The purpose of my original post was simply to address the "Everyone who pirates is a dickwad" comment. I pretty much just wanted to say that, even though I had in fact pirated GC2, I didn't consider myself a dickwad, since I did eventually come to buy it, and am now invested in the series as a result. I have been exposed to a lot of games through piracy and later purchased those games as a result. My intention was just to communicate that not all pirates are scum of the earth. I admit that I was overzealous in my attempt to sugar coat piracy and my response(s) got a little out of hand. Thankfully I don't mind getting into long discussions. I am also not above changing my mind. The viewpoints that many of you have expressed are valid, and there is no doubt that my opinion carries a heavy bias in favor of my long history in the piracy scene. With that said, I do feel that I should probably shut-up about piracy and focus on buying more games outright. I apologize if i offended anyone. Please buy your games!

PS: I didn't realize this was in a general forum that links to what appears to be the Elemental Forums, which resulted in more attention than I anticipated.

Note: Just to clear this up a bit, piracy is called "copyright infringement." It is not criminal, it is almost always civil in nature. If the court finds you guilty, then you are ordered to pay statutory damages, actual damages, and/or for loss in profits. The supreme court has also made it clear that piracy is not considered theft, it is copyright infringement, but I suppose these things are all a matter of semantics. 

I take no offense. This is the problem with making comparisons to other things, like someone stealing a car. In the case of stealing a car something physical is actually taken in an act of theft, not copied, resulting in a hypothetical loss of profits. This is why the US Supreme Court has ruled that copyright infringement is not theft. Since a physical item is not stolen, but instead intellectual property is being copied. The term that has been created for the misappropriation of intellectual property is "an infringer of the copyright." This is how you would be addressed in court.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#.22Theft.22

The act of copyright infringement is also very rarely criminal, and charges are filed only in extreme cases, such as selling copyrighted material for profit. It is almost always civil in nature. If the court finds you guilty of copyright infringement, then you are ordered to pay statutory damages, actual damages, and/or for loss in profits. I suppose this is mostly a matter of semantics, but copyright infringement and theft are considered two entirely separate things. One is most always civil, the other is a criminal act.

Source: http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/copy-corner66.htm

If I take you to court for creating a product that infringes on my intellectual property, say a patent that I filed, while I can file for damages, I cannot have you put in jail for stealing (a criminal offense), since it is not a criminal matter. While you may have copied my ideas, schematics, drawings, etc. you never actually stole a physical item from me. Therefore I can sue for an implied loss, but there is no physical loss. This doesn't make it right, by any means, I'm just saying there is a difference. 

I once saw a lady pick her nose and eat the...stuff.

I've seen people eat bagged grapes in the supermarket.

Anywho .

Dude, that isn't logical, cause and effect is well known. However the effects of WW2 are still being seen. To say the killing was good is wrong and to say it was bad may also be. It was all in Sovereignty however because all was considered in its doing. It was a means to a end, war. Piracy is not similar to the events of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for the circumstances that defined its Sovereignty apply only to its scenario.

Pirating is not Sovereign. May I say, I see the points you are making but they are out of context. I believe Derracs is saying that Pirating is wrong, however it has valuable benefits that are not typically thought of.

DARCA ;- )

Interesting exchange. 

The only thing I can add is my firm conviction that those who pirate a full version of a game will ultimately buy the game at a rate of less than 2%.

I make no moral judgement. I simply don't pirate because I have a compulsive aversion to being caught with my hand in the cookie jar. 

Just a hypothetical...if a friend tires of an xbox game and gives it to me, am I a thief?  Technically, if I want to play, I should buy my own disc, correct?  What if he gives me a DVD or a book to read?  Is that wrong?

Is there really any difference between my scenario and downloading a game through file sharing with like minded 'friends'...?

Wow. Moral relativism at its best.

To quote Dr. Buddy Rydell: "Jibber jabber jibber jabbering, mumbo jumbo, denial, key-key-key-key-key-key!"

I say this not to judge you, Derracs, but rather piracy--or "copyright infringement."

First, just because the Supreme Court said it isn't theft, doesn't mean it isn't. It may not be criminal in the US, but it remains wrong. The very definition of "infringement" should make this obvious--when is "the action of breaking the terms of an agreement" or "violation" (specifically within this context) right? The act itself--not the potential outcome.

In your reply to happybjorn, you said, "Arguments are dismissed with facts and counter-points, not with biased opinions on morality and what constitutes "good" overall. Let us take the most obvious example, the fact that I pirated GC2. You would argue, through a warped sense of justice and an immature understanding of morality, that I am a horrible person for downloading the game. What was the result? I bought it on a steam sale a few months later, and I am now a proud Elite Founder of Galactic Civilizations 3."

Now, I don't know if you're a horrible person or not, but that has no bearing on whether the action was right or wrong. And your reply there is self-defeating. You call his opinion of morality "biased" then in the next sentence call his sense of justice "warped" and his understanding of morality "immature." Of course, that is in your very own biased opinion of morality and justice.

The ends don't justify the means. Violating Stardock's (or anyone else's) property, intellectual or otherwise, is wrong, regardless the outcome. Anyone that says otherwise may be entitled to that opinion, but their perspective is "warped" and "immature," selfish, and morally indefensible.

If it were your property, I wonder if you'd feel differently if someone "misappropriated" it. Would you thank the "infringer" for "misappropriating" your property?

Pirating is wrong, period. I don't do it and don't support people that do it.

The stance I was referring to should have been obvious (it was the only one mentioned at that point), it would have been redundant to specify.  None of the evidence you provided supported that stance, so specifics would have, again, been redundant (a blanket claim of non sequiturial nonsense in other words).  However, if examples would help, please pick one (or two or three) of your points to make example(s) of.

Also, I wasn't making a blanket statement about morality.  It was an allusion to virtue ethics.

So then you meant to write...

Stealing is stealing?  Period?

I think there is no debating the immorality of piracy. It is self evident since it deprives people of their livelihood.

You can however debate the level of the offense as opposed to standard theft. The clear difference being loss of property that the original owner will no longer have access to as opposed to loss of "potential" income.

On a more pragmatic level, you can also consider the pirate a potential future customer if through use of the pirate product you convince them to buy it once they can afford it. This usually applies to students/kids/teens who have no income or parents willing to buy software for them. There is no potential income present there, but if in the long run you can convince them of the quality of your products, when they grow up to have disposable income of their own, they will be more likely to buy it. That kid learning to use a pirated photoshop will want to buy it when they become an actual graphics artist. Sure they can use the educational versions but how many kids do you know will do the right thing if they can benefit and not get caught.

With that practical approach, the best way to defeat piracy is to make great products and most of all, (more my concern as a paying customer) make sure you don't harass your paying customers in your quest to defeat the none-paying ones. It is self-defeating. Case in point, anti-piracy measures that require keeping the CD in the drive which is really annoying and can destroy the product especially in a day and age when online activation is standard. Other practical methods to fight piracy include frequent updates, decent support, building a community around the product and adding an online component (multi-player for games or download additional content and online features for apps).

I remember having a similar discussion with my cable provider who were forcing use of their proprietary receiver with customized decryption simply to prevent satellite TV piracy thereby preventing customers from using their own receivers with advanced features like DVR etc... I was saying, I don't care what the pirates are doing. I'm a paying customer. Stop punishing me for people who won't pay you anyway!

I think the issue of "I'm tired of/don't like this game, I'll give it to my friend/sell it on Ebay/Trademe/someother website" is dealt with by the purchase price paid by the original purchaser - or if it's not it should be. I know the music industry has for decades built in to it's selling price that Person A will pay $20.00 to buy Album 2, will get sick of it and sell it via Second Hand Record Store/Auction Website/personal interaction with friend/family member (who he/she will probably give it to for free), or won't get sick of it and will recommend it to friend/family member who'll tape/copy Album 2. And the cycle goes on maybe a third or even forth time. Either way, Music Industry only gets $20 for 2 albums but it knew that it was a possibility it'd lose out on that second "Sale" (2 people have the album now, only 1 paid them for it), hence the $20 price to start with.

As I say, the gaming industry/game makers/etc should have factored that in their pricing.

The issue for me with piracy is the beginning intent - different from what I describe earlier: Person A saying I want this album/game/whatever and I'm not going to pay for it. I'm going to avoid all the websites/stores etc and try and get this thing for nothing. Which, in a way, is stupid if you want to put a price on the time involved in getting that thing free as opposed to paying for it (ie Googling/searching for a torrent that has what you want, subscribing to it, starting the download, realising halfway through that the download speed is pathetic, stopping the download, going back to searching for a torrent etc....) Also (as someone who's never done that, not out of virtue entirely, also a worry I'll end up in the situation I've just described) I wonder if there's an issue with quality (like those pirated films recorded by someone in the cinema's phone which is constantly moving...)

Not sure what game developers can do - refuse to release any DLC to anyone without verifiable payment? Make the game unmoddable to anyone without verifiable payment? Both of which would probably cause more trouble than piracy would ie it would put a lot of people off buying the game in the first place...

Just one question.

After  you got GC2, and spent the time to learn to play it, and actually enjoyed the game (I presume, or you wouldn't have gone through the learning curve) did you then bother to go back and PAY for a legit copy?   

Unless I missed you didn't mention it.

Stealing is stealing.

I wonder if you've ever been incarcerated...hmmm.