Bioshock Infinite leaked

[winb83]

but I thought stealing was demonic

copyright infringement is not stealing. when someone steals from you you suffer a loss. when a copy is made what have you actually lost?

i'm not saying copyright infringement is legal or ethical but it isn't theft.

 

[Mr. Somebody]

big daddy status?

Yea, waiting for my woman 2 go into labor. This sure is taking a long time but thankfully the labor room has wi fi. Its like a vegas hotel minus the carpet, bed and general feeling of comfort.

 

[DMR]

bioshock graphics sucks

Im so spoiled by PC

 

[Mr. Somebody]

but I thought stealing was demonic

Should you be charged with a misdemeanor for copying a friends cd or songs that are on the radio? I dunno i guess ill ask God when i see him. God willing im forgiven but we'll c though, friend.

 

[hex]

copyright infringement is not stealing. when someone steals from you you suffer a loss. when a copy is made what have you actually lost?

Get this bullshyt outta here. There is no way you can be this dumb.

Fred.

 

[King Sun]

copyright infringement is not stealing. when someone steals from you you suffer a loss. when a copy is made what have you actually lost?

i'm not saying copyright infringement is legal or ethical but it isn't theft.

WAT?

 

[winb83]

Get this bullshyt outta here. There is no way you can be this dumb.

Fred.

if i sit next to you in class and we're taking a test and i copy your answers did i steal your answers?

if i steal your car you no longer have the car. if i copy your answers you still have your answers.

this isn't suggesting its ethical or whatever it just isn't theft.

 

[Fatboi1]

Get this bullshyt outta here. There is no way you can be this dumb.

Fred.

Copyright infringement is often associated with the terms piracy and theft. Although piracy literally means brazen high-seas robbery and kidnapping, it has a long history of use as a synonym for acts which were later codified as types of copyright infringement. Theft is more strongly hyperbolic, emphasizing the potential commercial harm of infringement to copyright holders; however, not all copyright infringement results in commercial loss, and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that infringement does not easily equate with theft.[1]
[edit]"Piracy"
The practice of labelling the infringement of exclusive rights in creative works as "piracy" predates statutory copyright law. Prior to the Statute of Anne in 1710, the Stationers' Company of London in 1557 received a Royal Charter giving the company a monopoly on publication and tasking it with enforcing the charter. Those who violated the charter were labelled pirates as early as 1603.[2] The term "piracy" has been used to refer to the unauthorized copying, distribution and selling of works in copyright.[3] Article 12 of the 1886 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works uses the term "piracy" in relation to copyright infringement, stating "Pirated works may be seized on importation into those countries of the Union where the original work enjoys legal protection."[4] Article 61 of the 1994 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) requires criminal procedures and penalties in cases of "willful trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale."[5] Piracy traditionally refers to acts of copyright infringement intentionally committed for financial gain, though more recently, copyright holders have described online copyright infringement, particularly in relation to peer-to-peer file sharing networks, as "piracy."[3]
[edit]"Theft"
Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as theft. In copyright law, infringement does not refer to theft of physical objects that take away the owner's possession, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization.[6] Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft holding. For instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985), bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property. Instead, "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: '[...] an infringer of the copyright.'" The court said that in the case of copyright infringement, the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law—certain exclusive rights—is invaded, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights held.[1]

Technically Copyright infringement isn't theft.

 

[winb83]

WAT?

if you buy Gears of War Judgment and i buy God of War Ascension and we swap games after we complete our respective games we have committed copyright infringement. who did we steal from?

copyright infringement is a crime and against the law but it is not theft. people break the law all the time. its up to you to determine the morality of it.

 

[hex]

Technically Copyright infringement isn't theft.

False. They said it's not easily equated with theft.

And that's not even the point. If you're copying the shyt you obviously ain't buying it, so the wording of whether or not it's technically theft is a moot point. They aren't seeing any money from the copy. You know damn well if you were spending millions of dollars to create a game, and I'm sitting here "copying" it so I don't have to pay for it, you'd have a fukking problem with it regardless of whether or not it's technically "theft".

The fact that I gotta explain this is

Fred.

 

[hex]

if i sit next to you in class and we're taking a test and i copy your answers did i steal your answers?

if i steal your car you no longer have the car. if i copy your answers you still have your answers.

this isn't suggesting its ethical or whatever it just isn't theft.

Son you gotta be retarded.

This ain't a test. It's a game people spent years of their lives, and millions of dollars to create. You making a "copy" is one less copy they sell. This has nothing to do with ethics, it's common sense.

If you gotta bend over backwards to justify "copying" the game, bootlegging obviously ain't for you. Just go buy the shyt.

Fred.

 

[hex]

And for the record I'm not condemning bootleggers but Jesus Christ....be real with yourself if you chose to do it.

Fred.

 

[Liquid]

Son you gotta be retarded.

This ain't a test. It's a game people spent years of their lives, and millions of dollars to create. You making a "copy" is one less copy they sell. This has nothing to do with ethics, it's common sense.

If you gotta bend over backwards to justify "copying" the game, bootlegging obviously ain't for you. Just go buy the shyt.

Fred.

WinB lost touch with reality long ago...best to just ignore him when he goes off on some of his rants.

 

[winb83]

Son you gotta be retarded.

This ain't a test. It's a game people spent years of their lives, and millions of dollars to create. You making a "copy" is one less copy they sell. This has nothing to do with ethics, it's common sense.

If you gotta bend over backwards to justify "copying" the game, bootlegging obviously ain't for you. Just go buy the shyt.

Fred.

these are the same people that sell you a game then tell you you don't actually own the game you bought you really purchased a license to use the game as they deem fit. you can't loan the game you bought out legally because from a legal standpoint you don't own your game.

these are the same people that want to block you from reselling the game and since the courts won't back them on it they're running to Sony and Microsoft to have them block second hand games at the console level.

as for your one less copy they sell argument. if i rent that game that's one less copy they sell, if i borrow the game from a friend its one less copy they sell, if i purchase the game second hand its one less copy they sell. i don't see you condemning any of that stuff even though the same argument you use applies to all of them. are they ok just because they're legal? developers don't want you doing any of them but the law allows you to. still they're just as damning to the developer as a download.

 

[Fatboi1]

False. They said it's not easily equated with theft.

And that's not even the point. If you're copying the shyt you obviously ain't buying it, so the wording of whether or not it's technically theft is a moot point. They aren't seeing any money from the copy. You know damn well if you were spending millions of dollars to create a game, and I'm sitting here "copying" it so I don't have to pay for it, you'd have a fukking problem with it regardless of whether or not it's technically "theft".

The fact that I gotta explain this is

Fred.

It doesn't matter. I doubt these devs are going bankrupt and are losing millions of dollars because a few thousand people who probably wouldn't have bought the game pirated it. Why do people defend these devs all the time?? People are going to pirate games no matter what. I pirated Crysis 3 and I could've bought it but I didn't. I don't care I never planned on buying it. What difference does it make if I downloaded it from online or I simply dl'd off of a friend's account via PSN account sharing?? I'm not beat, these devs ain't going broke because some people pirated their games. You sound like you just are putting morals into the argument when that's not what I was talking about. Whether or not someone has a problem with people downloading their games online is another discussion that in the grand scheme of things is up to the person. There is no right or wrong in this matter, it's all a matter of perspective. I've YET to see someone prove their side of this discussion because it all boils down to your own personal feelings. I can tell we won't agree so I might as well end my argument here.