Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

The hypothetical situation Fyron has put forward is illegal under English law (and I believe under the international copyright conventions).

Whether any action would be taken by the relevant games company is another question. It would have to prove loss in order to bring any effective action.

For example, Fyron's hypothetical situation would be highly unlikely (in the UK at any rate) to result in any legal action. The most a games company would do is send you a letter saying "dont do it again". You are loaning a game to a chum, not for profit and on the understanding that it is a temporary loan only.

If you were burning the CD and selling copies, then that is obviously more serious, and the act of making the copies for profit is the piracy definition employed by the courts in the UK. Lending your copy on is illegal under the copyright laws, but it is not piracy.

So, technically, the action is illegal. Is is not piracy. Is it immoral? I personally dont think so if you can control the ability of your chum to delete the game if he doesn't like it. If you are lending it so he takes a copy, then yes, I consider that that is immoral.

Arguments please?

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Well, I was all set to type a simply wonderful reply with all sorts of colorful analagies (but Geo beat me to the punch by 2 Posts... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif ).

I think he's said it best so far. Every company spends quite a bit of time deciding the limits of their EULA, marketing, demos (and how restricted), and how best to sell the product. My Adobe Photoshop EULA is more relaxed than my Jasc Paint Shop Pro (hope I'm remembering the correct 2 apps). One allows me to have it installed in 2 places as long as they are not used at the same time. The other permits a second installation but only on a laptop. A very tiny difference. But used as an example of how detailed companies can get when deciding these things. They balance what is good for the owner of the license against potential sales (and sale losses).

In the case of SE4 (or ANY other piece of software), it's the company's decision. If they think a demo is needed, they'll make one available. If it's restrictive, that's their decision. If they wanted purchasers to act as advertisers on their behalf (and loan their game out to potential buyers), then they would have written it into the EULA.

So, you know what side of the fence I'm sitting on.

Piracy? Not piracy because a person didn't make a profit? That's BS. Piracy is defined at Dictionary.com as (paraphrasing) the unauthorized reproduction or use of copyrighted or patented material (like software piracy). Didn't say one had to make money off it.

In summary, whenever "consumers" take the position that they have the write to draw a line in the sand of copyright violation, believe me, it will be a line that favors themselves not the companies. (and they'll always find a nice twist that satisfies their moral conscience)

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anytime you are 100% postively absolutely sure about anything, so sure that you don't even want to talk about it, you are probably wrong.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Is it piracy by strict definition...yes, whether you profit or not.

But personally I see nothiing wrong with it, if the person likes the game and goes out and buys a copy, if they don't it is erased.

I cannot count how many times I wasted money on lame-*** games even after reading the reviews. I would much rather test play a game and if I like it purchase it, even if it is on another person's computer. Problem with games like SEIV is that you cannot just sit down for a few minutes to see if you like the game.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Would not demo games be available that only run for a limit? That would be better, oh yeah they make those already http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
I think honestly that is what serves the community best a limited Demo product, Piracy is more of a deliberate act of gaining funds by selling and distributing and not being the owner.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Is it morally wrong? I say emphatically Yes!!

Have I done piracy? Absolutely Yes!!

Am I proud? Absolutely NOT!!

I still don't know why I think it's okay to do... I certainly think it's wrong of me to do, I mean, heck I don't go running red lights or anything. I guess it's just so darned convenient and I let that over rule my concience. At least I've stopped trying to justify it - Microsoft may be evil and big and wealthy, but I've stopped believing that it's alright to have a pirate copy of office on my machine....

just my thoughts

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anytime you are 100% postively absolutely sure about anything, so sure that you don't even want to talk about it, you are probably wrong.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I am not saying it can't be talked about. I was a little unclear there. Sorry. Anybody is free to discuss whatever they want. But there is no need to debate whether or it's right or wrong. It simply isn't.

Geoschmo

[ July 11, 2003, 18:58: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

This was not loaning them your CD, it was copying it and giving them the copy.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Everything is a valid topic for discussion Geo. Having a bad day?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Again, everything is open for discussion.

[ July 11, 2003, 19:10: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Legally, it's wrong. Give them the demo.

Morally, when you've been used and abused by an industry, time after time, people (and especially the more commonly abused) will tend to break the rules.

I am definitely the "try before you buy" kind of person. I have supported the industry, and been *scammed* out of my money time and time again.

So I've "adapted".

If I didn't, "try before I buy" I would be suckered by advertising and gimics, and I would flat out WASTE 3/4 of my purchasing power.

The day that PC games are "rentable" is the day that a good portion of piracy will disappear. (IMHO)

Now, we also have another alternative. Fortunately, we have "Electronics Boutique" in the U.S. For the most part, you can buy anything you want there, and if it SUCKS they will take it back. You don't need a reason. This is the only "legal release" that I've been able to find, to relieve the above quandary.

--Ed

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ah, missed that. It was early.

No, no giving them a copy.

Piracy is wrong. Piracy is theft. Theft is the first sin against Almighty Capitalism (the second being vandalism and the third being devaluation of markets).

That being said I have had a good deal of pirated software on my system over the years. I don't think, offhand, I have any pirated software on my system right now. I have made a point of purchasing games I have 'borrowed' and liked (Diablo II, Homeworld, Shogun, Majesty in the past few years). There are times when you purchase a product and times when you patronize an artist, after all.

I tend to treat any piece of software as though it were governed by the 'book' model that Borland used to follow: "if it's not being use in two places at once it's okay". But you can't police that, so I don't take much advantage of this advantage I intend to take.