Is piracy wrong?

[woody.cool]

Those who create the laws would have us believe that it's as 'black & white' as the whole 'breaking the law is wrong' statement - but really it's a very very very big 'grey area'

[paranoid marvin]

Regarding 'the law' - I would like to bet that we have all been criminals at one time or another , whether we new it or not

There are almost certainly many archaic laws that were never rescinded
which presumabley are still legally binding , but of which we know nothing
(you know the kind - you must pay homage to the lord of the manor every Saturday afternoon etc) - yet according to the law , ignorance is not innocence , and we are all guilty

[woody.cool]

I think everybody here knows that I'm a little bit of a criminal - software piracy, drug taking and noise pollution being my favourites!

[TMR]

I think everybody here knows that I'm a little bit of a criminal - software piracy, drug taking and noise pollution being my favourites!

All at the same time...?

[woody.cool]

I think everybody here knows that I'm a little bit of a criminal - software piracy, drug taking and noise pollution being my favourites!

All at the same time...?

You could say that

[Rev. Stuart Campbell]

You modified my post to emphasis your own point. You do know that? Did you do it consciously? Or perhaps you believe I made you do that? Seriously? Do you believe that? To prove your point? It's OK to change what I wrote? To take it out of context?

You may want to reflect on why you felt it necessary to alter what i wrote and whether it was right or not. Or how it makes people feel about your argument or how they feel about you. Me? I'd be ashamed. It's a low thing to do in my opinion. You're a writer right? A journalist did someone say? Woah. Wow. To my mind that's a pretty serious crime - for a writer - well i don't know but... I'm no writer but I can see that altering what people say to prove your own point. On a public forum - of a potiential employer - That's pretty serious. How can anyone trust you? I am being serious. Really. You seem to lack basic integrity.

I didn't change a single word you wrote, you spectacular halfwit. I quoted you from about two pages ago (your post of Thursday 6.08pm, to be precise - http://www.retrogamer.net/forum/viewtop ... c&start=50). It's amusing that YOU seem to have changed your mind, hastily backing away from your previously absolutist position, while barefacedly pretending to stick to it in a manner rather reminiscent of our current Prime Minister. (So I'll stand by for your apology for the lengthy, pious and entirely unwarranted slur above.)

Will? Will? Anyone seen Will? He was here just a moment ago.

In answer to your list: Your list of people is the exception and it regards unjust social laws. Not the 9/10th of the law dedicated to possession in which, firmly sits, laws on piracy... but by-and-large... For the most part... blah blah

Ah. So NOW what you're saying is no longer

Whether you agree with a law or not is irrelevant. Breaking the law is wrong.

but "breaking the law is wrong, except sometimes". In other words, it IS acceptable - indeed, even admirable - to pick and choose which laws you obey, based on your own moral judgement, perhaps in as much as 10% of situations. Which is pretty much the point most of us have been making all along while you ranted on about how breaking the law is always wrong, but I didn't expect you to blunder into the trap quite so easily. (Can you help us out here, by the way, and clarify your position on Robin Hood now? Does he belong alongside those justified lawbreakers you "admire", like Mandela and Scopes and Parks, because he acted for the benefit of the populace as a whole rather than himself, or is he still just "a thief" and therefore despicable and wrong? I'm having trouble figuring it out from your rather confusing and seemingly contradictory positions.)

Will? Wiiilllll?

[MRMIdAS]

You modified my post to emphasis your own point. You do know that? Did you do it consciously? Or perhaps you believe I made you do that? Seriously? Do you believe that? To prove your point? It's OK to change what I wrote? To take it out of context?

You may want to reflect on why you felt it necessary to alter what i wrote and whether it was right or not. Or how it makes people feel about your argument or how they feel about you. Me? I'd be ashamed. It's a low thing to do in my opinion. You're a writer right? A journalist did someone say? Woah. Wow. To my mind that's a pretty serious crime - for a writer - well i don't know but... I'm no writer but I can see that altering what people say to prove your own point. On a public forum - of a potiential employer - That's pretty serious. How can anyone trust you? I am being serious. Really. You seem to lack basic integrity.

I didn't change a single word you wrote, you spectacular halfwit. I quoted you from about two pages ago (your post of Thursday 6.08pm, to be precise - http://www.retrogamer.net/forum/viewtop ... c&start=50). It's amusing that YOU seem to have changed your mind, hastily backing away from your previously absolutist position, while barefacedly pretending to stick to it in a manner rather reminiscent of our current Prime Minister. (So I'll stand by for your apology for the lengthy, pious and entirely unwarranted slur above.)

Will? Will? Anyone seen Will? He was here just a moment ago.

In answer to your list: Your list of people is the exception and it regards unjust social laws. Not the 9/10th of the law dedicated to possession in which, firmly sits, laws on piracy... but by-and-large... For the most part... blah blah

Ah. So NOW what you're saying is no longer

Whether you agree with a law or not is irrelevant. Breaking the law is wrong.

but "breaking the law is wrong, except sometimes". In other words, it IS acceptable - indeed, even admirable - to pick and choose which laws you obey, based on your own moral judgement, perhaps in as much as 10% of situations. Which is pretty much the point most of us have been making all along while you ranted on about how breaking the law is always wrong, but I didn't expect you to blunder into the trap quite so easily. (Can you help us out here, by the way, and clarify your position on Robin Hood now? Does he belong alongside those justified lawbreakers you "admire", like Mandela and Scopes and Parks, because he acted for the benefit of the populace as a whole rather than himself, or is he still just "a thief" and therefore despicable and wrong? I'm having trouble figuring it out from your rather confusing and seemingly contradictory positions.)

Will? Wiiilllll?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

f'kin pwnd!

[markopoloman]

Will he reply

[tssk]

Piracy is wrong.

It is an unassailable truth. Democratically elected officials drew up legislation and laws were passed that said Piracy is essentially a form of theft.

Breaking the law is wrong.

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, ...(snip)If you copy ancient unwanted uncared for long lost games, like me, it's still wrong, it's still against the law. When I do it, I'm still depriving the original artists, developers, publishers of their money. Just because there is no sensible mechanism for resolving this, doesn't alter the fact it's wrong. It's against the law. I have stolen something. Something that I am not entitled to.

I'm going to use your post here to zoom in on one of the things I don't understand about the games industry.

Say those ancient games are games you already owned. Say you d/loaded a copy of Battle Chess because your old C64 discs have given up the ghost.

You can't d'load a copy because that's piracy.

You can't rebuy another copy of it because it's no longer in print. (Unlike the case with music and books where copies can be in print for decades in the case of music or centuries in the case of books.)

But that's not a problem. After all, the reason why games cost more than books or CDs is that you don't own the content, only a licence to use the content.

A licence to use. Since for the most part it's not time limited like a subscription and you've already paid for the use of the content surely you could email, ring, send a letter to EA and they would give you a replacement for a nominal fee.

But hang on, strangely enough the games industry gets to have it both ways. Like the poor poster on another thread discovered when he tried to get his Tomb Raider disc replaced, the response would usually be "so sad too bad." If it's still in print you generally have to buy it again for full price. If not, you have to try and source a first hand copy in some bargain bin to stay legal (as most second hand copies are by definition illegal under the terms and conditions of the licence.)

With books consumers know where they stand. To an extent they also know where they stand with music and movies.

Yet video games seem to have this odd thing where the consumer has no idea if they're buying a licence or an object.

Things are getting better with retro compilations and virtual console d/loads (at least you can rebuy some old games if lost or destroyed.)

But with all the confusion it's no wonder that some resort to piracy.

[tssk]

Here's a shorter version for those of you who don't like my leftist whining and want a more capitalist approach.

Make your product widely available at a decent price and the average man on the street won't be tempted to pirate it.

[Dudley]

One minor point, while the licence agreement tries to stop you selling 2nd hand, that doesn't make it illegal to do so since the licence agreement is not enforceable as a legal document.

Even when you "agree" to it to use the software, it's not allowed to override your legal rights and one of those is that you're allowed to sell it on.

But yes, if they get their way, second hand software would be illegal. The fact that this would directly lead to the probable bankruptcy of the major high street chains or at the very least a massive reduction in the discounts they can ever offer seems to have been overlooked by EA et al.

As I always put it, ban the sales of secondhand cars. What do you think is going to happen to sales of new cars?

[Coopdevil]

But yes, if they get their way, second hand software would be illegal. The fact that this would directly lead to the probable bankruptcy of the major high street chains or at the very least a massive reduction in the discounts they can ever offer seems to have been overlooked by EA et al.

What is the current state of play with this concept in Japan? I know the publishers were trying to outlaw the second hand game market and had the "NO RESELL" flashes all over their game boxes, but I never heard "what happened next".

I can't honestly remember the last new game UK game I bought at the £29.99 mark. Its all second hand, reduced or budget priced stuff for me (the Mega Drive Collection on PS2 was the last new game I bought and that was only £20 IIRC)

Coop

[yethboth]

Difficult question.

[Dudley]

What is the current state of play with this concept in Japan? I know the publishers were trying to outlaw the second hand game market and had the "NO RESELL" flashes all over their game boxes, but I never heard "what happened next".

I don't know about Japan to be honest.

[Coopdevil]

I don't know about Japan to be honest.

Its OK, I was just addressing the room and thinking aloud really.

Coop