Whelp, another reason to boycott Capcom.

[o.pwuaioc]

No, I'm not incorrect. Taking something without paying for it is stealing. Just because that thing is digital rather than physical doesn't change what your doing.

Please read actual law cases that distinguish between theft and copyright infringement, like Dowling v. United States (1985). There is a difference. Whether both are wrong or one is wrong or whatever, I'm staying out of that debate, but going around shouting that downloading games without buying them is legally defined as theft shows that you haven't read a single thing on the topic.

[flamepanther]

Here's a "fun" little scenario that actually happened to me, rather than the usual straw man, hypothetical arguments that get tossed around here.

When I was a teenager, I bought a copy of Tyrian 2000, brand new in the box. Later, in college, someone else misplaced my Tyrian 2000 disc. By the time I found it, it was broken, through no fault of my own. The game was no longer available on store shelves. I could have purchased a second-hand copy on eBay to replace it--that is if I had the money, but I was a poor starving college student. I downloaded a new copy of the game I already paid full price for. Technically, this is considered piracy under U.S. copyright law--FACT.

Did I cheat the developer or the publisher by not paying twice for a game I legally purchased? Would buying it used have helped the developer at all?

After all, if we consider the physical product, I did not take another at all. If we consider the intellectual property as a licensed idea, I already paid for my license!

But wait! It gets better. The reason the game vanished from store shelves completely is that the publisher and developer both went out of business!

Can I cheat a publisher or developer that doesn't exist? For that matter, if buying used games somehow "supports" the developers, how does that work when there's no developer anymore?

It gets better still! Some years later, the main individual behind Tyrian's development (also the person to whom the game's copyright defaulted) declared the game to be freely distributable by the public! Now my pirated copy is legitimate again, as is every pirated copy that was ever made!

I broke the law to keep a product I already paid for, and now it's perfectly legal. "Stealing" doesn't work that way. Clearly the ethics of piracy aren't as simple as the actual law, either. Sometimes it's just a complicated mess. Deal with it and move on.

[o.pwuaioc]

Actually, if the company that owns the copyright goes out of business, then there is no one to uphold the copyright. I think technically you were in bounds of the law, although I'm not a lawyer, and haven't seen a particular case like that!

[flamepanther]

Actually, if the company that owns the copyright goes out of business, then there is no one to uphold the copyright. I think technically you were in bounds of the law, although I'm not a lawyer, and haven't seen a particular case like that!

From what I've read, that's not true. Someone still retains the copyright--usually the individuals that created the work in question or the last owner of the company that produced the work if it was a work for hire. Duke Nukem Forever is a good example, after the demise of 3D Realms. Sometimes it becomes a messy legal issue to determine who actually owns the work, but it remains in copyright.

Fortunately, in the case of Tyrian, everyone was in agreement that the main programmer owns the game as a completed work. The main graphic artist and composer retain the rights to their separate contributions, but have also given their permission for it to be distributed for free with the game (so that it can be ported to other platforms).

[Ivo]

I keep seeing people assuming that the used game buyer is not giving money to the company. I disagree with that statement but as my posts go long many of you may not have read it.

THEOREM:
Player A buys new for X, sells to Player B for Y. This is equivalent to Player A gave the company X-Y and Player B gave the company Y. Player B IS SUPPORTING THE INDUSTRY (possibly more than Player A). I can't make it any simpler. Industry gets X for the game.

If you disagree with my "theorem" please justify your disagreement so that I can try to convince you. It doesn't matter at what time Player B buys the game - consider it an interest free loan that Player A gave to Player B if you want and you can shift Player B contribution to the initial date of purchase.

Middlemen (like Gamestop) can absorb some amount, but the players are both contributing. The middlemen may not be contributing directly, but they enable it.

Player A buys new for X, sells to Gamestop for Y, Player A contributes X-Y.
Player B buys from Gamestop for Z, Player B contributes Y, Gamestop absorbs Z-Y. Industry still gets the full X for the game.

Ivo.

[Erik_Twice]

Also, the correct phrase is "I couldn't care less". You actually said the opposite of what you meant to say.

Both are correct Inazuma, one is ironic, the other isn't. The ironic one is more typicically American.

[Erik_Twice]

Also, the correct phrase is "I couldn't care less". You actually said the opposite of what you meant to say.

Both are correct Inazuma, one is ironic, the other isn't. The ironic one is more typicically American.

[Rurouni_Fencer]

*sigh* this is why I miss classic standard cartridges..
Carts can always be opened, and batteries can always be removed. Solid state tech - not so much...

[GSZX1337]

This wouldn't be a problem if we moved back to passwords.

[dsheinem]

Also, the correct phrase is "I couldn't care less". You actually said the opposite of what you meant to say.

Both are correct Inazuma, one is ironic, the other isn't. The ironic one is more typicically American.

I assume you are deliberately misusing "ironic" here as a way to make a joke? "I could care less" isn't "irony" by any stretch of the imagination.