No. Intellectual property is not real, so nothing is being stolen by you.
If it's a small developer, and you like the game, make sure to support them if you can. If it's a mega studio, don't feel bad about not paying anything.
That's my personal policy at least.
Intellectual property is not real?
So unless I make something physical I am not making anything real? So all my work up to the point of a plant being actually built is not real?
Doing anything on a PC or smartphone is not real.
Inventing a train of thought that cures every known desease and mental illness is simply not real - because you can't touch it. This is the equivalent of dark ages church logic.
You are being intentionally obtuse. It's not that the thing itself literally does not exist at all, it's that the ownership of ideas is not real. When you steal a physical item the original owner is deprived of that item. When you copy an idea the original "owner" still has access to it.
I find it funny you're calling him intentionally obtuse right after you seem to just simplify theivery at whether something physical is stolen. If you're basing it off of something being stolen or not, IP is used to protect the realized gains off of an idea. Yeah you aren't stealing a physical something, but you are robbing the creator of what the item is valued at. It is exactly the issue that you can't own an idea that IP is usually heavily protected. Ironically, the intention is to help new ideas(and their profiting worth) from being stolen by someone (or something ie Coporations) with better means to distribute and profit off of the idea. Otherwise, why wouldn't I just get a copy of a game, underpriced it, and sell it as cheap as I wanted? I've put no thought or labor into actualized the idea, so I have no reason to price it beyond my initial investment. It why when someone (or something) sells full rights to their IP, it can be worth millions. They don't care about the idea. They care about what the idea can provide in the future.
To draw a parallel, saying IP isn't real is like saying currency has no worth. On the surface, duh of course currency isn't actually worth anything. It's not like people can (practically) eat a dollar or make shoes out of a dollar, but we've (generally) collectively decided it's worth something. It instils confidence that when I walk into a store, my currency has a conversion rate of so many dollars per good. If thousands of people added millions of dollars into their bank accounts by just "copying" the electronic money, no one has lost money, but the value of the currency is deflated by those actions because there's nothing stopping everyone from from just adding millions to their accounts. The confidence that people will be harshly dealt with for deflating the currency like that is one of the innate things that gives currencies (and IP's) their value. Handwaving it away by saying it isn't actually real is also just being obtuse.
you are robbing the creator of what the item is valued at
If I value the item at $0 then I have robbed them of $0.
why wouldn't I just get a copy of a game, underpriced it, and sell it as cheap as I wanted?
We already do that. It is called piracy. We take it and sell it for as cheap as we want ($0).
the value of the currency is deflated by those actions because there's nothing stopping everyone from from just adding millions to their accounts
I don't care if the value of IP is deflated. I already believe it to be zero so that doesn't change anything. Ideas should be free to be shared.
And before you say something like, "then nothing new will ever get made" just remember you are on Lemmy. The developers make it because they want to, not because of the money. People can still make things without profit incentive. In fact I think the world would be a much better place if we had less creations focused on making money and were left with only creators who are driven by passion rather than profit.
If I value the item at $0 then I have robbed them of $0.
Luckily we live in reality, where thieves don't get to arbitrarily determine the values of their plunder.
You can also steal physical items and claim their value is 0. What does this have to do with IP specifically?
FOSS is made because people want it to be made and made available. People who make games and art vary between it purely wanting to be made and wanting to make a profit off of that. If you're dense enough to think saying you value something at $0 and then still enjoying it like the other people willing to support the IP, then you're an asshole.
There is a balance between what the creator is allowed to value their idea and what people are willing to pay for that idea. If they can't find a middle ground, then the transaction shouldn't occur. If you force that transaction by stealing their idea and efforts, you're being a thief. What you use to justify your actions is up to you, but you're a thief nonetheless.
If you're dense enough to think saying you value something at $0 and then still enjoying it like the other people willing to support the IP, then you're an asshole.
This isn't even a coherent sentence. But I'm assuming you mean I'm an asshole for enjoying something without paying when other people do pay? Except if I enjoy something I do pay for it. Just because I don't think people should own ideas doesn't mean I don't support creators when I enjoy something.
If you force that transaction by stealing their idea and efforts, you're being a thief. What you use to justify your actions is up to you, but you're a thief nonetheless.
And no, by law I am not a thief. A thief is someone who commits theft, and theft is "the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it." Copyright infringement does not deprive the owner of it, it is simply a copy. At least in the United States where I live copyrighted works are not considered stolen property. You can call me an asshole if you want but by definition I am no thief.
He says it is not real, so it can not be stolen. That is a pretty simple message. What am I getting wrong? He says nothing about ownership. It just does not exist. So don't tell me I am obtuse when the maximum is that the person was ambiguous.
The results of your ideas are real, the outcomes and impacts are real. The mental labor you do is valuable, but none of it is "property."
If your thoughts and ideas and concepts are property that can be stolen, then please explain how you can be deprived of them.
Thinking hard about something is labor, but it's not property, it can't possibly be property, because it lacks all of the aspects typically required to define property.
I used to think this way, then I realized physical property is not real either. Both are defined by the state, recorded on paper somewhere, and protected by force.
Just because you can actually physically go to my property does not change the fact that it is only my property because I have a deed.
I'm still not sure how to feel about IP but I'm less dismissive of it for now.
If intellectual property is not real, then why do you support the idea of paying small developers instead of large developers? Their intellectual property is just as fake as large studios, right?
I really wish pirates were more honest with themselves. Just admit that you're taking something that doesn't belong to you and own it. I pirate content all the time, but I don't do the mental gymnastics to justify it. Just admit that you stole something and that you don't care, it's not that hard. I have an old PC in my closet that has about 200 movies and a bunch of cracked games on it that I've pirated over the years, and I don't care that I stole them. The Robin Hood complex some pirates have is just weird, imo. You're not sticking it to The Man; The Man is still bankrolling more per week than the team who made the content you stole is making in a year, regardless of your seed ratio.
By the way, large studios also have developers who rely on their jobs to put food on the table, just like the small studios. If you think anybody at EA aside from the C-Suite execs are significantly richer than the average indie dev, you'd be mistaken. Next time you're playing a pirated AAA game, look at your character; the guy who spent several weeks of his life sculpting and rigging that model is probably just as concerned about paying his rent on time as you are.
By the way, this isn't entirely directed at you, specifically. Just my thoughts on the general attitude I see in a lot of piracy communities lately.
It's not mental gymnastics. Why is it so hard to believe that people genuinely don't believe in intellectual property? It has nothing to do with "sticking it to the man." I just do not believe in IP, full stop.
And piracy is not stealing, it is making a copy. When you steal a physical item the original owner is deprived of that item. When you copy something the original "owner" still has access to it.
Not everyone thinks the same way you do. In fact you sound like a terrible person if you genuinely believe that what you're doing is wrong but you're doing it anyway.
You can also believe in Santa, how does it matter, to the whole society, what you believe?
Just admit that you stole something and that you don't care, it's not that hard.
You are not wrong, but maybe just a bit of perspective:
In my city, you can go to the public library, borrow a DVD, take it home, watch it. 100% legal. 100% free. No library membership fees. And they have multiple copies of most DVDs, so it's not like it's some lottery to use the service.
It feels a lot like downloading a movie without paying anyone to watch it. The only difference is you gotta go outside. Oh, and no guilt tripping.
Anyway, what's my point? Well piracy is only illegal because some people (not everyone) decided that everyone is going to pay an equal, but not necessarily an equitable, share to fund the development of said IP (unless you have a library in your area to counter this, partially). Worse, that everyone will keep paying a very small group of people money we'll after the development of said IP has been paid off. Even worse, that small group of people will use their profits to corrupt the legal system to ensure that that protectionism continues to serve their benefit, not others... Point being, you can pirate, and care... care a lot.
Victims are created when piracy affects small production houses struggling to make ends meet. Victims are created of everyone else when the law is abused beyond it's original purpose to squeeze consumers.
So you too should be honest and not call it theft. Piracy is piracy, good or bad. To compare it to the crime of theft is to perpetuate the marketing of those to stand from a black and white view on the matter.
The only difference is you gotta go outside.
No, the difference is that you're expected to return it. You're not supposed to keep it forever. That's why there's a "due by" date on checked-out materials.
It is theft, but the argument is better framed as to whether or not it's moral theft. Most people who pirate feel comfortable pirating from larger corporations over small time creators/groups, with the usual justifications you've provided above. Personally, I've justified it at times because I couldn't afford to purchase the thing, which leads to another argument of "if I wasn't going to buy it in the first place, is it actually effecting them".
There is no argument to be made, however, where it isn't true that if you were to have purchased it, the owner of the idea will make more off of it. Whether you care or not about that owner getting more is a different argument, but you are robbing them of value for the idea, however little that value might have been.
I'm not arguing for or against pirating, but people in the comments saying it isn't theivery really seem to be arguing whether stealing is wrong or not. Call it what it is and go back to the argument people have been having for thousands of years.
Which, I realize I didn't address libraries. Taxes pay for libraries to operate, and then the library pays to have copies of the works. If no one wants to read my book, libraries aren't going to just go out and buy thousands of copies. And trying to tackle libraries would also start to erode arguments for reselling something. And to bring it back to the OP, I've read books in a library before that I enjoyed enough to purchase a copy of my own. I've also read books I haven't. But someone purchased that book for me to rent, and in a small part, I've paid for that book myself by paying taxes.
Your ethics are on point.
For the people discussing here: remember that the morality of an act depends on the act itself, the context where it happens, and the moral premises. It does not depend on how you phrase or label the act.
With that in mind: since I define arseholery as "actions or behaviour that cause more harm to someone else than they benefit the agent", and there's practically no harm being caused by OP's actions, I do not think that OP is being an arsehole.
It's a victimless "crime". Especially since OP is saying they will go on to buy games they like.
Nope. What you’ve highlighted is the need for more game devs to create free demos so people can try the games before they buy them.
If you download a game, find you really like it, and then buy it, you’re not harming anyone nor are you withholding funds from artists.
Does anyone else remember bringing home free trials on floppy disks? Like you get the first level of Wolfenstein or Commander Keen and you just play that over and over because you don't have any money.
A bit before my manufacture date but as a kid there used to be CD ROMs in cereal boxes which had games like Tonka, Hot Wheels, Timon and Pumba, Rainbow Fish, etc. Those were hype.
No, not at all. Games used to have demos and trial versions, like basically all games, but game studios used to have to actually finish making a game before they shipped it. Trying before you bought was the business model of the whole industry. Now so many games are shipped in such bad condition they wouldn't dare let you try it first. Trying before you buy is just prudent, as long as you actually buy the ones you like enough to play through.
Used to do that for decades. Nowadays with steam i just return the game.
I don't trust the refund policy. If they have a so called refund policy why not force every published to add a 1-2 hour free trial instead? We should be able to try games and evaluate before the money leaves our pockets.
Try it, steam makes it so easy to refund stuff assuming you played less than couple hours and bought it fairly recently. And forcing companies to make trials isn't as easy as you think. Some indie games still have trial versions but those are pretty much impossible to find in AAA titles as they obviously want people to just buy them and play past the return window.
Edit: Also on your post, who cares? Lot of companies certainly don't have morals and do whatever they can to milk their users. If you don't wanna pay for it then don't, its better than not playing anyway. Buy something if you can afford to and wanna support the studio, especially indie studios who rely on that income to produce more games and the money actually go to the people who deserve it. I personally just grab a bunch of stuff on sale and play one when I feel like it, although a lot of them remains untouched to this date.
Tldr: don't overthink it, do whatever works for you
Because the "default path" is different, a free trial would have way less conversion than the current system.
With a free trial you have to take an action to buy it. With a refund you have to take an action to be refunded.
Or they could do it like SaaS, where you're automatically charged at the end of the trial unless you decide to cancel before... But that's a bit convoluted and it wouldn't bring much compared to the current system.
Personally unless it's a dirt cheap game I do enough research before buying and I rarely have to refund. But I definitely refund if the game is not at the level of quality that I expected.
I pirated more in the past than I do now. Big difference is that I can now afford it to pay for games.
Currently I'm more a retro games pirate. Older games are pretty much harmless to pirate.
You pirate with the intention to buy. IMO you're one of the best possible pirates. A lot of people might never purchase a game unless it's really necessary for online play or something.
I love supporting good games and awesome studios. What I don't like it getting screwed because screenshots and trailers look cool and they game turn out to be shit and still cost me $50.
Nope. Ive been burned on several games (back 4 blood anyone?) And tired of losing. Maybe the game isn't for me, maybe it won't run on my system. I have several games I bought after trying them from torrents: rimworld, farcey series, fallout 4 (love/own 3 and NV, needed to test 4). Several games that I really like I've bought a second copy for a shared account so my kid can play them also.
Nothing wrong with trying before you buy in my opinion. My library is full of games I r never installed. :(
Nah that's essentially the same as buying and refunding. If you can't afford a purchase it's perfectly fine.
Nope
Genuine question, is enaulating older systems, with ROMs/ISOs you get off the Internet, considered piracy? No current systems, only older ones. Newest one is PS3. Is this piracy?
Edit: ok, thank you, everyone. I emulate very old games because it's a nostalgia thing. Games I played when I was very young and I wanted to play them again. I don't emulate anything new as I have a huge collection of physical copies of games I played on newer systems like the PS4.
It is supposed to be, technically. IIRC, you're supposed to copy your own stuff - such as BIOS and ISOs - rather than download others, which is why things like PCSX2 doesn't natively come with a BIOS.
Technically yes. But if the games are no longer even being sold I'd argue that it's perfectly fine to do it anyway.
Yes it's piracy. And it's likely illegal depending on your country. But I don't think it's unethical.
I'm the firm believer of piracy is a service issue. Lot of time that piracy is rampant, it's almost always due to accessibility issue, mainly cost in country with weaker currency. A $60 game will cost me about 15 days of food, that's inaccessible for a lot of people in my country and frankly hard to justify, and if there's not even an option for localisation of the price, whether people pirate or not, they basically leaving money on the table.
Steam used to be cool because everyone follow the sane pricing suggestion, but nowadays publisher decided to earn less money by charging more for their mediocre game, and then blame piracy for the lackluster earning.
I don't pirate myself, i have very less time to game nowadays, but i don't think piracy is an ass move, especially when cracked version run better than paid version due to stupid drm.
Yes you are an "asshole" for stealing but also fuck these companies are so shit you shouldn't care.
In a pure ethical debate its wrong but on a practical level I think its fine. Steam has a 2hr no questions asked refund policy which I feel is reasonable and so I don't pirate unless I want to play a game and not compensate the people who made it.
Not at all
Sub for any gaming related content!
Rules: