+- Frictional Games Forum (read-only) (https://www.frictionalgames.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Amnesia: The Dark Descent (https://www.frictionalgames.com/forum/forum-6.html)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://www.frictionalgames.com/forum/forum-18.html)
+--- Thread: Confession... (/thread-4384.html)
RE: Confession... - iTIMMEH - 09-18-2010
(09-18-2010, 02:53 PM)Zanderat Wrote: Get bent. You pirates are unbelievable with your excuses.
Perhaps your reading comprehension isn't that great or English isn't your first language. I'm not sure where I was excusing my behaviour or how you come to the conclusion that I'm a pirate myself.
Let me reiterate, in brief:
Downloading is against the law, but the offence is not theft, it is copyright infringement. This is is not 'semantics', copying has a different meaning to stealing and is a different offence, but an offence nonetheless. Got it?
RE: Confession... - Zanderat - 09-18-2010
If one person actually buys the game and then makes 10,000 "copies" or it is downloaded 10,000 times from some torrent, how is that not theft?
RE: Confession... - iTIMMEH - 09-18-2010
(09-18-2010, 03:11 PM)Zanderat Wrote: If one person actually buys the game and then makes 10,000 "copies" or it is downloaded 10,000 times from some torrent, how is that not theft?
A case dealing with large scale copying and distribution.
The United States Supreme Court verdict:
'The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of [section] 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.'
That's how it isn't 'theft'.
RE: Confession... - Zanderat - 09-18-2010
[/Shrug]
Well if you think depriving someone of income from their efforts isn't theft, then I can't possibly convince you otherwise.
So, do you think it is ok to upload or distribute someone else's intellectual property for free download by the masses?
RE: Confession... - iTIMMEH - 09-18-2010
(09-18-2010, 03:25 PM)Zanderat Wrote: [/Shrug]
Well if you think depriving someone of income from their efforts isn't theft, then I can't possibly convince you otherwise.
Nope, sorry I remain convinced that it is copyright infringement, and on that note Gene Wilder has something to say. As I have already said, it is not okay but there is a name for it and that name is not theft. You can't call a cat a dog just because it has fur, four legs and a tail.
RE: Confession... - Zanderat - 09-18-2010
(09-18-2010, 03:30 PM)iTIMMEH Wrote:(09-18-2010, 03:25 PM)Zanderat Wrote: [/Shrug]
Well if you think depriving someone of income from their efforts isn't theft, then I can't possibly convince you otherwise.
Nope, sorry I remain convinced that it is copyright infringement, and on that note Gene Wilder has something to say.
The fact that you keep ducking the basic question speaks volumes.........
(btw, great clip!)
RE: Confession... - Yuhaney - 09-18-2010
Ehm... I'll just close this thread because looks like it takes no where.