There is thousands of hours of paid work to produce any kind of software or game. It doesn’t matter if the end result is burned into a physical disk or not. What’s of value here is not the 1 cent piece of plastic but the content.

When you copy content that has a cost, if the company is not offering it to you, what do you call your action ?

I mean, really, you spent 5 years working on a game with no salary. Then a day before launch day someone just makes a copy of it and distributed it « for free » in the internet. How are you going to make a salary out of it ?

Games are always pirated if they are even a little bit popular. I work in the games industry, and games I worked on are always pirated, but the more popular they are, the more copies will be sold legitimately.

People make two choices when they pirate - moral, and economical. If economically they cannot afford the game, they weren't going to pay. If morally they are against paying for a game (like if the game company is associated with suicides, etc), they weren't going to pay. There are some people that will pay if piracy isn't available, but not that many.

Anyways, after the income goes around, and all the exec, upper management, and publisher salaries are paid, the piracy or lack of it probably makes about a $1 difference to my weekly earnings. I put a lot of artistic and creative effort, blood, sweat, and tears into it. If it costs me $1 to make people enjoy it, so be it.

In the AAA games industry, piracy is a thing. People talk about it. And most people have only very mild things to say about it, except for execs. Execs make a disproportionate amount of money off games for what they do, and they do kinda have a lot of time to sit on their hands sometimes, so they can fight these piracy battles, die on these piracy hills.

Anyways, don't speak for us please.

My example was a illustrate a point. It could be a game or a productivity software, movies, music anything.

You can find any reason to steal, economical, hunger etc the point I making is that the motivation to make a copy does not make it legal.

Do we tolerate some form of theft for moral or other reasons ? Yes sure. But because I, as an individual, have my own reasons not to pay for something and decide to make a copy of it, that does not transforms my action to a perfectly legal thing.

Maybe we can’t do anything about software being copied but that doesn’t magically make laws and IP disappear with it and makes copying software legal ?

I was answering to the comment « nothing is taken ». Because the content is the result of an effort from other people being paid, the content has value. The fact that we can make infinite copies of it makes a single copy worthless because it’s not being burnt into a piece of plastic ?

There are moral principles, and legal principles. Legally, you are right. But the moral perception of piracy is shifting, and broadly speaking, this entire debate is in the moral/philosophical realm.

Legal systems ultimately enshrine the human morality in law. Common law - through case law, civil law - by committees that the legislators consult, religious law - by morality described in legal texts. We're not talking about any of it though. We are talking about day-to-day things, like what does it mean to steal, what kind of consequences it has, are these consequences real or supposed, and other such things.

Law is generally blind to externalities of an action. An action itself is legal, illegal, or undefined in law. We're not in this domain if we talk about the consequences of piracy or how someone might feel about it. We are having a conversation on morals.

Shifting morals will eventually shift the law, of course.

I completely agree with you. It’s shifting but we cannot consider it as already shifted. Some comments are going into this direction of the whole debate behind us and laws not applying anymore. Our feeling about it has changed but my country can still sue me if I make a copy without respecting the terms of the seller. Maybe tomorrow a global business model will emerge and the whole notion of possession will kind of disappear because everything will be a subscription. Or maybe we will pay a flat fee to whatever organization and use anything as much as we want and copies will be worthless because they won’t be sold individually anymore

Taking just means, broadly, “to gain or acquire”. Repetition of an incorrect point doesn’t make it any more valid I’m afraid.

Copying is often called taking a copy. Even basic usage of the term copying invalidates your point!

As for “not allowed” that will vary by contract/law/agreement/license/etc

This distinction is why it’s usually not downloaders that are punished, rather uploaders: they’re the ones that broke an agreement.

That sense of the word “take” is fairly consistently used of physical things, where you are depriving another of possession (with or without permission).

—⁂—

(Just for fun, The Devil’s Dictionary (not a work to be taken particularly seriously):

> TAKE, v.t. To acquire, frequently by force but preferably by stealth.

I quite like that way of putting it because it’s the megacorporations that are the pirates when they steal their DRM content back, because they are acquiring it from you so that you can’t have it, by force if they have to but they prefer stealth.)