If buying isn't owning, then piracy isn't stealing

No, seriously, I don't understand why video games company being so fucking greedy
If company want to be disrespectful, then we can do this piracy
long live captain oraa
pirate-spongebob.gif


i'm searching a news about nintendo/sony sued someone in china with piracy, i don't find any so i guess china is powerfull than nintendo thus can mass produce retro emulator based on nintendo / sony model

look at ayaneo it similar to psvita thus capable running nintendo switch
 
feel betrayed do ya?
i feel that too on 2014 when sony and xbox used it pricing to play online with the game i already bought

when in steam i don't get any charges to play it online
 
Last edited:
Even when games were physical you basically were buying the licence to legally use said program,the support itself is just a tool to use them.

Piracy is merely meaning you're using any program without their respective licenses and is stealing in the intellectual property sense of the word rather than the physical one (like using a patent without authorisation).

It's more of a victimless crime as well.
 
I think this quote is too often taken out of context.

The whole "If buying isn't owning, then piracy isn't stealing" is flawed because you still technically own the product's license but not the physical/content of the product.

Yes, it does suck that you don't own every files of said product but when you buy you have a tacit agreement with the company providing it to you.

Piracy is the act of using a product without getting the licence (yes, even if you borrow or lend a game to a friend you're technically crossing the line as you didn't get it, only the support but it was tolerated).

While I won't defend a company's action or the latest trends like GaaS or Cloud Gaming I still am consciously aware that, by downloading even a 25+ years old video game, I'm technically stealing it (not the cartridge, the CD nor the folder containing the data but the intellectual property).
 
Even when games were physical you basically were buying the licence to legally use said program,the support itself is just a tool to use them.

Maybe theoretically, but practically you owned a piece of plastic casing and a silicone chip with a copy of the game data on it. No one could take it away from you. Or a plastic disc with a copy of the data. The end user agreement just served to clarify that they were selling a license to use the data and not ownership of the data itself.

Now through digital licenses they reserve the right to take away the license to the game when before they didn't have such an option.
 
While I agree with the sentiment. I'm not particularly fond of the phrases "If buying isn't owning, then piracy isn't stealing." Or the similar phrase "You can't steal what you can't buy." Because it weakens the argument for piracy by being illogical.

Firstly, if buying isn't owning means that piracy isn't stealing. Then it stands to reason that if buying was owning, then piracy would be stealing. Except piracy is never stealing (at least not in the traditional sense). Since stealing would imply removing the original. Piracy makes a copy. It's closer to stealing the same way as stealing someone's idea. It's a completely different concept to what most people think of when stealing is mentioned.

Secondly, you totally can steal things that you can't buy. As an example, I can't buy the crown jewels, but I certainly can steal them. I can't buy the books from a library, but I can definitely steal them. And there's plenty of other examples, such as the government can steal land when they can't buy it, and so and so forth.

So as someone who promotes piracy, I'm against those phrases simply because under scrutiny, they make piracy sound like a philosophy that doesn't stand up to reason. While in actuality, it does.

But like I said, I agree with the sentiment behind it. ::thumbsupwario
 
While I agree with the sentiment. I'm not particularly fond of the phrases "If buying isn't owning, then piracy isn't stealing." Or the similar phrase "You can't steal what you can't buy." Because it weakens the argument for piracy by being illogical.

Firstly, if buying isn't owning means that piracy isn't stealing. Then it stands to reason that if buying was owning, then piracy would be stealing. Except piracy is never stealing (at least not in the traditional sense). Since stealing would imply removing the original. Piracy makes a copy. It's closer to stealing the same way as stealing someone's idea. It's a completely different concept to what most people think of when stealing is mentioned.

Secondly, you totally can steal things that you can't buy. As an example, I can't buy the crown jewels, but I certainly can steal them. I can't buy the books from a library, but I can definitely steal them. And there's plenty of other examples, such as the government can steal land when they can't buy it, and so and so forth.

So as someone who promotes piracy, I'm against those phrases simply because under scrutiny, they make piracy sound like a philosophy that doesn't stand up to reason. While in actuality, it does.

But like I said, I agree with the sentiment behind it. ::thumbsupwario

I generally prefer a different truism.

"When companies make it inconvenient to purchase games, piracy becomes a necessity"
 
I generally prefer a different truism.

"When companies make it inconvenient to purchase games, piracy becomes a necessity"
This. There is also the other truism about Capitalism: Customers are not obligated to buy from you, they can buy from anyone else or simply not at all.
 
Maybe theoretically, but practically you owned a piece of plastic casing and a silicone chip with a copy of the game data on it. No one could take it away from you. Or a plastic disc with a copy of the data. The end user agreement just served to clarify that they were selling a license to use the data and not ownership of the data itself.

Now through digital licenses they reserve the right to take away the license to the game when before they didn't have such an option.
Technically you could still be dependant on a server online to activate a game. Yes, Games For Windows Live basically forced you to do that even with physical games.

While I agree with the sentiment. I'm not particularly fond of the phrases "If buying isn't owning, then piracy isn't stealing." Or the similar phrase "You can't steal what you can't buy." Because it weakens the argument for piracy by being illogical.

Firstly, if buying isn't owning means that piracy isn't stealing. Then it stands to reason that if buying was owning, then piracy would be stealing. Except piracy is never stealing (at least not in the traditional sense). Since stealing would imply removing the original. Piracy makes a copy. It's closer to stealing the same way as stealing someone's idea. It's a completely different concept to what most people think of when stealing is mentioned.

Secondly, you totally can steal things that you can't buy. As an example, I can't buy the crown jewels, but I certainly can steal them. I can't buy the books from a library, but I can definitely steal them. And there's plenty of other examples, such as the government can steal land when they can't buy it, and so and so forth.

So as someone who promotes piracy, I'm against those phrases simply because under scrutiny, they make piracy sound like a philosophy that doesn't stand up to reason. While in actuality, it does.

But like I said, I agree with the sentiment behind it. ::thumbsupwario
The issue I got is that some people will try justifying unscrupulous actions by repeating the sentence while in reality they just want free games.

It's the same with those that claims they care about preservation while they're playing games that ended up getting leaked therefore haven't come out already (then the whole "preservation" argument is not applicable for these).

Same thing with indie games that are Epic Game Store exclusives so they prefer to pirate it despite being legally available.

This. There is also the other truism about Capitalism: Customers are not obligated to buy from you, they can buy from anyone else or simply not at all.
That's better than "the customer is always right".
 
Same thing with indie games that are Epic Game Store exclusives so they prefer to pirate it despite being legally available.
That is the main reason I don't actively support Switch emulation. A lot of people using it to pirate indie games on android phones and other under powered systems since they're a lot easier to emulate. I'm also not actively going to go against emulating the Switch, but it's like really, you're doing that to pirate Indie games which are often very small teams just trying to make ends meat.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Connect with us

Featured Video

The Liar Princess and the Blind Prince (VITA)

Latest Threads

PS3 emulation

just experienced the PS3 emulation for the first time on my i5 8GB laptop
really i didn't expect...
Read more

so what are you guys want me to draw

I'm bored and i want draw something.
it easier for me to post in a forum in being this way and...
Read more

Based Hayao Miyazaki

His thoughts on AI:


His thoughts on the anime industry:

“Almost all...
Read more

Abandonship

If anyone's wondering where I've been and why I disappeared for the last minuets, well, my...
Read more

Online statistics

Members online
227
Guests online
275
Total visitors
502

Forum statistics

Threads
6,828
Messages
170,983
Members
476,681
Latest member
wg_ruann

Support us

Back
Top