{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
1/22/2013 10:41:25 PM
11
OK, on both, you are violating the law, and should be treated as a criminal.
What you failed, rather spectacularly, to understand is that when you buy either the book or a game disk that you do not own what is in or on that medium. You have purchased a license to interact with that medium as defined in the EULA or copyright. For a book you have to look in the first few pages, for a game read the eula. Its listed right there.
Just because you didn't share it with anyone else does not mean you have the right to it. Its stolen property. If you rob a bank and just pile the money in your room to stare at, not spend, its no less stolen and no less illegal. Even if the government could just reprint the money you stole...
English
-
I understand what you're saying about mediums, the EULA, and copyrights, but that bank analogy is absolutely horrible Lol.
-
-
You're bad at analogies, and you should feel terrible because of it.
-
Lolnope. Feelsgrateman
-
Did you understand the analogy ?
-
Of course I understood the analogy. If I didn't understand it, how would I be able to label it is being bad? Super simple stuff.
-
If an analogy is understandable, how can it be horrible ? Just because it's an unlikely situation, or what ?
-
The analogy is awful because in the bank scenario you're taking something from someone else (meaning they lose money) and in the OP's scenario no one is losing anything. Of course it's still piracy and the feds (if they cared) would see it differently, but in terms of ethics, the two situations are not remotely similar.
-
However, the publishers of the game spent money making the game, and they've lost a sale by you torrenting it.
-
Yes, but that's quite different from physically taking something from someone else. Look, you won't find someone more contemptuous of the "it's not stealing, it's copying!" attitude people use to defend piracy. I absolutely agree that it is stealing, for the reason you just mentioned, but it's still a different scenario. When you consider that the OP already paid for a copy and is simply downloading an electronic version as a matter of convenience, it becomes hard for me to then see it in the same light. I mean, do you think he should have to pay full price for something he already has, just because it's in a different format? For a related scenario, iTunes used to only sell DRM music and you were only allowed to use it on a few devices. If you had multiple devices or had issues with DRM you're SOL. It wasn't hard for people to lose music they had because of DRM. Under the draconian stance that you and the original commenter support, downloading the music a second time without paying for it would be stealing. I don't agree.
-
I'm assuming the DRM music sold, only available to specific devices, was a general mp3 file and not a specific file for Apple products ? That particular example you mentioned is just Apple being Apple, and calling it 'draconian' is going a little overboard, IMO. As far as I remember, one can only reproduce a maximum of 10% of a book. In either case, Charlie said that it's printed in the book, so the customer knows exactly what kind of agreement they're getting into.
