By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales - Piracy not theft because its a copy..

Kasz216 on 12 August 2009
superchunk said:
Kasz216 said:
 

Yeah.  I'm not a pirate.  I'm just pointing out the ridiculious fallacies in your arguement.

It's not illegal to copy just about anything.

You ignored my art gallery thing... probably because you know it had you dead to rights. 

You can copy all the paintings you want and it's legal.

Hell its even legal to make copies of games if you do everything yourself.  That's why most EULA's prohibit backengineering.  Because it's not actually illegal if they don't and people could make all the WOW servers and stuff they want.

It's only illegal because it's easy.  It's that obvious. 

It's actually not illegal for me to copy corvina wine.  If i know their recipie and were to make it.  That would actually NOT BE ILLEGAL.

The only thing that would make it illegal would be if i sold it as Corvina wine.

note.  Sold.

Pepsi recently had the oppurtunity to buy the Coke secret formula.  Had they done so only the person who sold it would of been the criminal and Pepsi could of made all the "Pepsi Classic" or whatever they wanted to.

All they couldn't do is sell it as "Coca-cola." or "Coke."


They could make Coca-cola and give it away all they wanted for free and it wouldn't matter.  The only reason it would be illegal is the name. 

Copying content is theft.

Companies like Coke and Pepsi have their formulas protected just like software. If Pepsi put out a drink that was identical to Coke, coke would sue them for copyright infringement.

Its the same with medicine. Tylenol and Walmart branded stuff are not identical. They share the same 'active ingredients' but walmart doesn't get sued because the actual formulas are different.

Finally, regardless of the actual legal mumbo jumbo, the simple definition on theft stands. You are acquiring content that you did not create (like your own drawing of the Mona Lisa) and you do not have consent to use, that fits the definition of theft defined by a pirate pages ago.

If you recreate the game with different names, as I have done for Battleship and other classic games early in school, then that is legal. But, to copy someone's content without consent is, by definition, theft.

 

How is battleship with a different name different from coke with a different name?

The fact that you can't see it's EXACTLY the same is ridiculious.

You recreated Batlteship without paying for it.

You sir are a theif.



Around the Network
superchunk on 12 August 2009
Kasz216 said:
superchunk said:
Kasz216 said:
 

Yeah.  I'm not a pirate.  I'm just pointing out the ridiculious fallacies in your arguement.

It's not illegal to copy just about anything.

You ignored my art gallery thing... probably because you know it had you dead to rights. 

You can copy all the paintings you want and it's legal.

Hell its even legal to make copies of games if you do everything yourself.  That's why most EULA's prohibit backengineering.  Because it's not actually illegal if they don't and people could make all the WOW servers and stuff they want.

It's only illegal because it's easy.  It's that obvious. 

It's actually not illegal for me to copy corvina wine.  If i know their recipie and were to make it.  That would actually NOT BE ILLEGAL.

The only thing that would make it illegal would be if i sold it as Corvina wine.

note.  Sold.

Pepsi recently had the oppurtunity to buy the Coke secret formula.  Had they done so only the person who sold it would of been the criminal and Pepsi could of made all the "Pepsi Classic" or whatever they wanted to.

All they couldn't do is sell it as "Coca-cola." or "Coke."


They could make Coca-cola and give it away all they wanted for free and it wouldn't matter.  The only reason it would be illegal is the name. 

Copying content is theft.

Companies like Coke and Pepsi have their formulas protected just like software. If Pepsi put out a drink that was identical to Coke, coke would sue them for copyright infringement.

Its the same with medicine. Tylenol and Walmart branded stuff are not identical. They share the same 'active ingredients' but walmart doesn't get sued because the actual formulas are different.

Finally, regardless of the actual legal mumbo jumbo, the simple definition on theft stands. You are acquiring content that you did not create (like your own drawing of the Mona Lisa) and you do not have consent to use, that fits the definition of theft defined by a pirate pages ago.

If you recreate the game with different names, as I have done for Battleship and other classic games early in school, then that is legal. But, to copy someone's content without consent is, by definition, theft.

 

How is battleship with a different name different from coke with a different name?

Battleship with a different name is a version I created ground. It does not use "Battleship" logo, images, or anything beyond the idea of placing ships and picking targets. Plus, it had a lot of personal additions like animations, voice overs, etc.

Coke with a different name would be coke's actual formula to create the product.

See the difference?

If I had literally copied Milton-Bradley's code to create my battleboat game, that would be theft. However, I created a wholy new gaming experience off of an idea for a game.

Same as painting your own Mona Lisa and selling it is legal (since you created it from scratch) but, making a perfect copy of it with technology and selling it without the consent of the original properties owner would be illegal, theft.



Gnizmo on 12 August 2009

superchunk said:

Copying content is theft.

Companies like Coke and Pepsi have their formulas protected just like software. If Pepsi put out a drink that was identical to Coke, coke would sue them for copyright infringement.

Its the same with medicine. Tylenol and Walmart branded stuff are not identical. They share the same 'active ingredients' but walmart doesn't get sued because the actual formulas are different.

Finally, regardless of the actual legal mumbo jumbo, the simple definition on theft stands. You are acquiring content that you did not create (like your own drawing of the Mona Lisa) and you do not have consent to use, that fits the definition of theft defined by a pirate pages ago.

If you recreate the game with different names, as I have done for Battleship and other classic games early in school, then that is legal. But, to copy someone's content without consent is, by definition, theft.

 

You are wrong on the drug information. The formulas are identical. The patent for a certain chemical only lasts so long, and Acetomeniphine, Ibuprofen, and Naproxen all had theirs run out long ago. This is similar to how Aspirin is used as a generic name in the US but was originally a trademark of Bayer. Other products, like Bleach, are forced to be identical despite the different brand names attached to them. This is also why not all drugs have a generic avialable for them. If it is still legally protected then companies can continue to ream you on the price.

Furthermore you commited the exact crime you are crying foul over now. People have done nothing more than copy the rules and look of a retail game and released it for free to a population of people. This is done on a much grander scale over the internet, but the principle is the same. Hopefully going through life with only one hand from now on won't be too hard on you.



Starcraft 2 ID: Gnizmo 229

superchunk on 12 August 2009
Gnizmo said:

superchunk said:

Copying content is theft.

Companies like Coke and Pepsi have their formulas protected just like software. If Pepsi put out a drink that was identical to Coke, coke would sue them for copyright infringement.

Its the same with medicine. Tylenol and Walmart branded stuff are not identical. They share the same 'active ingredients' but walmart doesn't get sued because the actual formulas are different.

Finally, regardless of the actual legal mumbo jumbo, the simple definition on theft stands. You are acquiring content that you did not create (like your own drawing of the Mona Lisa) and you do not have consent to use, that fits the definition of theft defined by a pirate pages ago.

If you recreate the game with different names, as I have done for Battleship and other classic games early in school, then that is legal. But, to copy someone's content without consent is, by definition, theft.

 

You are wrong on the drug information. The formulas are identical. The patent for a certain chemical only lasts so long, and Acetomeniphine, Ibuprofen, and Naproxen all had theirs run out long ago. This is similar to how Aspirin is used as a generic name in the US but was originally a trademark of Bayer. Other products, like Bleach, are forced to be identical despite the different brand names attached to them. This is also why not all drugs have a generic avialable for them. If it is still legally protected then companies can continue to ream you on the price.

Furthermore you commited the exact crime you are crying foul over now. People have done nothing more than copy the rules and look of a retail game and released it for free to a population of people. This is done on a much grander scale over the internet, but the principle is the same. Hopefully going through life with only one hand from now on won't be too hard on you.

1. I'm not wrong. Pfizer puts out a brand new drug. A week later some generic company makes the generic version. That is WAY before the patent runs out, its legal because they actually different formulas to get the similar result. That's how the industry works and why Pfizer will actually pay doctors to prescribe their drug and advertise etc to try to ensure people don't get the generic.

EDIT: My time frame of 'week' is an exageration. It takes time to figure out Pfizer's forumal, modify it, test, and create. That is the delay from Pfizer's launch and generic launch.

2. My battleboat example is not a copy of battleship software game. Just as The Conduit is not a copy of Halo or Perfect Dark. Are they very similar? yes. Do they follow the same basic premise? yes. Are they the same game. No. As I stated I, like every developer out there for the most part, took and idea from an earlier work and created a new experience from that.



Crashdown77 on 12 August 2009

So when an identity theif applies for a loan in someone else's name, they're not really stealing from anyone, becuase they are just making a copy of that person's identity and using it?



Around the Network
superchunk on 12 August 2009

@Crashdown, while I like your line of thinking, that is easily refuted as it actually directly affects and harms the original person's credit.

Their argument is that copying the content does no harm.

Either way both are theft as you're taking something you have no consent to have.



Crashdown77 on 12 August 2009
superchunk said:
@Crashdown, while I like your line of thinking, that is easily refuted as it actually directly affects and harms the original person's credit.

Their argument is that copying the content does no harm.

Either way both are theft as you're taking something you have no consent to have.

Eh, you're probably right. Nonetheless, I think the analogy could be taken by someone with a greater legal mind than myself, and run with as part of their total argument package.

Gnizmo on 12 August 2009

superchunk said:

1. I'm not wrong. Pfizer puts out a brand new drug. A week later some generic company makes the generic version. That is WAY before the patent runs out, its legal because they actually different formulas to get the similar result. That's how the industry works and why Pfizer will actually pay doctors to prescribe their drug and advertise etc to try to ensure people don't get the generic.

EDIT: My time frame of 'week' is an exageration. It takes time to figure out Pfizer's forumal, modify it, test, and create. That is the delay from Pfizer's launch and generic launch.

2. My battleboat example is not a copy of battleship software game. Just as The Conduit is not a copy of Halo or Perfect Dark. Are they very similar? yes. Do they follow the same basic premise? yes. Are they the same game. No. As I stated I, like every developer out there for the most part, took and idea from an earlier work and created a new experience from that.

I guarantee you that is not the case at all. Lyrica has a well known formula and has no generic as an example off the top of my head. You will also see new drugs coming out from Pfizer for the same conditions/disease at remarkably similar times. It is also completely illogical for a drug company to pay doctors to push their brand name on consumers. The pharmacy can substitute a generic for a brand name because they are identical. The reason you see lag time vary os because it is based on how long the drug has existed and not how long it has been advertised and used on the market. You really don't know what you are talking about on this one. I recommend you concede the point before I make you look sillier.

So if I were to replace all the skins in a game to the ones from a freeware game, and call it a different name plus or minus some tweaks to gravity the piracy suddenly becomes ok? That seems like a weird line to draw, but thats the way you are drawing it. The original rule set was pulled from Milton-Bradley's game, and the rules were as well. This is equivalent to using someone else's code. You have "stolen" the idea.

You still have yet to explain how anything can be stolen without tangible loss though. I suspect you ignore the point because you can't counter it.



Starcraft 2 ID: Gnizmo 229

Gnizmo on 12 August 2009
superchunk said:
@Crashdown, while I like your line of thinking, that is easily refuted as it actually directly affects and harms the original person's credit.

Their argument is that copying the content does no harm.

Either way both are theft as you're taking something you have no consent to have.

Total bullshit, and if you were actually reading the replies you would know this. The argument is nothing of the sort. It is that theft and copyright infringement are fundamentally different. If you haven't even got the basics of the counter-argument down then you are clearly just throwing out rhetoric in hopes that everyone else gives up and thus you are "proven" right. I like to call this the Crazzyman strategy.



Starcraft 2 ID: Gnizmo 229

L.C.E.C. on 12 August 2009
Gnizmo said:
superchunk said:
@Crashdown, while I like your line of thinking, that is easily refuted as it actually directly affects and harms the original person's credit.

Their argument is that copying the content does no harm.

Either way both are theft as you're taking something you have no consent to have.

Total bullshit, and if you were actually reading the replies you would know this. The argument is nothing of the sort. It is that theft and copyright infringement are fundamentally different. If you haven't even got the basics of the counter-argument down then you are clearly just throwing out rhetoric in hopes that everyone else gives up and thus you are "proven" right. I like to call this the Crazzyman strategy.

And we all know how Crazzyman's strategies work out:

http://n.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?id=2214621