Yes, you are wrong. You are the epitome of wrong. You are the embodiment of wrong. If there was a picture of "wrong" in the dictionary, it would be a picture of you. You give meaning to the word wrong. If wrong was a country, you would be its king. Wrong is what you are. You are the opposite of right. On the one handside, there is right, on the other, there is you. You couldn't possibly be any farther away from right. Right is what you are not. For you are wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. Repeat after me: Wrong. Completely, totally, utterly 100% wrong.

Now that this is out of the way, I would like to add that you are also ignorant. You have locked your mind into a bubble that seperates it from reality. Reality is the world that surrounds you and which your refuse to let in, ignorance is what you have in your head and what you desperately cling to.

Good day to you.

You're fighting over technicalities.  Yes, vlad/Khuutra is right in one aspect:  Copying a game is not stealing it.  If you took it out of the store without paying then you'd be stealing it.  However, copying it is still breaking a law designed to give authors the ability to keep their works under their control and distribute it as they see fit.  Violation of copyright is still breaking a law, so it is still wrong.

A thief is someone who takes someone else's property without the person's freely given consent. You can take someone else's intellectual property rights away from them, not have stolen the actual property, and still be considered a thief.  So in this regard, Calmador is correct in saying pirates are thieves.

One other technicality:  You don't "copyright" an idea.  You can only copyright an actual work (like something written, or a work of art).  You patent ideas.  Patenting is much more expensive ($5000 instead of a $35 cost to register a copyright).  Patents prevent someone else from "coming up with their own idea" that just happens to match yours.  It's a matter of who gets it patented first, regardless of who came up with the idea first.  There is a strict standard for it, one that I think the US Patent and Trademark office has become way too lax on when it comes to software patents, as design patents are granted for obvious things now and they shouldn't be.  But that's another thread. 

The difference between morals and legality is that morals are individual interpretations of right or wrong. They'll never stand up in court purely because of situational qualities that are not fully understood by those with such morals. Hence, why the legal system is there.

Now, allow me to totally destroy your stance here. Say that I make a copy of a game for my friend, who had a copy of the game at one stage and his disc was destroyed. By your logic and morals, that's an illegal thing to do. However, legally it is perfectly fine. Why? Because when you buy a game, you do not actually buy it. You cannot own a game, unless you're the publisher. What is compromised in acts of piracy is the end user license purchased to play that game.

The act of physically copying the game is not a crime. There's a reason why it's not called stealing. If you drive a car unlicensed, you're not stealing the roads.

The end user license gives the user the right to circumvent copyright for themselves only. Therefore, if you play the game without a license, it's regarded as copyright theft, and not stealing. It's the same background as agreements with patent holders in order to use their property. Does this mean that Sony "stole" the Dualshock technology when it violated Immersion's patent?

Buddy, your bring in a special situation AND then you tell me the law is A okay with it... anyways I'm not talking about special circumstances, why bring it up? I'm talking about the act of somoene who hasn't bought a game and then downloads it off, whatever means. That being said, assuming what you said is true, I think it's great that the law allows someone to get a digital copy after his/her disc has been destroyed. Now that's progressive and putting technology to use. Because someone bought it and now that someone doesn't have to worry about losing his/her product so easily. Wonderful for those who purchase thier products, WHY NOT? Now onto the real topic...

Again I'm not talking about special circumstances I'm talking about a person who didn't pay for his/her product and then gets the product without paying. The product is the game which is in the form of information. So in short you think if someone gets 100% of a game which is the information/digital part of it, be it from a friend or anywhere else via some torrent site, from the developers themeselves, a friend or any other way, it's not stealing? Just because the physical disc wasn't taken (which isn't even the game), that costs cents, doesn't mean a person hasn't stolen anything. Copying is just a different way of stealing, a sneakier and easier way. The physical part of a game again is worth cents... the game itself is the information/digital part.

Products that are made up of information/digital ... are information/digital and the information/digital part of the product IS the product.

We can argue about what it means to steal, to me it's point blank obvious. But the bottom line is that it's wrong. It's in my opinion that it IS stealing. Because comparing digital/informational theft to physical theft is ridiculous. In physical theft, you go in, take something and that object is gone. Online... people copy and paste essays (plagiarism), people download music off torrent sites.. people download video games... and the information doesn't necessarily dissappear so the products don't HAVE to dissappear to be stolen... so people can still get that information/product and not pay a dime. Just another way to steal products made up of information[period] There are no grey areas, the disc isn't even the game, it only carries the game, the information/digital part IS the game.

It's theft.

This thread is full of illogical logic and failure.

This. People should just understand that protecting users' right on what they bought doesn't by any means remove the rights Sony and other companies have on their own networks and their right to protect their IP suing pirates. Actually Sony's rights on its own network are based on the same principles that give users rights on the HW they bought, as long as they don't use it against others' rights. Even if Sony loses against GeoHot, it doesn't lose the right to kick modded consoles out of its network, if some people are worried about this, they shouldn't.

The problem with your analogy is that you state that copying is theft, yet you have to concede and make exceptions at every twist and turn. This is why game developers treat games more like patents, and not as sellable assets. It's incredibly difficult to claim ownerhip of digital bits when they can be created at any time.

Once again, morals are just that, opinions on how laws should be,  but the law is the final answer to such an argument. As such, you can never be charged with theft for copying digital material.

For any interested in the case here is an article from arstechnica about the case and what has gone on. It specificaly talks about if he had a PSN acount and the whole SCEA thing.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/03/sony-v-hotz-mismatched-serial-numbers-and-sealed-manuals.ars

Here is a rundown of all the court filing so far from groklaw.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110327185437805

The problem isn't with my analogy or whatever I'm saying. The problem is with you taking me out of context. When I use the word copy I meant it within the context about what were talking about which is piracy. Like I said earlier yes making a backup copy of your game is fine. Yes the special situation you mention copying is fine too... but it can immoral in piracy which also involves copying too, THAT is what I'm talking about. I didn't think it would be a problem but I'll try to use the word piracy instead of copying since it is a vague word and if I do use copying please be understanding about it and understand I mean it within context.

No it isn't incredibly difficult to claim ownership of digital bits, but you try to paint a picture where it is. It's simple, you buy it, you get a receipt. There you now have easy claim of digital bits because of a receipt. It's not incredibly hard, it can be if you lose the receipt and you don't have anyone to testify your purchase but that's all we can go by and it's not incredibly hard.

Yes they can be created at anytime, that has nothing to do with how difficult it is to claim that you purchased a copy of digital bits for use. For example, I can also say that it's incrediblly difficult to claim ownership of pots... because they can be created anytime...I don't know where you were going with that but it doesn't make sense.

I can't help but think that your throwing in the towl, by trying to take the conversation to the law. The law is most definitely NOT the final answer because the law can be corrupted. I personally believe only God can have the final say on morals because it would take God to define morals and give true judgement. Who can judge you unless they know absolutely everything about you, even your thoughts? God, but that's me. I understand you may not accept with my God stand but I definitely don't think the law can be the final say because of corruption which history can easily show. That being said I am not saying we can act above the law, I think it's good and moral to respect the law even if it they were unjust to you (not necassarly in general) BUT that's another can of worms. Just clearing it up that I'm not promoting acting out of the law unless of course God himself said so, otherwise respect the government even though it is not perfect.

We'll leave it at that, from what I've heard here from you and from the other guy, I don't think there is any reason to think that piracy is not a form of theft. Plagiarism is widely accepted as theft... while the original copy is intact. Of course more clever plagiarizers don't copy exact dupilicates but that's a petty difference between the comparison. I don't understand why anyone wouldn't think piracy isn't theft, like plagairism.

It's not theft, stealing or any other word that you've chose to define.  It doesn't fit the definition of the word.  It's called copyright infringement and as it's own laws governing it as such.  Secondly it doesn't matter what the word is or isn't, Geohotz isn't being sued for piracy, that much has been made quite clear.

For the record the below is taken from wiki of all places but you can look up the actual cases for proof yourself:

Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as "theft". In law copyright infringement does not refer to actual theft, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization.^[5] Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property and that "...interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright... 'an infringer of the copyright.'" In the case of copyright infringement the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law is invaded, i.e. exclusive rights, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights held.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement

Have a nice day