Current Events > Piracy advocates have the most absurd justifications for stealing.

(+) Yeah! (+)

voldothegr8 posted...

Why are you acting like the vast majority of downloads aren't readily available games?

Let's use a specific example then. Typically the most pirated GBA games are the gen 3 Pokemon titles. These titles are not sold by Nintendo physically anymore and are not on any of their digital storefronts. How is it stealing?

---

TsunamiFox posted...

Let's use a specific example then. Typically the most pirated GBA games are the gen 3 Pokemon titles. These titles are not sold by Nintendo physically anymore and are not on any of their digital storefronts. How is it stealing?

Because the IP belongs to Nintendo/The Pokemon Company, and it is their right to determine when and where their game can be purchased/downloaded.

If you circumvent their distribution decisions and download the game illegally, you are depriving them of their rights as the copyright holder. That's literally what "copyright" means. You have the exclusive right to create, license, and distribute copies.

The dictionary definition of copyright is:

"the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something (such as a literary, musical, or artistic work)"

---

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-05-17-lionhead-pre-owned-worse-than-pc-piracy

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Because the IP belongs to Nintendo/The Pokemon Company, and it is their right to determine when and where their game can be purchased/downloaded.

If you circumvent their distribution decisions and download the game illegally, you are depriving them of their rights as the copyright holder. That's literally what "copyright" means. You have the exclusive right to create, license, and distribute copies.

The dictionary definition of copyright is:

"the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something (such as a literary, musical, or artistic work)"

You have explained why it is illegal. You have not explained how it is stealing.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Because the IP belongs to Nintendo/The Pokemon Company, and it is their right to determine when and where their game can be purchased/downloaded.

If you circumvent their distribution decisions and download the game illegally, you are depriving them of their rights as the copyright holder. That's literally what "copyright" means. You have the exclusive right to create, license, and distribute copies.

The dictionary definition of copyright is:

"the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something (such as a literary, musical, or artistic work)"

Should someone spend over a thousand dollars if they want to play Panzer Dragoon Saga? A game released a quarter of a century ago that hasn't been rereleased since?

---

Companies were always gonna fire staff/shut down regardless of piracy. It does not affect their bottom line in any way.

---

DarthAragorn posted...

There's functionally no difference between pirating and buying a used copy if a game is no longer being sold. The publisher/developer don't see any benefit from it either way.

I mean this really is the point right here. IP is weird because the property only exists due to legal enforcement, there is no actual scarcity. So the entire argument for it relies on wanting some way to compensate the creators of a piece of IP. If that IP literally no longer is being sold by those creators, then that moral justification for the enforcement of IP law on that particular product no longer exists.

---

TsunamiFox posted...

You have explained why it is illegal. You have not explained how it is stealing.

You're literally taking away the creator's right to control the distribution of their product. You're receiving their creation, digitally, without a proper license attached. It's theft.

---

COVxy posted...

See, because of the way you are arguing this, it's clear you don't care about cost, or harm. You care about fairness. Other people have to pay, so pirates should as well. It's the reason you support resellers, even if their goal is often to undercut the actual people selling things (looking at you GameStop).

i do care about fairness, but not for that reason. the fairness i'm after is the fairness between the people who produce and own content and those who consume it. the folks who produce / own content have a right to dictate the terms of access to that content, and piracy is a violation of that agreement.

COVxy posted...

But this is a deeply anti-social argument. Same reasoning why each time student loan forgiveness comes up, people get angry and say things like "but I paid my student loans, so should they!".

see above, that's not my argument at all. fwiw, i've never used that as an argument against student loan repayment and i think it's childish when anyone does so.

---

ssjevot posted...

the entire argument for it relies on wanting some way to compensate the creators of a piece of IP

You say this like it's exclusively a monetary thing, when really it's a rights and management thing as well.

---

piracy is good for the company, bro. I wouldn't have bought the game anyways, and I leave good feedback

Gobstoppers12 posted...

You say this like it's exclusively a monetary thing, when really it's a rights and management thing as well.

Talking about moral justification not legal justification. Saying something is or isn't legal is unrelated to morality.

---

ssjevot posted...

Talking about moral justification not legal justification. Saying something is or isn't legal is unrelated to morality.

Morally, you're not justified in stealing somebody else's idea or depriving them of their rights as the creator, either. It's more likely to be morally in the wrong than legally in the wrong.

---

No one gives a shit about morals. Its a stupid argument and super subjective. Unless youre a saint but at that point bitching at nobodies about the morality of pirating is as bad as pirating it self.

---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

i do care about fairness, but not for that reason. the fairness i'm after is the fairness between the people who produce and own content and those who consume it. the folks who produce / own content have a right to dictate the terms of access to that content, and piracy is a violation of that agreement.

So then you think buying used from resellers like Gamestop is just as immoral as pirating, yes?

---

Would you download a car great topic thanks TC

---

COVxy posted...

So then you think buying used from resellers like Gamestop is just as immoral as pirating, yes?

negative. the person who bought the original copy of the content has fulfilled the agreement (edited wording) by purchasing the original copy. once that original purchase happens, ownership is transferred from the content owner to the purchaser.

i guess i'm basically arguing in favor of copyright law?

---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

negative. the person who bought the original copy of the content held up their end of the bargain by purchasing the original copy. once that original purchase of that physical product happens, ownership is transferred from the content owner to the purchaser.

i guess i'm basically arguing in favor of copyright law at this point?

I suppose, but resellers literally undercut the original production company/makers for their own profit. Seems like it's even more immoral than pirating, tbh. Because it's not only literally taking away sale from those who slaved thousands and hours to produce content, it's doing so to profit for themselves.

---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

negative. the person who bought the original copy of the content held up their end of the bargain by purchasing the original copy. once that original purchase of that physical product happens, ownership is transferred from the content owner to the purchaser.

i guess i'm basically arguing in favor of copyright law at this point?

This. The license is transferrable in the form of the physical disc. One disc = one license, and it can be traded as the holder sees fit. So long as they don't make a NEW copy, that license and its transfer have already been accounted for by the original purchase.

---

Imagine owning 1s and 0s

---

COVxy posted...

I suppose, but resellers literally undercut the original production company/makers for their own profit.

yup, and the content owners generally hate the resale market. that's why games started doing things like 'multiplayer passes' that were included with physical copies of the game to get some money outta people who buy second hand.

COVxy posted...

Seems like it's even more immoral than pirating, tbh. Because it's not only taking away sale from those who slaved thousands and hours to produce content, it's doing so to profit for themselves.

again, that doesn't bother me because the person who originally purchased access traded that in exchange for money. buy purchasing a physical copy of media, you own a copy and can do whatever you'd like with it and that's understood and agreed upon by all parties involved.

i think instead of framing my point as depriving content creators of compenstation, it should be more about violating the contract they've established WRT accessing their product.


---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

again, that doesn't bother me because the person who originally purchased access traded that in exchange for money. buy purchasing a physical copy of media, you own a copy and can do whatever you'd like with it and that's understood and agreed upon by all parties involved.

i think instead of framing my point as depriving content creators of compenstation, it should be more about violating the contract they've established WRT accessing their product.

Seems like a weird thing to be hung up on, tbh.

---

Supernatural posted...

Imagine owning 1s and 0s

how do you feel about the concept of 'owning an idea'? like, patents and stuff?

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Morally, you're not justified in stealing somebody else's idea or depriving them of their rights as the creator, either. It's more likely to be morally in the wrong than legally in the wrong.

I mean - here's the thing - works like games are, whether you like it or not, largely out of the hands of their creators once published. This is the basis of something like modding, and preserving titles that publishers refuse to resell is an extension of that. There is a moral argument for theft in regards to a recent release, but you are getting abstract when you bring up digital licenses for things that don't even physically exist.

You even say 1 disk equals one license, but the digitization of games effectively makes even THAT idea obsolete, increasingly so. Copyright law must adjust to the fact that the digital frontier will only expand in the ease of copying existing games and it must understand that concepts like the public domain exist for a reason; no work, of any kind, is eternal to its original maker. If they de-facto abandon it, it's not their prerogative to care what people do with abstract digital licenses. If they cared, they'd be profiting.

Like I've said, though, this really just applies to the concept of game preservation rather than new titles, which have immediate links to theft if pirated. It should absolutely never be up to the company as to whether or not a game is preserved, and beyond that, it literally isn't due to things like piracy.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

You're literally taking away the creator's right to control the distribution of their product. You're receiving their creation, digitally, without a proper license attached. It's theft.

But I haven't. They still have the right to release and distribute their product however they choose. Nothing has been stolen.

---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

how do you feel about the concept of 'owning an idea'? like, patents and stuff?

The argument doesn't even warrant a response tbh, he could have said "imagine owning atoms" to justify theft of physical goods and the argument wouldn't have been any more or less solid

---

Basically, here's something that cuts straight to the point: What good is a contract if it cannot be enforced? The fact the OP made this thread at all is a reflection of how worthless a digital contract over ownership for an infinitely copyable piece of media is. It can't even be enforced by law, only by social stigma, something that isn't workable unto itself.

While I've mostly been pointing out issues that exist for game preservation, I think this even applies to newly released works. I morally object to pirating recently released titles, but, uh, a lot of people blatantly don't give a shit and go unpunished, so where's the enforcement? I think that reflects how woefully out of date the DMCA is.

---

Zero_Destroyer posted...

Basically, here's something that cuts straight to the point: What good is a contract if it cannot be enforced? The fact the OP made this thread at all is a reflection of how worthless a digital contract over ownership for an infinitely copyable piece of media is. It can't even be enforced by law, only by social stigma, something that isn't workable unto itself.

Just seems weird to be very loyal to a "social contract" that is so baked into law that nobody is actually writing it out or agreeing to it to begin with.

Like the other dude said, if creators could write their own "contracts", they probably would pretend secondary sale as well. But they can't because it's established law.

The argument about violating social contracts falls flat because of this.

---

My only real issue with piracy is people using it as a threat against companies. So many people on Reddit react with "time to pirate!" at the smallest pettiest complaint about a game. Said problem is apparently a deal-breaker, but you're also still going to try and play it anyway? Either take a stand or admit you just want it for free. Don't try and pretend it's a noble protest thing.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Morally, you're not justified in stealing somebody else's idea or depriving them of their rights as the creator, either. It's more likely to be morally in the wrong than legally in the wrong.

Good luck convincing someone of that. As a topic on how absurd the justifications for piracy are the "you can't enjoy this product that is freely available because no one wants to sell it to you legally" that's the most absurd take yet.

---

Giblet_Enjoyer posted...

The bell curve meme is so pathetic. That subwits have the nerve to not only pretend to be better than the average, but that they have anything in common with intelligent people.

The real lesson here is that smart people don't even attempt any justification beyond "fuck 'em".

I'll play fan translations of games never officially released.

This is actually a reason why 2 of the legend of heroes games are finally getting official localizations.

But I'll get obscure SNES jRPGs and play em for free IDGAF

---

TsunamiFox posted...

They still have the right to release and distribute their product however they choose. Nothing has been stolen.

Evidently not, because you're removing that right from them by downloading their work (aka creating a new copy) through unofficial channels.

---

Here's all the "justification" you ever need:

1. Realize that it's not really legal, nor particularly moral
2. Don't care.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Evidently not, because you're removing that right from them by downloading their work (aka creating a new copy) through unofficial channels.

Except I have not removed that right from them.

---

TsunamiFox posted...

Except I have not removed that right from them.

You have. By obtaining it without the purchase of a legitimate license, you've obtained it in a way contrary to their rights.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

You have. By obtaining it without the purchase of a legitimate license, you've obtained it in a way contrary to their rights.

Like I said earlier, the license is not worth anything if it is unenforceable. If I can eschew a license with a right click paste at zero consequence, copyright law needs to change. This isn't even a pro-piracy argument, either. It's just a fact that the laws established to protect creator rights do not work, otherwise, threads like this wouldn't even exist.

It's an innate flaw of attempting to tie laws from the pre-internet age to a post-social media age.

---

SerperiorThanU posted...

Are you against the concept of public domain?

No, but that's not what's being discussed here.

---

Zero_Destroyer posted...

If I can eschew a license with a right click paste at zero consequence, copyright law needs to change

"It's fine to steal as long as stealing is easy."

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

"It's fine to steal as long as stealing is easy."

That isn't my argument at all. The moral judgment isn't even a facet of that portion of my argument - I've explicitly stated in this thread that I believe certain forms of piracy are not okay, and every justification I've made for emulation of games has been related to playability or preservation, which are accessibility issues.

The argument is that if a law cannot be enforced, then it is a worthless law. Traditional property theft is enforceable in concept and enforced in practice to success. The problem, as I've stated many times now, is that a license for digital media is too abstract compared to physical property, which is why it can't effectively be enforced.

---

SerperiorThanU posted...

once a product gets to a certain age, creators realistically stop benefitting from them and the work should ethically be able to be publicly experienced by anyone and not squeezed for cash by corporate milkers.

Isn't the timer like a hundred years on that? I think y'all are trying to cut it off at like ten years and that's way too soon.

---

Until Mother 3 hits the states, piracy is ethically justifiable and should be encouraged

---

SerperiorThanU posted...

Before Disney first lobbied to extend copyright in 1978, the maximum term was 28 years plus 28 more years if renewed.
It's currently 95 years because Disney refuses to let go of their mouse and they're so rich they're able to literally change laws.

Right, so pretty close to a hundred years, that's about what I thought.

---