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

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[captaincranky]

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.

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

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.

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.

Games which took hundreds of people thousands of hours to create. People who have families to feed and so therefore depend on their jobs.

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.

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.

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.

 

[captaincranky]

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

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

 

[lawfer]

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...

 

[red1776]

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:

Sharing is not stealing. If I buy a game, it is mine. I'm owning your product. I can do with it whatever I want, whether 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.

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?

 

[lawfer]

red1776 said:

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:

Sharing is not stealing. If I buy a game, it is mine. I'm owning your product. I can do with it whatever I want, whether 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.

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?

 

[red1776]

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

But to your question; 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 would (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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[captaincranky]

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.

 

[red1776]

Since everybody seems to like hair splitting, spinning, rationalizing, and creating an arbitrary definition of what is, "intellectual property" actually is

Thats actually why I bowed out.

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.

The rest of the blather about how, 'nothing is actually stolen

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

I agree, that's why I was interested in the mentality of the "nothing is physically stolen " crowd
To listen to some of these people, they actually have a trigger that tells them that if you cant taste it.....it's up for grabs.

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

...and this of course accounts for the greatest games of our times being pirated as well I suppose. Oh I forgot...your argument and all rationale reverses when it is worth purchasing.

 

[captaincranky]

..and this of course accounts for the greatest games of our times being pirated as well I suppose. Oh I forgot...your argument and all rationale reverses when it is worth purchasing.

Well, most of these clowns are the type of people that would take the ham bone back to the supermarket for their money back, using "this tasted lousy", as an excuse.

 

[red1776]

Well, most of these clowns are the type of people that would take the ham bone back to the supermarket for their money back, using "this tasted lousy", as an excuse.

:haha::haha: Lea and I were in an TimberLodge SteakHouse in Mpls and watched a lady snarf what had to be a 22oz Porterhouse (minus two bites) and then insist that It be comped as it (and I quote) "entirely inedible".

 

[Guest]

All of that buy your games. Good for you. Now im going to get a case of bear and a pizza, plus fill my car with gas on the $70 i saved not buying COD. And still got to play the game.

 

[captaincranky]

All of that buy your games. Good for you. Now im going to get a case of bear and a pizza, plus fill my car with gas on the $70 i saved not buying COD. And still got to play the game.

Super! Bully for you! Don't forget to take the pizza box back and ask for a refund. Tell them you didn't like it.

 

[red1776]

Originally Posted by Guest View Post
All of that buy your games. Good for you. Now im going to get a case of bear and a pizza, plus fill my car with gas on the $70 i saved not buying COD. And still got to play the game

Super! Bully for you! Don't forget to take the pizza box back and ask for a refund. Tell them you didn't like it.

Hell yeah! do a runoff on the gas as well, make a night out of screwing as many people who earn their money as possible. Its obviously a quality you find attractive about yourself.

 

[captaincranky]

Hell yeah! do a runoff on the gas as well, make a night out of screwing as many people who earn their money as possible. Its obviously a quality you find attractive about yourself.

Should you get tired of troll sitting, check your mail.

 

[dividebyzero]

We seem to have once agin stepped into the murky realm of IP theft.
Group 1 (Hi Tom) is going to proclaim that IP is a basic underpinning of a free market economy. IP theft, patent and copyright infringements all serve to weaken and dilute the strongest democracies. Although presumeably this weakening would need to take into account the increasing uptake of labour required to write, implement and enforce DRM
Group 1 would probably also assert that theft, regardless of item, cannot be condoned and that "once a thief always a thief".
How this tallies quite with the fact that there is little or no empirical proof that these thefts weaken the the businesses where the thefts occur. Has wholesale music downloading made the music business somehow less rewarding as a career choice (is Metallica less of a financial juggernaut than Led Zeppelin ever were because of lost revenue through filesharing?). Will CoD 8:MW3/Non-modern warfare: The Somme be shelved because of poor sales and pirating ?

Note the number of people(even in this thread) who state that they would download to try and pay to play. This is same inbuilt morality that causes people to tip for service even if they will never again revisit the area/person, or not to litter in an area they are just passing through, or any other aspect of the social norm.

Group 2 is going to proclaim that an individuals ownership of a product gives them licence to do with it as they see fit. Not entirely true since a myriad of similar situations would have the same proclaimers up in arms. Imagine going to get a spare house and car key cut. The keycutter could fairly easily whip off a few copies from their own supply of blanks and conceivably sell the resultant keys for $100 each as scrap brass. What happens next is of no concern to the keycutter any more than it is for someone explaining how to torrent a game, burn a DVD or subvert SecuROM.

Therein lies the rub. Viewing piracy, IP theft and copyright infringement as a two sided argument is a classic case of a false dilemma . Attempting to apply an overarching legal, moral and technical catchall for every eventuality is impossible- not least because some people will always steal, not every "theft" leads to revenue loss and for all the cases where an individual fleeces a company, you also have many instances where a company exploit the IP/copyright laws ( see multinational pharmacology, patent ambush and general oligopolistic practices (music and film distribution, cable/satellite tv etc.)

:haha::haha: Lea and I were in an TimberLodge SteakHouse in Mpls and watched a lady snarf what had to be a 22oz Porterhouse (in two bites)...

Rosie O'Donnell'ed

:haha::haha: Lea and I were in an TimberLodge SteakHouse in Mpls and watched a lady snarf what had to be a 22mg Porterhouse (minus two bites)...

Mary Kate Olsen'ed

:haha::haha: Lea and I were in an TimberLodge SteakHouse in Mpls and watched a lady snort what had to be a 22oz Porterhouse (minus two bites)...

Amy Winehouse'ed

 

[captaincranky]

Therein lies the rub. Viewing piracy, IP theft and copyright infringement as a two sided argument is a classic case of a false dilemma . Attempting to apply an overarching legal, moral and technical catchall for every eventuality is impossible- not least because some people will always steal, not every "theft" leads to revenue loss and for all the cases where an individual fleeces a company, you also have many instances where a company exploit the IP/copyright laws ( see multinational pharmacology, patent ambush and general oligopolistic practices (music and film distribution, cable/satellite tv etc.)

There is a certain point at which the "sword of righteousness " falls into the hands of the downloaders. Try hitting up Amazon.com for any version of the old X-Wing game. Some clown has a copy he'd be willing to part with for a hundred bucks of so. It's hard to take anybody's claim of copyright seriously for product that is no longer in print. As to "oligopolies", I have two words for you, "Redbox".

Pharmaceutical patent is the most abused proprietary issue on the planet, bar none

As to the rest of it, the companies are just inclined to stick it to the imbeciles who don't realize they can't live without in. Just stop buying it, the price will come down. The power of the supply and demand dynamic lies principally with the consumer. Problem is, they're used to indulging themselves beyond reason, and they're also too stupid to know it.

 

[Guest]

Look. All of these collegiate responses hold little more validity than the morons who muster up the two and three word brags about stealing the game.
"IT"S STEALING PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!"
Let's skip the freakish business models and the ridiculously boorish Humanitarian assessments and just say what it is.
THEFT.
Just because you bought it does not give you the right to make it available, even at no profit to yourself, to thousands of others.Irregardless of the games quality.
The length of the game, the quality of the game play, The depth of the multiplayer involvement. All of these excuses are simply subterfuge to hide what is really happening..
If I give my cousin my Beatles CD to listen to that's one thing. But if I put my Beatles CD on a torrent site for thousands to download, it's a completely different story isn't it?.
There is simply no way to justify going to a torrent site, and downloading a complete game, or movie, or song, and trying to justify it as anything other than theft.
Stealing.
Not Paying for it.
Getting it for free.
Pirating.
Stealing.

 

[lawfer]

red1776 said:

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

But to your question; 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 would (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.

Yes, you are correct. But by advocating the universal rights of ownership, I'm also objectively addressing those, who perceive the sharing of property, as an evil effort to somehow steal money from the creators.

Sharing, just like selling, are rights I believe come along from legally obtaining an item. If companies create laws and regulations to impede these natural actions, because it hinders a possible percent of income, then its clear that behind all their statistical and fairly convincing theories, it all comes down to greediness.

captaincranky said:
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.

Bravo, captain. You really are honoring the last six letters of your username. I'm not 100% sure that comment was directed at my comment, but to be sure: I was not talking about intellectual property, nor I was creating any arbitrary definition. I was talking about ownership.


Like red1776 pointed out, I advocate the legal controls that are intrinsically granted to us after we legally obtain an item. I'm in no way saying that "no physical property has been stolen," I am merely pointing out the creation of DRM, Copy protection (this is game-related article, is it not?), and other types of regulations created to monopolize how we should or shouldn't use our legally obtained property, is simply strategically created bullshit.

I'm against pirating. Stealing a game, cracking it, and giving it away to the masses is not sharing, that's plain piracy.

 

[Guest]

Let's do some simple math.
A company creates and then releases a game.
They sell it for $60.00 a copy.
They sell close to a billion dollars worth of copies.
Out of these sales, let's say 200 purchasers (or losers, as in this argument) put their copies on a Torrent site.
The game then gets downloaded close to 4.3 million times without the purchase aspect.
That's 4.3 million times $60.00 that the company will never realize.
I think that's upwards of two hundred and sixty million dollars of lost revenue. I believe that actually would make a difference in the bottom line of a companies profit margin. Call me crazy,
but who are you to say they've made enough?, or too much?. What kind of pinko communist propaganda are you peddling here?. "They won't miss it", or "they don't deserve it",
That's not for you to say is it?.
The truth here is that you need to grow up and I truly believe it gets no more complicated than that.
Nothing in life is for free. That's a hard fact.
Grow up children

 

[dividebyzero]

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...

You think that this isn't a topic that is already being debated, and that some interested parties wouldn't like to see the resell market abolished?

 

[captaincranky]

Anyway, you've managed to pad the post I'm replying to with so much "pirated" material, it surely does appear impressive in its original form. Without the extra material, it's more or less,meh, not so much..

Yes, you are correct. But by advocating the universal rights of ownership, I'm also objectively addressing those, who perceive the sharing of property, as an evil effort to somehow steal money from the creators.

That depends on where you set the "sharing" bar. Let's assume you bought a copy of "Avatar", then invited a few friends (an even dozen, for the sake of argument),over for a couple of beers and a movie. That's what I would define as "sharing". However, if you burned a dozen copies for these dozen "friends", who more than likely would burn a dozen copies for their, "friends", then that's what I would define as serial theft. Pretty much on the order of a pyramid scheme, which BTW, are illegal also. And, a little grade school math provides us with the answer that there are now 145 copies of "Avatar", with only one original being purchased.

Sharing, just like selling, are rights I believe come along from legally obtaining an item. If companies create laws and regulations to impede these natural actions, because it hinders a possible percent of income, then its clear that behind all their statistical and fairly convincing theories, it all comes down to greediness.

We agree on the greed part, we differ on the perpetrators of said greed. A reasonable conclusion is that both parties are greedy, not simply either one.

BTW, if you're the one that always gets stiffed for buying the original, and your friends are the ones who benefit, then it's fair to say that your friends are leeches, and you should find some new ones.

We used to call a "social dynamic" like this, "a**hole buddies", but sorry to report, it makes the one who actually bought the game the a**hole, and the other 12 who got it for free are the "buddies".

Bravo, captain. You really are honoring the last six letters of your username. I'm not 100% sure that comment was directed at my comment, but to be sure: I was not talking about intellectual property, nor I was creating any arbitrary definition. I was talking about ownership.

Well, why do you think the last six letters of my user name are cranky, because I'm the nicest person you'll ever want to meet? That's just patently stupid. What's also patently stupid, is the incessant way that users at this forum feel compelled to repeat the same observation over and over, ad naseum! Actually, I am a pretty nice guy, since I've forewarned you as to what's coming, both with my user name, and with my signature. I mean really, it's not like I snuck up on any of you, now is it?

I had briefly considered, "captainarticulate" as a user name, and then discarded the idea. After all, there are very few here the would acknowledge something like, "wow, you really lived up to the last 9 letters of name that time". So. cranky it is, and cranky it stays, for the benefit of the unwashed illiterate that inhabit this place.

Like red1776 pointed out, I advocate the legal controls that are intrinsically granted to us after we legally obtain an item. I'm in no way saying that "no physical property has been stolen," I am merely pointing out the creation of DRM, Copy protection (this is game-related article, is it not?), and other types of regulations created to monopolize how we should or shouldn't use our legally obtained property, is simply strategically created bullshit.

I'm against pirating. Stealing a game, cracking it, and giving it away to the masses is not sharing, that's plain piracy.

So let me see if my age addled brain can wrap itself around your rather advanced conceptualization. So then..."I'm against pirating. Stealing a game, cracking it, and giving it away to the masses is not sharing, that's plain piracy"......But, buying a game, copying it and then giving it away to all your friends is not stealing, but rather, "sharing". Gotcha. It all makes sense now, unfortunately, just not to me.

Epilogue: This is another conundrum brought on by human nature. We're a delusional bunch, that walks around thinking that they've been "created in God's own image". The movie mogul and the pirate pray to the same god, each thinking the God is on their side, because they're following the cause of righteousness. Just another silly crusade. You've read about them haven't you? The truth is we're a crap species, avaricious, predatory, and possessing a character that doesn't really allow other creatures the dignity of their own lives. Homo Sapiens", the worst infestation that has ever drawn breath on the planet.

I hope this helps. Oh, and before I forget, "Happy New Year".

 

[PanicX]

There is simply no way to justify going to a torrent site, and downloading a complete game, or movie, or song, and trying to justify it as anything other than theft.
Stealing.
Not Paying for it.
Getting it for free.
Pirating.
Stealing.

It is very easy to justify downloading a torrent of a complete game, or movie or song, when you have every legal right to do so. In the USA any individual that legitimately obtained any of those products, has every legal right to create or obtain a backup of that product. In other countries, such as Canada, they can legally download music without prior purchase.

Sometimes things are a little more complicated than black & white.

"it took my little brother 2 hours to beat the campaign."

Either your brother is a secret war machine created by the goberment or needs to get out more.

I stand corrected, I asked my brother again and he told me 3 hours on easy mode.
And yes he needs to get out more, but he can't afford that after spending all his allowance to buy the game.