I don't think I can give a link to this site or the game, but I was looking for a game I wanted and Google and while I was typing it had popped up with other variations like normal. But one of them the word free I on the end as well. I was all like, "what is this" "hell ya" and my favorite word... 'Really"
So a followed the link read some stuff and was about to happily download it then I realized this is what sin looks like. I realized it was illegal and not a free version but pirated since the game was a steam exclusive. Its actually funny when a consider how hard I am on pirates, I almost become one by not thinking! (Even though the game if rated3/10 )
Well that's the end of the funny story.
DARCA
Another of the enlightened parrotting semantics.
If you had talent to create something inherently 'your own' and someone deprived you of your livelihood from your 'talent' you might just see copyright 'infringement' as a bastard-act of a rotten thief whom you would not piss on if he was on fire.
Until then, know that these forums on which you seem to want to champion the ideology of the 'pirate' are paid for by a software company who is a target of this victimless 'non-crime', as are most entities on a net peopled by Generation Me.
Oh, I forgot....it's only big-arsed global corporations who cry foul and bully Governments to their will declaring Copyright THEFT an actual criminal act.
My bad.
If I was paid for all the time I chased arse-holes on this NET who STOLE from my fellow creative people I might just almost be paid as much as you must be...to clearly not need to CARE.
Semantic games designed to make the thief feel like a rebel with a cause, a hero. Sorry, that lead balloon doesn't fly here.
A thief is a thief.
*edit. effing refresh rate. Didn't see your response...you can mercy kill this redundancy.
Bottom line...
Here we have a zero-tolerance policy for the promotion/distribution of warez and breaches of copyright no matter what semantics are used.
Copyright infringement is of course not a theft. There are factual differences (by stealing a bike, you are denying its use to original owner, unlike in copyright infringement), and for example in Czech law, if you make a copy of a protected song or a game for your personal use only, it's not even punishable.
I know you Americans love your "wars" on terror, drugs, etc, but until that TTIP crap is signed, you will have to respect that laws are different in different countries.
Yup, we go to war with evil here in America, all the time.
In no country is theft legal.
Stop your sophistry. Read the TOS: https://www.wincustomize.com/terms-of-service specifically #12.
The law in Czechoslovakia is immaterial. This is a privately owned site. You agreed to the TOS when you applied for membership on this site: You signed a contract to conform to the rules. Do so.
Jafo has warned you:
I would like to present a couple of scenarios.
It's illegal and I'm a thief if someone through file sharing gives me a copy of a movie, or game, or music, correct?
So by that logic, if someone copies a DVD for me, or a CD and gives it to me, I am also a thief.
If someone lends me a DVD and I watch it, or lends me a game and I play it, am I not also a thief because that is technically a lost sale for the company, correct? Also, if someone loans me a book and I read it, I am also a thief.
So how are public libraries legal? Every person that borrows a book, or CD or DVD from a library is a lost sale for the owner of the copyright, so are those people thieves?
Since I can legally get a DVD free from the library, I feel no worse about downloading a movie from the internet.
Actually, fun fact; if you BUY something, and have ONE copy, and THEN lead that ONE copy to someone, then its fine. There's only so much passing around that can happen with that and no one who is a fair sensible person cares.
And in libraries its temporary ownership, IIRC some libraries pay full price for every copy they have although some are donations. In my state, most videos you must pay a small fee to check out.
You're missing a simple piece of the puzzle: It's called licensing.
https://www.quora.com/How-is-it-legal-for-traditional-libraries-to-lend-CDs-and-DVDs-if-digitally-sharing-copyrighted-material-is-illegal
http://copyright.lib.utexas.edu/l-diglib.html
You're missing a simple piece of the puzzle: It's called licensing.https://www.quora.com/How-is-it-legal-for-traditional-libraries-to-lend-CDs-and-DVDs-if-digitally-sharing-copyrighted-material-is-illegalhttp://copyright.lib.utexas.edu/l-diglib.html
So according to that article, first-sale doctrine means that I can lend copyrighted work as I wish. So why can't I lend it to people digitally? Where is the line drawn? 2 lendees, 5, 10?
Just commenting that it's likely against forum rules to advocate breaking the law, particularly a law which the company running the forum supports. No interest in debating what should and shouldn't be a law in the first place.
Digital lending is duplication - aka 'copying' and that is limited by the Rights Of Copy... aka Copyright.
Lending a book [or CD] does NOT duplicate the product/IP.
Re 'line drawn' it's drawn at ZERO....
Books purchased online [eg Amazon - Kindle] are digital downloads [obviously] and their license extends to the purchaser's equipment used for reading....Kindle...PC....whatever.
That does not extend to its DUPLICATION via media-sharing/Torrent/etc or to a Printer to produce a hard copy.
The word 'copy' is the issue. 'Copyright' isn't a magical or fairyland concept...it's simply a word meaning 'right of copy'. [and who holds it determines how its rights can be dispensed/disseminated].
If you read the fine print copyright notice on most DVD's etc, it actually states you are not allowed to lend or borrow it. So by their wording yes you would be a thief for lending.
However, I have never seen it put into practice.
Interesting note; Copyright law was originally devised to allow authors to retain the rights to their work, preventing large printing companies from just printing their own copies to sell. Seems a shame these days the copyright ends up owned by publishers rather than developers considering that the law was originally enacted to protect the content creators over the publishers.I don't support piracy at all, however I do object to using the term 'thief' for copyright violation. The fact is that theft is directly removing said item from the owner (either physical items or stealing money etc.) where are piracy is theoretically reducing sales.It would be like calling hunting without a permit murder.
Just to clarify, I don't condone or support piracy. I believe people deserve to be paid for their work and products.I have once had to use a cracked .exe for a game I own because the old TAGES DRM on it doesn't run on windows 7 and prevents my legitimate copy from working. There was zero support from the now defunct developer so I really had little choice to be able to play my game.Such a situation could hardly be called theft.
You split the wrong hairs. A murder is a killing of a human being that is planned and intentional, whereas killing is a generic term that is used more in accidental taking of life. The borders are fuzzy. Also, the murderer/killer gets to define which word is applicable. Convenient. Where is the species line between killing and murdering? Semantic hocum.
Murder involves killing (the theft of life) with intent to do so. Therefore, hunting is a form of murder. We just don't like the sound of that because we're meat eaters (mostly) so we use another word.
The semantics games continue...to avoid hair splitting:
"There are three levels of civil copyright infringement: civil infringers may be “innocent”, “ordinary”, or “willful”. There is a range of penalties which can be imposed on criminal infringers depending on the egregiousness of the offense and in deference to prosecutorial discretion. Innocent infringers are those who are “not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted infringement of copyright,” which implies that some degree of negligence or knowledge is required for ordinary civil infringement. Willful infringement, by extension, requires a higher degree of culpability. The degree of knowledge or “willfulness” required for civil liability for copyright infringement is rather low and undefined. No knowledge or intent is strictly necessary for a finding of civil infringement, insofar as it is a strict liability offense. While in certain cases there are indications that willful infringement in a civil suit requires some knowledge that the defendant knew that, “[h]is actions constituted copyright infringement or acted with a reckless disregard for the copyright holder’s rights,” this position is disputed and some Circuits merely require the infringement is “knowing” to warrant an aggravated penalty for the defendant." Wiki
The Wiki's fine for the level of this discussion.
It is theft. "Thou shalt not steal." Not open ended at all...and applicable to a host of things from objects to people to concepts and values. Its meaning is very simple: Taking something which doesn't belong to you. This causes someone else (or a bunch of someone else's) damage, hence criminal and civil penalties.
More basically, it involves a disrespect of and for the rights and property of others, and others themselves.
More interesting note...
Nothing changed, only the entity who purchased/owns the rights to such copy.
It ALL depends on who makes the 'work' and under whose authority/investor.
What I don't personally like is how governments can 'decree' how long I am allowed to actually OWN what I create.
The rule NEEDS TO BE...
The Author of the copyright has total and unassailable control over it for however long HE SEES FIT.
Outsiders have no legal right other than that which they arbitrarily impose at THEIR fancy.
I have commercially created unique Architecture that is mine, protected by Copyright which I have no intention of ever relinquishing....but that is not my choice to choose. Some dick-wad from a country 10,000 miles away and absolutely outside my control has decreed otherwise.
Instead I shall retire....and hopefully DIE before some shit feels the urge to INFRINGE on my FUCKING RIGHTS as an individual entity.
^ Jafo - Hoping the thief uses it to build his own house and doesn't consider he's in a totally different (and much more severe) earthquake zone.
Remember though, the copyright is on the content, not the physical media (plastic CD disc, paper pages, etc.). If someone loans me a CD or DVD, then I get to experience the content for free. Whether or not the first party gives a copy of the physical media or not is largely irrelevant. The end result is the same, two people (or more) experience content where only one has paid.
Yeah, in Australia our DVD's and music CD's often state it is an infringement to lend... however I don't think it would be enforceable... it just seems a little over the top.
One thing that concerns me a lot is how Steam is trying to redefine the end users rights. Originally, with physical media the end user has the right to use the software he purchased how he sees fit, with the obvious restrictions of not breaching copyright.But Steam takes a stance that it is offering a service and can cut you off whenever they want. So even though all my games are bought retail, as far as Steam TOS says, I have no rights to that software if they one day change their mind for some reason. I also have no option to opt out either.Makes me a bit uneasy.
Then sue them.
You do realize that whenever you click (I accept) or (I agree) on installing software or making an online subscription your are agreeing to the legal statement? It's a binding agreement like a signature. Also if you look at the TOS Dr. JBHL linked there is a specific item referencing that:
You agree to not use the Service to:...h.intentionally or unintentionally violate any applicable local, state, national or international law, including, but not limited to, regulations promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, any rules of any national or other securities exchange, including, without limitation, the New York Stock Exchange, the American Stock Exchange or the NASDAQ, and any regulations having the force of law;...
So basically US law applies regardless where you are located and you agree to abide by its ruling when you purchase the product. There was in the past a great example where a Russian guy found a way to bypass a particular form of DVD copy protection. Many years later he came to a user conference in the US and the FBI arrested him on site. It is true the the Czech republic is among the countries that refuse to extradite their citizens and will instead treat you based on czech law however if you ever travel to a country with extradition treaties with the US, you could be in trouble like that Russian.
[quote who="charon2112"]how are public libraries legal? Every person that borrows a book, or CD or DVD from a library is a lost sale for the owner of the copyright, so are those people thieves?[/quote]
Actually there is a built-in exemption for libraries in US law:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 U.S. Code § 1201 - Circumvention of copyright protection systemsIn order for a library or archives to qualify for the exemption under this subsection, the collections of that library or archives shall be—
Kama makes the point that what is considered 'legal' varies from time to time and place to place. It is a valid point. Indeed, Kama suggest that sometimes what is defined as legal is also unjust, unfair, etc. This is also true. "Thems that gots the gold makes the rules." However, these forums have 'rules of engagement' (so to speak) and our continued participation on these forums requires that we comply with the forum owner's (SD) requirements. We are guests here. I think there are forums hosted by SD where the range of permitted topics is much greater than on this particular forum. However, I think, even on the other forums, advocating anything illegal is not acceptable.
Copyright law is one of those things that fascinates me to no end. It also infuriates me for many reasons.
As an aside, here's an interesting video on Copyright within some other industries:
http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture?language=en
As well, here's a somewhat famous author talking about piracy as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qkyt1wXNlI
Ultimately, I believe Piracy is simply convenience. And when your convenience is better than their convenience, you will win. When people have no money, the convenience of getting something free will overrule that which is not. As more money is obtained, and time is treated more as a valuable resource, the effort of piracy becomes not worth it, especially if developers/publishers make their item convenient. Why has Steam grown a bazillion percent? Convenience.
Considering the Copyright System (and Patent system for that matter) as it stands is a broken and archaic and ultimately anti-human (ie, slowing/stopping the advancement of the human race) set of laws, I will be happy when it gets altered to reflect the modern age. Now don't get me wrong, I am all for developers getting their money for their hard-earned work. However, I do believe that their money will come in other ways in the future. All industries need to change with the time, and media industries most of all. They need to adapt their business model to move into the future. Once people find a way to not make money from the game itself...well, that's already happening (see DLC, Free to play Games, Subscriptions, Kickstarters, etc.)
There was a point and time where it did make sense, and it had a reasonable timeline (14 plus 14 years). And then Disney cam along and blew it all out of proportion. But don't worry, 2019 is coming, and Disney will apply again to extend the copyright law for another 30 years or so. But maybe this time they won't get it (one can only hope). Ultimately that's why I think they are hedging their bets by buying up some long-term IP like Marvel and Star Wars. Maybe Copyright can be looked at again at that time and reduced to something more fitting of today's instant information age.
I am not advocating piracy, but I would just like to say that of all the things that are "killing games and developers" piracy is not one of them. Did the printing press kill authors? Did the camera kill painters? Did the tape recorder kill musicians? Did the video camera kill movies? Copying games will not kill software or developers. There will always be people out there who want to create.
What it does hurt is the middlemen, the people who make their money off the backs of others. And truthfully, we can all do with a few less middlemen in the world.
It is not wise or Sovereign to compare a past or even similar event to a current one. For the outcome is unknown, unrelated and not comparable to the present. All opinions and actions should ideally be decided by a case by case basis. Piracy is wrong and has no place or lesson in society apart from inadvertently improving customer service and understanding of morality.
^ That.
Nope....killed the art of illumination.
Nope....killed the portrait industry.
Nope....killed a little royalties.
Nope....killed their quality though.
Any other poor analogies?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
