this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2025
383 points (99.0% liked)
Games
18459 readers
710 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I agree with the sentiment, but what exactly is the explanation for this? If you're allowed to lease or rent or purchase a license, isn't stealing that thing for free still theft?
Chill with the downvotes - I'm not disagreeing. I'm just trying to understand where the line is.
I couldn't possibly care less about what a megacorp tries telling me what I may or may not do with information that can be copied perfectly and infinitely at 0 cost.
I 100% agree. However, this statement is a very large blanket statement. I see it repeated all over the place. It's great to pirate from greedy megacorps. I do it. It's great. But it's not a great statement to repeat ad nauseam because it doesn't apply to
The people who argue against piracy of megacorporations' content will bring up these points every time because this phrase makes no sense from their perspective. It prevents actual discussion from taking place. It's not productive to our cause to use something so ambiguous and inflammatory as a catch phrase.
Grant me the serenity to pirate the things from big corpos that need pirating, the courage to pay for indie work, and the wisdom to know the difference.
You can not steal something that it is impossible to own. It is possible to purchase and own a house or a car, someone choosing to lease or rent instead does not change that. It is impossible to purchase or own a copy of The Crew, so it cannot be stolen. You also cannot steal a hotel room, trespassing is a different crime than theft.
Do people not literally have the crew on disk? There you go, they own it.
Maybe read the post before replying to comments:
Well let me go back to 2005 and tell young me that I only own a license to WoW so I can say "no shit idiot" and slap my future self. If you were deceived that's on you.
Which is it? Pick a lane.
I was being sarcastic, my bad. How does this convince me people who bought the crew were deceived?
Again, you need to actually read things before replying to comments. No one has said they were deceived. Where do you think you are right now?
The problem is you're using the rational part of your brain rather than starting with a conclusion and working backwards to find justification for your actions.
https://archive.org/details/CopyingIsNotTheft1080p
For me the difference would be the pricing model.
One time purchase? It's mine.
F2P/subscription model? I know the service will die some day.
Do you feel the same way about, for example, a video rental store?
Chill with the downvotes - I'm not disagreeing. I'm just trying to understand where the line is.
You're specifically paying for an agreed upon amount of time with the product. The negotiated price reflects this limited access to the product.
'Licensing' something with no stated time frame that one side can arbitrarily choose to end at any time makes little sense and they know it. They were perfectly happy with leveraging the assumption that you owned a copy of the product up until it became inconvenient to them.
Indeed. If I buy a video rental store, I expect it to be mine until it goes bankrupt.
This may help. And this.
I mean, are you taking your definition of "theft" from the law? Or from your own internal set of ethics for right and wrong? Is it theft if no one is deprived of anything, because bits copy, and because you'd never trade dollars for the privilege of maintaining an exploitative relationship with a company but that is all they've made available?
If you're hung up on whether the legal system thinks it's theft - I dunno what to tell ya, it obviously does.
Edit: uh, maybe you're literally asking for how the logic in that statement works, which I read as just "if it can't be owned, how can it be stolen?"
As someone else pointed out when this article was posted yesterday, the legal system doesn't consider it theft, it's considered copyright infringement, though I suspect this doesn't change anyone's opinion on it
Oh, yeah that makes sense too. Bad premise all around I guess.
Yeah, I am just confused on the logic. Like what is the relation between us not owning it (which is bad) and piracy not being theft? I wholeheartedly agree that pirating things is okay if a license gets revoked, and it is 100% okay to pirate something you bought even if you still have the license and it hasn't been revoked. It's yours. You paid money for it. But from my understanding, this statement doesn't just cover people who bought it, but everyone, regardless of if they bought it.
I mean, "theft" implies depriving someone of something, to me. But I don't want to bicker about definitions if your position is more about morality of taking something for free than about the definition of theft.
For myself, I'll happily pay for things that provide fair value and a fair agreement / relationship. That includes donating to stuff that is offered for free - there are a handful of content creators and other services (Internet Archive, Signal, etc.) that I directly support, every month. And by the same token, I don't feel bad at all about enjoying something, for free and against their wishes, from a company or publisher that only offers unacceptable (to me) terms.
To me those are perfectly consistent. My dollars go to individuals and publishers that produce the kind of media ecosystem I think is good for us. Because - we must be clear - it's not a level playing field, and the shift away from consumer ownership is a plague of exploitation inflicted upon us. It's now metastasizing away from strictly digital domains, now to physical hardware, which is outrageous. Roku, for instance, can update your streaming device overnight and force you to accept their new terms, in order to keep using your device. This is not hypothetical, it happened (may have gotten company wrong).
Do you think the companies enacting policies, particularly ones prohibiting ownership outright, are operating from an ethical or moral framework? I promise they don't believe in anything like that. They screw us precisely as hard as the courts, and the court of public opinion, allow. And they're always trying to move that line in their favor.
Why do you care about pirating? Who or what are you standing up for, I guess I'm asking?