Call of Duty: Black Ops named 2010's most pirated PC game

seriously? I use to agree with some of the stuff you said, but really? Look, black ops is a bad game, there is no mistaking that. The number of copies torrented reflects that. The game is 1) WAYY overpriced, if it wasn't a franchise I bet that it would cost $30-$40 at release. 2) the game IS crap and they don't allow you to test it. They don't release demos anymore because they don't want people to know how much it sucks before they buy it. That allows them to rack up the preorders and rip everyone off.

Black ops is the disappointment of 2010. 2010 was a bad year for games...

Makes sense. When my brother tries to play black ops(pc version) online, there is barely anyone on the servers. Most of the servers show 0/16. But I don't have that problem when I play bad company 2 on pc.

This is the upshot: I downloaded the game, SP was great and I'm proud I did it.

I don't letTomSEA hear you say that.

As long as used games can be sold and bought I don't see a reason to feel like pirating is theft.

I also agree if a demo is released of a game and I enjoy it I am 100% likely to purchase it.

I knew you couldn't hold back

Call of Duty: Black Ops rakes in over $1 billion

For trash, the people who didnt buy this game im sure d/l it found out it was not worth $60+, deleted it and moved on to a game worth playing.

yes...but brilliantly stated.

Pirating =/= Stealing

And the "Arrrrghy" goes to, whoever pirates the game, and then has the good taste to shut up about it.

You really are a tedious bunch. You download the game, and then proceed annoy everybody that hasn't, with endless justifications for your behaviour. Steal it, don't steal it, why does that matter to us? Are you bragging, complaining, trying to burden us with your guilt, prove how clever you are, or are you just chronic boors?

And then there's the faction on the side of righteousness. Listen, you're never going to change the behaviour of these little sociopaths one iota. Save you breath.

The internet provides a modicum of anonymity, which is why you all so boldly profess your actions(stealing). I doubt a one of you would have the balls to walk into a retail outlet and actually pocket a game and walk out with it. Why?, because you would wind up in the back of a squad car.

Here's what's going to happen. Soon, the gaming industry, like the music industry did, is going to track several of you down and make examples out of you. You'll look funny sitting in a court room facing perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of fines for illegally downloading and distributing games. Games which took hundreds of people thousands of hours to create. People who have families to feed and so therefor depend on their jobs. Your complete ignorance of the bigger picture is simply mind boggling, and your sad and pathetic excuses for your actions seem like they were dreamed up by 8 year old children.

Activision destroyed the multiplayer aspect of CoD. Only console nubs buy CoD now.

Most of them would have to grow a pair, before they could even walk into Walmart, with just the thought of stealing a game in their head, hence all the rationalizations

Perhaps, but not tell the whole story, which is a tad more depressing as a whole. The rest of them will be "sympathizing" with their fallen comrade, (wink), while waiting for the next game on their list to complete downloading.

This is the part that actually does irk me to no end. None of these little snotbags, (on the order of 99+ percent), will ever generate any "intellectual property" of their own. Meanwhile, everyone of these little gameboys that can fire up a computer, thinks he's an expert on the subject. But when that screws up, and turns out not to be the case, they're at "malware removal forums" everywhere, begging for more free help. Oh, and they usually, "don't have my Windows disc", since the OS is pirated as well. This is why they absolutely can't reformat. Before I forget, they're also the "leeches" at P2P sites, since they never buy any games to seed with.

Piaget tells us that the "abstract operational" phase, doesn't start til somewhat later the 8 years. This is where an individual can tell right from wrong. So it is too that sadly, most of these ******* will never actually reach that point of development, leaving the rest of us sitting around shaking our heads, and wondering where exactly to put the bar, before branding an individual a true sociopath.

In conclusion:

While I agree with everything you've said, I think you must have a windmill in your back yard, and a lance on your nightstand. I'd be happy if they just acquired the good taste, and good sense, to know when to shut up.

Oh look, it's another "me Tarzan, you Jane", literary gem by "guest". I sympathize though. Life's a b***** when you're raised by wild pigs, and after being forcibly dragged back into society, accidentally discover a computer connected to the internet

I never wanted to comment on these topics, because, in reality, both sides have a certain degree of truthfulness and logic. Let me point out my opinion on one side:

"To acquire property one can purchase it with money, trade it for other property, receive it as a gift, steal it, find it, make it or homestead it. One can transfer or lose ownership of property by selling it for money, exchanging it for other property, giving it as a gift, being robbed of it, misplacing it, or having it stripped from one's ownership through legal means such as eviction, foreclosure, seizure or taking."

Sharing is not stealing. If I buy a game, it is my property. I'm owning your product. I can do with it whatever I want, whether it is copying it or sharing it; any laws or regulations imposed to restrict any form of sharing, or any type of personal manipulation –on the item that has been legally obtained– is plain corporate greediness sugar coated with legal, macroeconomic memes.

If companies created DRM, and Copy protection regulations, in order to restrict sharing/copying, why didn't they create similar regulation for the selling and/or renting of the same products?

"Ownership is self-propagating in that the owner of any property will also own the economic benefits of that property."

If bought a PC Game, and then I sell it to someone else why am I not being sued for taking away the remote possibility that the person I sold the used game to, could have purchased it new from the creating company, which is also what these companies base their litigating arguments on? In other words, how is it that it is OK for me to gain profit off my property, but not OK to give it away for free? Let that sink in...

Let me pick your brain if I might. I am genuinely interested in the mentality of those who share your opinion above.
Lets say that you are an aspiring author. Lets also say that you have written a great book. You get it published and ten people buy a copy. From there, sales come to a grinding halt as those ten people decide to 'share', and run copies for anyone's taking. As the author of this intellectual work/property, are you then okay with this?
It seems to me that people either see a gray area, or disingenuously apply one when it comes to intellectual property because we are dealing with something that is somewhat less tangible. Weather they actually see this gray area or impose it is what I dont understand.
If the oncoming argument is "but that would never happen" (meaning only ten people would buy and 'share to all others....then my question is; So according to you, there is a threshold at which unlimited 'sharing ' becomes okay? and if so, by who's standard or threshold? Do you get to decide how much the creator of an intellectual property makes from his/her efforts? and the value of their work?

I don't know what's wrong with the Techspot servers, but that wasn't my full comment. I edited it, but apparently it took a while to update on the comment page. Read my now complete comment.

I know exactly where you're going with this. Regarding the initial question: No, I'm not OK with that. But does that mean what they are doing is inherently wrong? When they purchased a copy of my book, they became the owners of the the item, I no longer have any control over any personal manipulation they do to it. The fact I am not going to make as much as I could (which in this case is the only reason why I wouldn't be OK with it), it's not a reason for me to impose unreal regulations to make these 10 not do what's legally, rationally, and rightfully withing boundaries.

Using my point on the edited comment, wouldn't I feel bad if, instead of simply sharing, those 10 people sold and made money off my book? The answer would also be yes. But what's the difference?

I was having problems as well. Okay I read the full comment.
I don't think you're where many who post are. I agree that you can do 'whatever you want" to the property. You can burn it, throw it out the window etc. just not replicate it, and offer someone else s labor to others. Here we have the crux of the intellectual property issue.
I don't actually know all the in's and out's of intellectual property and what is technically legal or not, so the point about you not being sued is a bit of a non starter as I am arguing that the point is not about whether you sell it, make a profit, or share it....but about (your) right to replicate and distribute it. At least its a secondary point. Correct me if I am wrong about this, but I think you are advocating the control of an item after you have purchased it. My comments are aimed at people who just flat out feel that they have the right to help themselves to others work, creativity, and efforts merely because its intellectual property.

**** it's almost an " if you can steal it, and not get caught....you are entitled to it" thing.

The only reason it was pirated so many times is because it isnt worth buying. Unless you're a teenager with peer pressures.

Since everybody seems to like hair splitting, spinning, rationalizing, and creating an arbitrary definition of what is, "intellectual property" actually is, I'm going to join in and do the same.

Here goes....! Each of us, at least in part, is identified with the product of our labours. We predicate our self esteem upon it, at least in some measure. So, if you steal my thoughts, then you steal part of my identity. Identity theft is a crime, yes or no?

The, "no physical property has been stolen", argument falls apart even more rapidly. Suppose you decide to "share" your brand new SUV with a few friends. That works out fine for you, until one of them decides not to bring it back. Then you call the police, and report it stolen. Since "shared" intellectual property can't really be returned, then it follows logically that this too, can be effectively stolen.

The rest of the blather about how, 'nothing is actually stolen, because it's never in a physical form", amounts to no more than the old, threadbare, and hackneyed, existential marijuana powered b***s** about how, "if a tree falls in the forrest, does it make a sound"? Well, yes it does s*** head.

And incidentally, if you're into existentialism so much, you should go off by yourselves and "share" any book by Jean Paul Sartre. Reading that should serve to punish you, while illuminating the fact of just how crushing a bore, both Satre and you are.

Although, after you look up the word, "exigences", and witness the constant reiteration of it in Sartre's writing, you'll probably dig up the old, "that stuff is so lousy, I'd steal it, but it's not worth paying for" dogma. And right you'd be! Now run along and bore others elsewhere, with what you've learned here.