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..

superchunk on 12 August 2009
Gnizmo said:

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.

1. http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=46204  and other sources stated same.

I concede my example of drugs was bad as it soley has to do with patent expiration.

2. Simply replacing skins, while technically legal, would be illegal in my book. That is not what I was stating. I stated I took an idea, battleship type of game, and created a *new* game with a fully *new* experience. That is the same thing as making a new FPS alien war themed game. It may have 90% of the same features as Halo, but its not Halo.

Plus, simply reskinning it as you mentioned is still taking someone else's content without consent, i.e. theft. You didn't create a new game from ground up.

Perfect example is Scrabble. Scrabble was available on Facebook under a different name. However, it was identical to the board game version and thus got sued and removed. Another boardgame, Upwords is a scrabble like game, however, it has one major difference. You can replace the already played tiles with new tiles to make a new word. Not illegal as it is a completely new game based off of the scrabble idea.

That is my battleboat game. While inherently based on Battleship, its a whole new experience.

 

I don't get the frustration of some of you here.

Your side of the fence defined Theft already pages ago. Taking the content (iso) of a game and using it without consent fits perfectly into that definition. So its theft, plain and simple.



Around the Network
superchunk 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.

Copyright infringement, while given a different name is essentially theft by definition.

If you where reading reply's you would see that has been demonstrated many times already.

Most of the replys stem from my comment that a digital copy harms no one and thus is ok. Only a few people have argued the theft != copyright infringement, by far not the majority.



COKTOE on 12 August 2009

Piracy no es bueno. Cervesa. Por favour.



- "If you have the heart of a true winner, you can always get more pissed off than some other asshole."

Foibbles on 12 August 2009

@OP...

I could call you a fuckwitted brainwashed capitalist merely acting as a puppet to the world of buisness. What happened to the days when music and creativity were freely shared for the greater good of and enjoyment?

Who is to say which ideal is the right one?

Nobody, that's who. So you do what you do, and everyone else can do what they do. If I think software\music\game deserves my money. I buy it - after pirating it. It doesn't happen often because most of it is shit. Quality gets rewarded, I will be the person who decides what gets done with my money. Not you or some half arsed corporation who counts me stealing their song as a "lost sale".



superchunk on 12 August 2009
Foibbles said:
@OP...

I could call you a fuckwitted brainwashed capitalist merely acting as a puppet to the world of buisness. What happened to the days when music and creativity were freely shared for the greater good of and enjoyment?

Who is to say which ideal is the right one?

Nobody, that's who. So you do what you do, and everyone else can do what they do. If I think softwaremusicgame deserves my money. I buy it - after pirating it. It doesn't happen often because most of it is shit. Quality gets rewarded, I will be the person who decides what gets done with my money. Not you or some half arsed corporation who counts me stealing their song as a "lost sale".

So you think that something you created deserves no financial compensation?

If so, do you do yard work?



Around the Network
L.C.E.C. on 12 August 2009

@foibbles: I saw that coming.

Oh, and I love how you called the bible fictitious in your last post. Once again, you are trying to press your beliefs on other people, just like you are with piracy... What's morally right and what's legal is dependent on your opinion. One very big example is the American Revolution. The entire movement was illegal at the time, yet we look to it as a glorious act. You are in over your head.




superchunk on 12 August 2009
L.C.E.C. said:
@foibbles: I saw that coming.

Oh, and I love how you called the bible fictitious in your last post. Once again, you are trying to press your beliefs on other people, just like you are with piracy... What's morally right and what's legal is dependent on your opinion. One very big example is the American Revolution. The entire movement was illegal at the time, yet we look to it as a glorious act. You are in over your head.

RE: wine, Jesus and my comment. lol.

That was intended to be humorous. Just like my comment about Jesus proving pirates > ninjas. I'm Muslim and while I don't agree with 100% of biblical teachings, the basic stories of Jesus I do think happened. I never press my religious views on others. Just socio-political views.

This thread is about the fallacy in thinking piracy is not theft. Based on a pirate given definition of theft in this thread I believe I have already proven my point.

You all won't concede since it makes you feel better when you steal the game.



L.C.E.C. on 12 August 2009

So when people are in a war, why isn't it considered murder when you kill someone? Because it is dependent on the situation, and the views of the situation. During the AmRev, the Brits called us treasonous, and we called them Tyrants. It just depends on your view of the situation on whether or not it is right or wrong.




Alterego-X 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.

Apparently, rape is theft, kidnapping is theft, telling a child that there is no Santa is theft (take away the belief), you getting my phone number behind my back is theft, and taking back your own posession from thieves is theft. 



superchunk on 12 August 2009

Oh for the love of god. I understand the idea of one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

That in no way fits with this topic.

The killing someone in defense (which is war as well for each sides point of view) is not murder as it is defending your life or the life of your family.

Stealing food is along the same lines, its a grey area where most people would probably let it go as its life or death.

However, stealing software for entertainment is not anywhere near the same thing.