PC Gaming Is Dying

[Ivo]

Taking the intellectual property of a game developer and not paying for it would definitely qualify as stealing. If you want to be precise about the meaning of these words.

Can you please explain to me how a pirate is removing the intellectual property from the game developer, because I certainly am failing to see that... As far as I see it, the game developer still has the intellectual property.

EDIT: As you like Webster:
Piracy
1: an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery
2
: robbery on the high seas
3
a : the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright
b : the illicit accessing of broadcast signals

I think you are able to note that 3 is the piracy we are talking about here, not 1 or 2. Note the conspicuous absence of the word "ROBBERY" in definition 3, although it was used in definition 1. and 2. What do you make of that?

Ivo.

[Erik_Twice]

We were doing so well

In before the lock =D

[Pulsar_t]

Boring.

[J T]

While I do think piracy and stealing have separate definitions, I think there are some odd positive connotations to the word piracy related to the whole notion of pirates. People like their accents, their parrots, and their quests for booty. People don't mind being called a pirate as much as they mind being called a thief.

The trouble is that piracy likely creates more problems for the industry than theft. Theft only allows you to take away one thing that could have been sold (well maybe more than one, but only as much as you can carry). Piracy allows you to duplicate endlessly and take away many many things that could have been sold. There's more damage with piracy, but it's a cutesier word in modern parlance. I don't really mind confusing stealing with piracy for that reason.

Piracy is very easy to do, so it is very tempting. It also doesn't have a clear consequence for any one pirating event. Would that person have bought the game if they didn't pirate it? Are they only borrowing to make a purchasing decision? Did they hurt any specific person by downloading it? No one can say for certain. Any given instance of piracy is morally ambiguous, which also makes it easier to psychologically write it off as not being a major moral transgression. The ease of piracy in the digital age combined with the moral ambiguity of any specific pirating event all contributes to the global piracy problem. This makes piracy as a whole become a much bigger issue and creates much greater problems for anyone trying to profit from digital media of any kind.

[jfrost]

Piracy allows you to duplicate endlessly and take away many many things that could have been sold.

The legal problem is that duplicating doesn't mean strictly "stealing", since the original is still there. Piracy diminishes the value of the original by making it more abundant, and societies generally do not treat the value of property as property itself.

If you make a game and it is pirated online, it's fair to say that the perceived value of an official copy is lower than it would be if there wasn't piracy. It is indeed more difficult to say that there was "stealing", since the original property wasn't taken away.

The thing is that value is other people's perception, you cannot own it. If you want to sell your car for $2,000 and the word goes out that its gas tank is leaking, people won't probably pay what you initially wanted. Their perception of the value of your car has lowered, there's nothing you can do about it. You can't enforce the price you want regardless of the opinions of the potential buyers.

In my opinion that's the main reason why piracy is a grey area. You can't say that it is strictly stealing, but you also can't say with a straight face that it doesn't harm game makers.

[Limewater]

I think you at least suspect that I am right in this one

What I was saying is that your argument that piracy is not stealing because there are different laws for each is pretty worthless, as different laws also govern, for example, robbery.

Lots of different types of stealing are handled differently with regards to the law. A lot don't even fall under the specific legal definition of "theft." Bernie Madoff is in jail right now, and none of his charges are "stealing," or even "larceny."

That there are different types of stealing does not mean that pirating is a type of stealing.

I agree with this statement. However, in your previous post you were pretty much indirectly arguing that, because there are different types of stealing, pirating is not stealing. That is ridiculous. You don't even have to believe that piracy is stealing to see the fallacy in that reasoning.

Mugging, pickpocketing, burglary all are stealing and because of different aspects (e.g. mugging involves violence) they are distinguished in the law. Stealing requires the removal of the stolen good - the victim has lost property of it.

Are you a lawyer? Are we on a law forum? Lots of specific fields have specific terminology. Maybe I should start bitching at everyone if they use the term "complex" to refer to things that do not meet the mathematical definition of "complex." Or maybe I should go around telling everyone they are wrong when they use the term "bandwidth" to refer to their internet connection speed. Or argue that 640x480 is not really a "resolution" (it's not).

Being snobbish about legal terms is pretty meaningless, considering that we are not having a discussion about legality.

But stating "Piracy is stealing" is factually wrong according to the semantic definition that I think nearly everyone uses

That's not the "semantic definition that nearly everyone uses." It's a specific, legal definition that pirates have seized upon to justify claims that piracy is not stealing.

I don't really care whether people call is "stealing" or not. It's still illegal in a lot of countries and I still believe it to be morally wrong. And yes, I have done it in the past.

[darthmunky]

To me, downloading a game is like borrowing it from a friend. You don't have the physical copy of it therefore the game company did not lose any merchandise. And it's not the pirate who's bad here, it's whoever uploaded it to be downloaded by billions of people. Blame the uploaders not the downloaders. Making the game available to download is like holding a 100$ bill in front of a homeless person's face, how can they not take it?

[Flake]

The best part of a conversation about software piracy is how freaking creative software thieves are in their coming up with bullshit defenses for their actions. Who else can take an such an inane sense of entitlement and make it out to be something so innocent and noble?

[Limewater]

1. used games were purchased new before being sold used (with possible exceptions that are not significant, statistically).

Also, Ivo, if you want to be the champion of folks using words properly, I have some very bad news for you about statistical significance.

[Ivo]

Most important than this: I am not saying that piracy is not harmful, I am not saying it is a victimless crime. In fact the largest part of that post was precisely arguing that even pirating old games is not victimless!
I agree it virtually diminished the value of the other copies to some extent, for example.

A couple of points on the semantics:

Just to get this out of the way, I know a bit about statistical significance. I actually had written "have no statistical significance" and edited it to the way you read it before submitting! So while I certainly am not perfect, I try to avoid terms that can cause confusion.

I am not a lawyer, I just like to have communication that is clearer. It's bad enough without using the wrong words on purpose (you didn't understand part of my post due to my lack of clarity, perhaps a good example on how bad communication can be without being intentional).

But when people say "Piracy is stealing" what can it be other than a statement about semantics (and an incorrect one, at that)?

The "weakest" part of the paragraph was just the first sentence of that paragraph. Indeed if taken out of context, it doesn't follow. To attempt to clarify, I was NOT saying that it was different BECAUSE there are different laws, I was saying it is different and BECAUSE it is different there are for example different laws (but there are other stuff). I was not sufficiently clear though.

Ivo.