[QUOTE=goon165;28012357]well that's the thing, there's no money involved so this has to be observed in it's own little environment.
if I someone is giving out copies of something for free, meaning that no one is being locked out of money that doesn't exist because none of the parties involved is exchanging it for something in return thus you are not entitled to any of it because none exists. him and I and everyone else are criminal scum merely because he is stopping us from giving someone money that doesn't exist and I don't owe them for sales never happened, this is illegal?? I could be fined for retarded amounts of money or even sent to jail because of this?
(this brings a fun image to mind)
[URL="http://www.facepunch.com/"]View Image[/URL] [IMG]http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lab793ZVsF1qzr5l1o1_500.jpg[/IMG]
[URL]http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lab793ZVsF1qzr5l1o1_500.jpg[/URL]
Mini Tangent: so that law is saying is Jesus was is a criminal because he gave the people free food thus denying the potential sales of fish and potential profits from these sales by fishermen and merchants even though he stole nothing, these sales never happened, and they still have all their fish?, and the people are also criminals because they excepted this offer?.
do you have any idea ridiculas this sounds?, and no not just because were dealing with someone who was magic.[/QUOTE]
If we're going into victim-less crime territory then this will turn into a discussion about morality.
The illegal part of piracy is that you are distributing a product/or taking advantage of that distribution of a product in a way that the copyright holder. Acquiring a bunch of copies in a legal manner and distributing them for free does not fall under this category as you got all the copies of the product that are being handed out in a legal way.
When you copy a product you acquire a new copy that was created without the copyright holder's consent, this would be the copy that is illegal to knowingly receive.
The Jesus analogy doesn't work as we are talking about luxury items that fall under a copyright law, fish and bread do not fall under the category of copyright infringement, every example I have given in my posts have. If however fish and bread was something that would fall under a copyright law it would be illegal and everyone involved could be prosecuted.
[QUOTE=goon165;28011070]nBuying a used copy is essentially worse because someone makes money off it and none of that money goes to the publisher or developer and it's free of moral or legal ambiguity.
so it's completely negative because they don't get any of the extra (real) profits that the particular unit makes.[/QUOTE]
Exactly so why do people say pirating is ruining pc gamming when you have so many more people buying used games. (not to say I pirate) either way the company doesnt get money.
[QUOTE=Winslow;28012883]Full circles, full circles everywhere.
I'm done arguing with children who continually try and justify stealing by claiming they didn't take the original, they only took a copy.
"It doesn't hurt sells"
"It's not stealing"
"It's not piracy because it wasn't the final product"
Jesus fucking christ, are you guys really that stupid?
Catcha later, thieves.[/QUOTE]
yes, run away without giving a proper argument.
[QUOTE=Winslow;28012883]Full circles, full circles everywhere.
I'm done arguing with children who continually try and justify stealing by claiming they didn't take the original, they only took a copy.
"It doesn't hurt sells"
"It's not stealing"
"It's not piracy because it wasn't the final product"
Jesus fucking christ, are you guys really that stupid?
I'm out, this argument is redundent, you think it's ok, I don't.
Catcha later, thieves.[/QUOTE]
1) No one has said that
2) Its not
3) No one has said that
[QUOTE=goon165;28012894]yes, run away without giving a proper argument.[/QUOTE]
By the way, I reported one of your posts in the Crysis 2 thread for Warez. Let's see if we can get some good 'ole fashioned forum justice.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("We don't need to know you reported someone." - Pascall))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=clanratc;28012885]
If however fish and bread was something that would fall under a copyright law it would be illegal and everyone involved could be prosecuted.[/QUOTE]
This is what I was getting at, it doesn't have to be fish or bread it's just the concept that this could happen.
[QUOTE=goon165;28012939]This is what I was getting at, it doesn't have to be fish or bread it's just the concept that this could happen.[/QUOTE]
Yes but you can't copyright fish and bread under current copyright laws.
[QUOTE=Winslow;28012883]Full circles, full circles everywhere.
I'm done arguing with children who continually try and justify stealing by claiming they didn't take the original, they only took a copy.
"It doesn't hurt sells"
"It's not stealing"
"It's not piracy because it wasn't the final product"
Jesus fucking christ, are you guys really that stupid?
I'm out, this argument is redundent, you think it's ok, I don't.
Catcha later, thieves.[/QUOTE]
That's funny because I never said nor implied I pirate anything and I'm only saying that piracy and theft are two different things, not that it's okay.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;28012889]Exactly so why do people say pirating is ruining pc gamming when you have so many more people buying used games. (not to say I pirate) either way the company doesnt get money.[/QUOTE]
Because the retailers have built a fence around the developer and publisher that is completely legal and there's nothing they can do about but EA has that "code for extra content" thing going now to try and mitigate it.
[editline]12th February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Winslow;28012914]By the way, I reported one of your posts in the Crysis 2 thread for Warez. Let's see if we can get some good 'ole fashioned forum justice.[/QUOTE]
oh really, which one?
pretty sure I didn't break any rules about hinting that i had warez or where to get warez or bragged about having warez.
and for your information I didn't even download it because I can't even run Crysis one on my computer.
[QUOTE=Winslow;28012883]Full circles, full circles everywhere.
I'm done arguing with children who continually try and justify stealing by claiming they didn't take the original, they only took a copy.
"It doesn't hurt sells"
"It's not stealing"
"It's not piracy because it wasn't the final product"
Jesus fucking christ, are you guys really that stupid?
I'm out, this argument is redundent, you think it's ok, I don't.
Catcha later, thieves.[/QUOTE]
No one said it wasnt bad. But it hurts the gaming industry as much as buying used games which a lot of people do. also pirating games that you already bought on a different system also wont hurt them in anyway.
[editline]12th February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Winslow;28012914]By the way, I reported one of your posts in the Crysis 2 thread for Warez. Let's see if we can get some good 'ole fashioned forum justice.[/QUOTE]
Thats a low blow. Not hating everyone who pirates is not the same as going around telling people to pirate.
[QUOTE=Winslow;28012914]By the way, I reported one of your posts in the Crysis 2 thread for Warez. Let's see if we can get some good 'ole fashioned forum justice.[/QUOTE]
hahaha you're so butthurt
you realize you can't win an argument since your stance is flawed as fuck so instead you just try to get the person arguing against you banned, nice
[QUOTE=clanratc;28012965]Yes but you can't copyright fish and bread under current copyright laws.[/QUOTE]
as I said and agreed with you, it's just the concept that if you could that's what would have happened in that scenario and the fact that you could still apply this same reasoning for prosecution to other things that actually fall under it is completely insane.
[editline]12th February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=cccritical;28013053]hahaha you're so butthurt[/QUOTE]
I know right, so mad.
[QUOTE=goon165;28013059]as I said.
[/QUOTE]
Please explain what you mean then. You are presenting a concept about things that do not fall under a copyright law suddenly falling under such a law and that this would result in people getting prosecuted for copyright infringement.
I can't see how this is relevant as every non-luxury item can't be copyrighted in any way shape or form under current copy right laws.
For reference these are the criteria for something to be classed as intellectual property
[code]1. Part of the criteria for Intellectual Property Patents is that your Intellectual Property must not have been created by anyone else before. Intellectual Property Patents require that no one else in the country is publicly using the Intellectual Property that you have created. In order to obtain Intellectual Property Patents, it is important that the Intellectual Property has not previously been patented. So it is important that your idea is original. In order for your Intellectual Property to be qualified for an Intellectual Property Patent, the Intellectual Property also can not be on the market in any part of the country.
2. Another crucial aspect to the criteria to be able to obtain Intellectual Property Patents is that the Intellectual Property has to be unique. One of the key natures to which one can obtain an Intellectual Property Patent largely depends upon the fact that the Intellectual Property that you are proposing must be a new creation to which is not inherently obvious to the average person.
3. Part of the criteria of obtaining Intellectual Property Patents is that it must be of value. In order to obtain Intellectual Property Patents, the Intellectual Property has to be something that someone would want to use, and could potentially benefit from using.[/code]
[url=http://www.itfipvirtual.net/intellectual-property-patents.html]Source[/url]
Lets just say I'm downloading it now, that doesn't mean I'm not going to buy it when it comes out. I'll be more likely to buy it in the future now because I'll feel guilty if I don't.
might want to reword that to
[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;28013215][B]if I download it[/B] now but that doesn't mean I'm not going to buy it when it comes out. I'll be more likely to buy it in the future now because I'll feel guilty if I don't.[/QUOTE]
[editline]12th February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=clanratc;28013185]Please explain what you mean then. You are presenting a concept about things that do not fall under a copyright law suddenly falling under such a law and that this would result in people getting prosecuted for copyright infringement.
I can't see how this is relevant as every non-luxury item can't be copyrighted in any way shape or form under current copy right laws.
For reference these are the criteria for something to be classed as intellectual property
[code]1. Part of the criteria for Intellectual Property Patents is that your Intellectual Property must not have been created by anyone else before. Intellectual Property Patents require that no one else in the country is publicly using the Intellectual Property that you have created. In order to obtain Intellectual Property Patents, it is important that the Intellectual Property has not previously been patented. So it is important that your idea is original. In order for your Intellectual Property to be qualified for an Intellectual Property Patent, the Intellectual Property also can not be on the market in any part of the country.
2. Another crucial aspect to the criteria to be able to obtain Intellectual Property Patents is that the Intellectual Property has to be unique. One of the key natures to which one can obtain an Intellectual Property Patent largely depends upon the fact that the Intellectual Property that you are proposing must be a new creation to which is not inherently obvious to the average person.
3. Part of the criteria of obtaining Intellectual Property Patents is that it must be of value. In order to obtain Intellectual Property Patents, the Intellectual Property has to be something that someone would want to use, and could potentially benefit from using.[/code]
[url=http://www.itfipvirtual.net/intellectual-property-patents.html]Source[/url][/QUOTE]
sorry about that, I have a tendency to post things and then edit and expand the idea after it's already posted even though I should have done this when writing it.
read the previous post again.
[QUOTE=goon165;28013246]might want to reword that to[/QUOTE]
I don't feel that it's illegal. Warez, maybe, but there is nothing illegal about trying something out before you buy it. This is more like trying out your friend's stereo before you buy one for yourself than it is stealing (or making a copy of) his stereo.
[editline]12th February 2011[/editline]
the computer age has really brought on a need for rewritten intellectual property laws. as is there are too many grey areas.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;28013383]I don't feel that it's illegal. Warez, maybe, but there is nothing illegal about trying something out before you buy it. This is more like trying out your friend's stereo before you buy one for yourself than it is stealing (or making a copy of) his stereo.
[editline]12th February 2011[/editline]
the computer age has really brought on a need for rewritten intellectual property laws. as is there are too many grey areas.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't call it illegal it's more out of respect for an artist of not judging his work until it is finished.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;28013383]I don't feel that it's illegal. Warez, maybe, but there is nothing illegal about trying something out before you buy it. This is more like trying out your friend's stereo before you buy one for yourself than it is stealing (or making a copy of) his stereo.[/quote]
not really, If you decided not to buy it after trying your friends they [B]could[/B] sue him for denying a potential sale and therefor owe them money for the lost sale.
see how fun this is?
[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;28013383]
the computer age has really brought on a need for rewritten intellectual property laws. as is there are too many grey areas.[/QUOTE]
I agree.
[QUOTE=clanratc;28013442]I wouldn't call it illegal it's more out of respect for an artist of not judging his work until it is finished.[/QUOTE]
I figure the gameplay will be close to the final product, from what I've seen so far it's mostly just texture problems
[editline]12th February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=goon165;28013458]not really, If you decided not to buy it after trying your friends they [B]could[/B] sue him for denying a potential sale and therefor owe them money for the lost sale.[/QUOTE]
no they can't
[QUOTE=Winslow;28011485]ITT: Teenage thieves try and justify breaking the law.
"It doesn't count as piracy because it wasn't finished"[/QUOTE]
When did [b]ANYBODY[/b] say that.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;28013509]
no they can't[/QUOTE]
why not? it's essentially the same reasoning just without the copying!.
you'd be surprised what people can do with the legal system.
sure it'd probably be thrown out but they could still level it against you and take you to court.
[sp]but I'm just rambling about semantics, pay no mind.[/sp]
[QUOTE=goon165;28013059]as I said and agreed with you, it's just the concept that if you could that's what would have happened in that scenario and the fact that you could still apply this same reasoning for prosecution to other things that actually fall under it is completely insane.
[/QUOTE]
Nope, still don't get what you are trying to say. Yes it would be insane if it would apply to something that it is not meant or designed to apply for. Is that what you are trying to say?
[QUOTE=Winslow;28012883]Full circles, full circles everywhere.
I'm done arguing with children who continually try and justify stealing by claiming they didn't take the original, they only took a copy.
"It doesn't hurt sells"
"It's not stealing"
"It's not piracy because it wasn't the final product"
Jesus fucking christ, are you guys really that stupid?
I'm out, this argument is redundent, you think it's ok, I don't.
Catcha later, thieves.[/QUOTE]
You can't steal something without, you know, actually taking it. The only way you can possibly argue that companies are losing money over this is by claiming that these "thieves" would have otherwise purchased the game had they not pirated it. This is the case like .0001 percent of the time. Also, most pirates end up buying the games they've pirated so they can have access to multiplayer features, etc. You're just mindlessly attacking something for the hell of it. If you're going to argue against something, make sure your argument is intelligent enough to not harm your own cause.
[QUOTE=Winslow;28012914]By the way, I reported one of your posts in the Crysis 2 thread for Warez. Let's see if we can get some good 'ole fashioned forum justice.[/QUOTE]
I like how you claim that you're done with this thread, only to come back and embarass yourself further. How old are you?
[QUOTE=goon165;28013686]why not? it's essentially the same reasoning just without the copying!.
you'd be surprised what people can do with the legal system.
sure it'd probably be thrown out but they could still level it against you and take you to court.
[sp]but I'm just rambling about semantics, pay no mind.[/sp][/QUOTE]
No they can't because you haven't committed copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is what the corporations sue you for.
So your saying its wrong because you can get sued for it? That really doesnt have anything to do with this morally.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;28014615]So your saying its wrong because you can get sued for it? That really doesnt have anything to do with this morally.[/QUOTE]
Sorry worded it wrong. They can't sue you for anything as the friend hasn't committed copyright infringement and neither have you.
[b]Cry[/b]sis
[QUOTE=clanratc;28014164]Nope, still don't get what you are trying to say. Yes it would be insane if it would apply to something that it is not meant or designed to apply for. Is that what you are trying to say?[/QUOTE]
ok lets try this again
the fact that if you make copies of 'blank' and give them to people for free and even though nether you or anyone else made any sort of profit off of it under the reasoning of the law you are a criminal merely because you may have denied the existence of hypothetical sales and there for any hypothetical profits from those sales even though those sales may or may not have taken place anyway and anyone involved is also guilty is insane.
and it doesn't make any fucking sense that someone would be entitled to money that they would have never gotten in the first place.
it's like saying your fucking destined to pay these people your money.
this is why I took it out of context, to highlight how off the wall bonkers it is.
[editline]12th February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=clanratc;28014842]Sorry worded it wrong. They can't sue you for anything as the friend hasn't committed copyright infringement and neither have you.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I'm not sure what the fuck I was thinking when I typed that out, never mind your right you can't get sued for it.
[QUOTE=goon165;28015216]ok lets try this again
the fact that you can make copies of 'blank' and give them to people for free and even though nether you or anyone else made any sort of profit off of it under the reasoning of the law you are a criminal merely because you may have denied the existence of hypothetical sales and there for any hypothetical profits from those sales even though those sales may or may not have taken place anyway and anyone involved is also guilty is insane.
and it doesn't make any fucking sense that someone would be entitled to money that they would have never gotten in the first place.
it's like saying your fucking destined to pay these people your money.
this is why I took it out of context, to highlight how off the wall bonkers it is.
[/QUOTE]
I think you have misunderstood what piracy is in it's legal form. Piracy is NOT the denial of sales of a product as that would allow corporations to sue people for their opinions. What it is however is copyright infringement, infringement of the holders right to distribution and the means of distribution.
[quote=copyright law]
Distribution:
The distribution right grants to the copyright holder the exclusive right to make a work available to the public by sale, rental, lease, or lending. This right allows the copyright holder to prevent the distribution of unauthorized copies of a work. In addition, the right allows the copyright holder to control the first distribution of a particular authorized copy. However, the distribution right is limited by the "first sale doctrine", which states that after the first sale or distribution of a copy, the copyright holder can no longer control what happens to that copy. Thus, after a book has been purchased at a book store (the first sale of a copy), the copyright holder has no say over how that copy is further distributed. Thus, the book could be rented or resold without the permission of the copyright holder.
Congress has enacted several limitations to the first sale doctrine, including a prohibition on the rental of software and phonorecords.[/quote]
[URL="http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/scope.html"]Source[/URL]
The holder is entitled to every cent that is made from selling something, and also has the right to tell someone not to distribute other copies without authorization. Take note however that this does not apply to lending of copies as it falls under the "first sale doctrine" which states that after a copy has been sold the holder loses control over that copy.
From this you could say that piracy falls under the first sale doctrine as the original must have been purchased, but the copyright holder also has the right to reproduction and control of reproduction
[quote=copyright law]
The reproduction right is perhaps the most important right granted by the Copyright Act. Under this right, no one other than the copyright owner may make any reproductions or copies of the work. Examples of unauthorized acts which are prohibited under this right include photocopying a book, copying a computer software program, using a cartoon character on a t-shirt, and incorporating a portion of another's song into a new song.
It is not necessary that the entire original work be copied for an infringement of the reproduction right to occur. All that is necessary is that the copying be "substantial and material."[/quote]
[URL="http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/scope.html"]Source[/URL]
[QUOTE=Shocky;28001200]Honestly, I think they leaked it deliberately in order to have a go at the PC community. "Herp Derp PC gaming is ruined" excuse.[/QUOTE]
Because sinking a lot of time, money and effort into a game, and then throw it way on purpose makes sense just to make a point?
Your an idiot.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
