Philosophical Quandry: Piracy

[Gryphin]

Fyron,
I note you have not posted your positon on this.

[Gryphin]

Some more thoughts
“The road to Hell is paved with good intentions”
This may seem off topic but:
If you will violate the EULA in an attempt to get a friend to buy a copy what other rules will you break in your life?
Action - Intent (the greater good)
Break the EULA - Sell more copies
Buy a Term Paper - Graduate from Colledge
Cheat on your wife, (instead of ending the marrage)-For the sake of the children
Falsify your expense account – < insert plausible excuse >

You get the picture

[geoschmo]

Absolutly is wrong. Whether or not it's enough of a violation to warrant some kind of legal ramifications is something for the lawyers to dicker over. But I am fully 100% confident in saying it's absolutly morally wrong. It's not even a valid topic for dicsussion.

To loan something to a friend you have to own it. You don't own the copy you made. The purchase of your copy doesn't give you the right to make copies of it.

Loser was right on when he said the try before you buy is the purpose of the demo. If you can't see someting you like in the game in 100 turns of the demo, you won't buy it.

So Fyron, what sort of car do you drive? Maybe my friend is thinking of buying one. I will "borrow" yours without permission and let him drive it around for a bit. You don't like that?

So it's not a perfect analogy since you aren't selling your car. What if you owned a car dealership? Would you be ok with people taking the cars off the lot without asking (I'm not talking about test drives here.} and trying them before buying them? Some of those people might end up buying afterall. You don't want to upset the customer now.

No, you have no moral right to decide for Malfador the best way for them to get new customers. That is their decision. If you don't like the way they do it make your own game and release it shareware.

So legally it may be a grey area since you aren't profiting from it. But it's not even an issue for discussion morally. It's wrong, no question about it.

Geoschmo

[Growltigger]

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?

[Slynky]

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... ).

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)

[spoon]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
But I am fully 100% confident in saying it's absolutly morally wrong. It's not even a valid topic for dicsussion.

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.

[Hunkpapa]

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.