nothing if someone downloads and plays a game they already bought.

Edit: I'm a bit surprised by the Steam votes so far. I understand that it is against Steam rules to let someone use your account, but that's not what I'm asking. I don't see how letting someone use your Steam account is in any way different from letting someone borrow a group of games.

Well unless you have some sort of proof you owned that game and not given it away then it will look like you are pirating the game.


As for the steam issue the problem is you didn't say for how long.

If it's for a day or two I can see that being ok and if you no longer use your steam account or play those games I would say fine also but if you and your friend use it for a lengthy period of time then it's time for your friend to get their account with their games.

 

[dguy6789]

What difference does the length of time make? A Steam account can only be logged into one computer at a time. I don't see that as any different than repeatedly borrowing and taking back a game, just digitally instead of physically. On a somewhat off topic note, I think they should add to Steam the ability to give games you own to other Steam accounts and or be able to trade games with other Steam accounts. Steam would be able to keep track of everything and make sure duplicates aren't made. It would work just like letting people borrow physical media.

Edit: Let's assume people will abide by their honor as honest paying customers. I'm not asking what things will look like legally, just what is your personal opinion on what is okay to do with games without having any moral guilt. Whether someone has proof or not, let's just assume it's a fact that they bought the game before, that they are being honest.

 

[Newbian]

The problem with the constant sharing is you are preventing the game from selling another copy and last I looked but when you buy the game it's meant for your personal use, not multiple people permanent use.

 

[novasatori]

I don't see how you can vote different ways for borrowing physical and steam

Against the TOS/EULA? Maybe, but morally speaking, in my opinion, there is no difference.

I voted not piracy to both of those, and regularly play my friends steam account which have games I haven't purchased which he doesn't play often.
No different than when I wasn't playing UT2003 I loaned it to him, in fact I think he still has it.

Originally posted by: Newbian
The problem with the constant sharing is you are preventing the game from selling another copy and last I looked but when you buy the game it's meant for your personal use, not multiple people permanent use.

So is it piracy if you let your friend play your World of Warcraft account when you're not playing it?

 

[Newbian]

Originally posted by: novasatori
I don't see how you can vote different ways for borrowing physical and steam

Against the TOS/EULA? Maybe, but morally speaking, in my opinion, there is no difference.

I voted not piracy to both of those, and regularly play my friends steam account which have games I haven't purchased which he doesn't play often.
No different than when I wasn't playing UT2003 I loaned it to him, in fact I think he still has it.

Originally posted by: Newbian
The problem with the constant sharing is you are preventing the game from selling another copy and last I looked but when you buy the game it's meant for your personal use, not multiple people permanent use.

So is it piracy if you let your friend play your World of Warcraft account when you're not playing it?

If your friend has their own WoW game and account with WoW then no, but if they don't have it then yes.

Constant sharing like that is no different then burning a cd for your friend and letting them use that.

Also Borrowing is usually a term to describe short time use and not something that is permanent.

 

[Modelworks]

If it cost the company a sale then it is usually piracy. Not always, but a general way of deciding.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
It's my opinion that if you've bought the game once, you then indefinitely have the right to play it. It doesn't matter if you lose the original game media to me. The game has been paid for, the developer loses nothing if someone downloads and plays a game they already bought.

Edit: I'm a bit surprised by the Steam votes so far. I understand that it is against Steam rules to let someone use your account, but that's not what I'm asking. I don't see how letting someone use your Steam account is in any way different from letting someone borrow a group of games.

I'm surprised too. If you hand over you login information to a trusted person, when they are logged in you don't have access to your games. I'm absolutely sure this is against Valve's TOS, but I'd say there is nothing morally wrong with it.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: Newbian
The problem with the constant sharing is you are preventing the game from selling another copy and last I looked but when you buy the game it's meant for your personal use, not multiple people permanent use.

Which is why my son and I can play any game in my collection I permit him to? God forbid people trade games for awhile (I seem to vaguely recall doing this alot as a kid in the NES/SNES era)!

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: Newbian

Constant sharing like that is no different then burning a cd for your friend and letting them use that.

Also Borrowing is usually a term to describe short time use and not something that is permanent.

No, your WoW login can only be used by one person at a time. It's more like swapping the CD back and forth multiple times rather than burning them a copy.

 

[WildW]

As far as I see it, lending is fine. A game is no different to a book or a movie or a spanner. . . it's an object, you can keep it, sell it, lend it, smash it, whatever, it's yours to do what you want with. Lending a Steam account ought to be the same, but the ability to play in offline mode skews that towards being an unauthorized copy. Then again, you'd only be doing anything really wrong if the same game was in use in two places at once.

I don't think the argument that "it costs the makers a sale = piracy" is a valid one. Lots of things can do that which aren't anywhere near piracy. You could read a review that said it was rubbish. You could watch your friend play it, you could play it at a friend's house and get bored of it. And besides, if you're going to say that buying second hand costs the manufacturers a sale, why stop at games? By the same reasoning nothing should be allowed to be sold second hand.

Any time you make a copy that isn't a backup, that is "piracy" in its modern usage. Whether that's always wrong is another issue. For instance, I don't see anything wrong with making a copy of something that can't be bought any more, because nobody loses out.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
If it cost the company a sale then it is usually piracy. Not always, but a general way of deciding.

Well then, Gamestop's business model is 95% pirated games by your definition of piracy.

 

[nageov3t]

downloading games that are not otherwise available by conventional means (ie: short of paying huge money for a vintage original copy of an NES game) is the one big area where I think it's technically piracy for morally OK, because it's not like you could give the game makers money even if you wanted to.

 

[Golgatha]

My simple definition of piracy is making a copy of something for someone else's usage, while retaining full-time usage of the thing yourself. Also, obtaining a copy of something that is being used concurrently by the original copy maker would be piracy. Everything outside this definition is morally "white" area to me.

Personally, I feel there should be an exception for families as well.

e.g. I rip my CD to WMP11 MP3 files while using the CD in my car. We could be listening to the same music at the same time, but our financial resources are pooled as a family, and thus what is mine is my family's to use and what is my family's is also mine to use IMO.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: loki8481
downloading games that are not otherwise available by conventional means (ie: short of paying huge money for a vintage original copy of an NES game) is the one big area where I think it's technically piracy for morally OK, because it's not like you could give the game makers money even if you wanted to.

There was this amazing thought in the early 19th century that IP should become public domain after a period of shorter than 75 years or more (see Disney's stance on copyright). IMO, if lifesaving drugs become public domain for generic production within 7 years of the original patent, then what is so substantially good about Mickey Mouse that he gets the 75 year or more protective treatment?

 

[Newbian]

Originally posted by: Golgatha

Originally posted by: Newbian
The problem with the constant sharing is you are preventing the game from selling another copy and last I looked but when you buy the game it's meant for your personal use, not multiple people permanent use.

Which is why my son and I can play any game in my collection I permit him to? God forbid people trade games for awhile (I seem to vaguely recall doing this alot as a kid in the NES/SNES era)!

It's a bit different for sharing within the same household / family like that since there is only one original disk or cartridge then burning multiple disks and playing only when the other person isn't at different places.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: Golgatha

Originally posted by: Modelworks
If it cost the company a sale then it is usually piracy. Not always, but a general way of deciding.

Well then, Gamestop's business model is 95% pirated games by your definition of piracy.

someone needs a dictionary

 

[lxskllr]

Answered all no.

 

[TheKub]

Originally posted by: WildW
As far as I see it, lending is fine. A game is no different to a book or a movie or a spanner. . . it's an object, you can keep it, sell it, lend it, smash it, whatever, it's yours to do what you want with.

I know the scope of this thread is not about the law but when you buy the game you are not buying the game (an object) you are buying a license to use the game. And that license can be far more restrictive as to how you can use that "object". That being said I take piracy as meaning that more people are playing the game than the number sold.

UberGameCo sells 10,000 copies of UberDelux 7:Feel The Power. Of those 10,000 copies X% of people beat it, didn?t really like it and sell it (via store\ebay\directly), X% of people like it and would play it again at some point but thinks their friend would like it, so they give their account info\CD\whatever to their friend to check out.

UberGameCo cries foul because 15,000 (or some other number) people have played the game but they have only sold 10,000. Now at any point no more than 10,000 people can play so the loss should be nothing.

I can see how they can object but with all other means of IP (movies\music\books) there isn?t stipulation that you and only you can enjoy the product. The world has grown accustomed to treating IP as an object.

What would you think if you bought a DVD of a movie and could only watch it with members of your immediate family? No friends\extended relatives\significant others\neighbors\etc.

Personally I think the gaming industry should stop trying to fight its consumers. They expect a certain level of use out of a product. If the industry cannot work with those expectations maybe a shift in the industry is what?s needed.

A lot of people trade\resell games because games are expensive. How about making more smaller cheaper games that may convince more people to buy rather than trying to borrow or worthless to resell. Subsidize games with advertisements, want to play this game for 1/2 price you have to watch a 30 second ad each time its started up. Move to a system that is monthly subscription based. These are some ideas on how the industry can adapt maybe selling the game for 1/2 the price will cause a 3-4+ fold increase in sales. Its easy to torrent the next big game but its only $10-$15-$20 on steam I might as well just buy it.

Just my thoughts, and for the record I am not a lawyer nor am I a entertainment mogul.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: TheKub
Subsidize games with advertisements, want to play this game for 1/2 price you have to watch a 30 second ad each time its started up. Move to a system that is monthly subscription based. These are some ideas on how the industry can adapt maybe selling the game for 1/2 the price will cause a 3-4+ fold increase in sales. Its easy to torrent the next big game but its only $10-$15-$20 on steam I might as well just buy it.

Just my thoughts, and for the record I am not a lawyer nor am I a entertainment mogul.

Actually, Steam has shown that a simple price drop of 50% by itself will increase overall sales and profits many fold without the need to further monetize by including in-game ads, etc. into the game itself.

 

[TheKub]

Originally posted by: Golgatha
Actually, Steam has shown that a simple price drop of 50% by itself will increase overall sales and profits many fold without the need to further monetize by including in-game ads, etc. into the game itself.

Yeah, Ive bought a bunch of games I wouldnt have otherwise simply becasue of the "weekend deal".

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: Golgatha

Originally posted by: Modelworks
If it cost the company a sale then it is usually piracy. Not always, but a general way of deciding.

Well then, Gamestop's business model is 95% pirated games by your definition of piracy.

someone needs a dictionary

Fair enough, I stand corrected. The industry does seem to be fighting reselling of games with the same amount of effort they are putting into fighting actual piracy though. In either case, they're only inconveniencing their paying customers, which I believe will eventually bite them in the ass.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: TheKub

Originally posted by: Golgatha
Actually, Steam has shown that a simple price drop of 50% by itself will increase overall sales and profits many fold without the need to further monetize by including in-game ads, etc. into the game itself.

Yeah, Ive bought a bunch of games I wouldnt have otherwise simply becasue of the "weekend deal".

Me too. A lot of those games are worth buying without the right to resell them if the pricing is consistent with the value of the thing you're purchasing.