To all those claiming that Piracy is not theft, maybe this approach will help make you understand where "legit" buyers are coming from.
Yes the legal definition of theft is taking something, and piracy is making a copy leaving the original in place. But why would anyone put a price on the original? To make money. Every person is a potential customer, who may or may not be willing to PAY for the digital item. When someone cracks the digital item, there is no need for them to PAY for it.
That is one customer, and in turn one potential REVENUE SOURCE gone. When you have the power to remove a revenue source, when not the company in charge, it seems like stealing to me.
tl;dr version:
minecraft (profit)
theft (original) =/= piracy (copy)
HOWEVER
customer (revenue source)
Cracking by (revenue source) removes (profit).
Mojang == in control of minecraft, but =/= in control of profit.
When someone outside the company has the ability to remove a profit stream, it is a more generalist term of THEFT.
“I don't know, I don't care, and it doesn't make any difference!” ~ Einstein
"“Piracy is not theft, If you steal a car, the original is lost. If you copy a game, there are simply more of them in the world.” ~Notch
You're not. You bought the game afterwards, so it's fine.
My point was that if I go to a store and steal something then come back and buy something I still stole from them and they still actually lost something. If you copy something the only thing lost is potential profit.
I believe people confuse Potential with actual.
Potential: capable of being or becoming
What if person A has 0 Potential to buy "game" because they are extremely poor?
Then the potential profit from said person is also 0.
If person B can afford it then the potential profit is a positive value.
Also stealing implies that something was TAKEN from a victim, who is now at an actual lose.
A copy of something and the original are 2 separate things so the only thing actually lost was a Potential Profit, which depending on the circumstances might not even exist because it can be 0 or greater.
I'm not saying it's ok to Not pay for things, I am saying nothing is lost to anyone if the potential sale and profit was 0 in the first place. So yes there is a difference between person A and B.
TL:DR
anything times 0 is still 0
now go back and read it's not even long
“I don't know, I don't care, and it doesn't make any difference!” ~ Einstein
"“Piracy is not theft, If you steal a car, the original is lost. If you copy a game, there are simply more of them in the world.” ~Notch
To all those claiming that Piracy is not theft, maybe this approach will help make you understand where "legit" buyers are coming from.
You aren't taking away a source of profit. Pirates are one of two types. The first group is those who pirate it because they want to try it out, and either stop playing because they don't like it or they buy it. The second group is people who never intended on buying it in the first place.
You can argue about how piracy is bad (which I disagree with), but it isn't going to change the fact that people who don't want to pay for the game aren't going to magically fork up the money if they can't pirate it. Notch hasn't lost any money because there was never a source there in the first place.
Anyone who uses "illegal" versions of whatever is in fact still a potential customer. In case he can't afford it -> Nothing is lost. If he doesn't buy it -> Still nothing lost. But he always will have the choice to purchase it at a later point.
But as long as he keeps playing it there's a chance a friend, relative or whoever will become a potential customer, too.
One last word on "nothing lost" : Of course companies claim loss of money, but this is ********. This is virtual loss, whatever they call it. It is money they may have gained
Copying stuff = Stealing is a thing invented by the content industry to gain ridiculous amounts of money.
You aren't taking away a source of profit. Pirates are one of two types. The first group is those who pirate it because they want to try it out, and either stop playing because they don't like it or they buy it. The second group is people who never intended on buying it in the first place.
You can argue about how piracy is bad (which I disagree with), but it isn't going to change the fact that people who don't want to pay for the game aren't going to magically fork up the money if they can't pirate it. Notch hasn't lost any money because there was never a source there in the first place.
I think that everyone is considered a potential for profit. If that wasn't the case, then anyone who doesn't feel like paying for something could claim they aren't a source of profit and take it anyways.
I would only have to say that I don't plan on buying it (for whatever reason), that way, it doesn't matter (in this case minecraft) if I crack it or not. See what I'm saying? If someone can exclude themselves and be considered outside of the potential customer market, then who's to say EVERYONE is outside the potential market, getting rid of the point to making a sale altogether.
EDIT: I'm open to any ideas. Sometimes understanding the scope of a discussion bars people from making credible claims themselves. If I am not looking at some aspect please let me know. After all everything anybody says is an opinion.
I know that playing a cracked version of minecraft is wrong, but do NOT judge people because of
1.)Some people cannot afford $20 for a game
2.)Some people's parents think its a waste of money to pay this much for a game
3.)Some people don't have internet at their house, and cannot play
1. If I walked out of a store with a physical copy of a video game, without paying for it, the excuse that I didn't have the money wouldn't fly. People play cracked copies because they can get away with it, and because they can justify it to themselves that it's "not actually stealing."
2. If your parents think $20 is too much for a game, good luck ever playing anything except for games on an iPod, or something. $60 is an industry standard. If you walked out of a store with a physical copy of the game, got caught, and told the cops, "Mom and Dad thought it was too expensive", they'd still have a nice little chat with Mom and Dad.
3. If you have a computer, but no internet, and your parents think $20 is too much for software... you have bigger problems than cracked games.
Based on the points above, I conclude that you are in fact an Amish boy, rebelling against his parents. Fight the good fight, and move to the big city when you're at that age where they set you loose to experience the wonders of the outside world.
Copying is stealing intellectual property. Maybe you would want to review your legal knowledge (or lack of it)?
Do I really need to post the picture again? No, no it is not.
To all those claiming that Piracy is not theft, maybe this approach will help make you understand where "legit" buyers are coming from.
Yes the legal definition of theft is taking something, and piracy is making a copy leaving the original in place. But why would anyone put a price on the original? To make money. Every person is a potential customer, who may or may not be willing to PAY for the digital item. When someone cracks the digital item, there is no need for them to PAY for it.
That is one customer, and in turn one potential REVENUE SOURCE gone. When you have the power to remove a revenue source, when not the company in charge, it seems like stealing to me.
Guessing you missed my posts as well, but at this point it's 5 pages long so can't gripe. However I will quote it:
Pirating is taking a digital object you don't own, but copying it. However the devs don't lose money for either way. Where as if you steal a car, that is a lost profit as it has to be rebuilt or repurchased/etc. A pirate will be a pirate, take that away and they are not going to buy the game regardless. So the developer neither loses nor gains money because of piracy, though if they take time and money to add protection to the game against said pirates then they are only losing money and time as either way it will be cracked eventually by those that would not buy it. You could say I am trying to justify it, however I am not at all as I bought the game :tongue.gif:. I am simply stating a fact.
I think that everyone is considered a potential for profit. If that wasn't the case, then anyone who doesn't feel like paying for something could claim they aren't a source of profit and take it anyways.
You missed the link that shows Notch actually agrees with us stating he does not lose or gain money from pirates :tongue.gif:.
1. If I walked out of a store with a physical copy of a video game, without paying for it, the excuse that I didn't have the money wouldn't fly. People play cracked copies because they can get away with it, and because they can justify it to themselves that it's "not actually stealing."
2. If your parents think $20 is too much for a game, good luck ever playing anything except for games on an iPod, or something. $60 is an industry standard. If you walked out of a ...
I think I'll pick at some points in the original post before I go off in my own direction.
"1.)Some people cannot afford $20 for a game"
They can, easily, but it's not on the list of priorities so they don't or feel they can't.
"2.)Some people's parents think its a waste of money to pay this much for a game"
I know exactly what you mean.
"3.)Some people don't have internet at their house, and cannot play"
People here seem to have forgotten about thumb drives for data transport, getting Minecraft to an unconnected computer is easy, play offline, no worries.
"Now i am currently cutting grass and babysitting my nephew every two weeks, giving me $80 a week."
Your profile says you're nineteen, seriously, get a real job.
Well now that that is over, on to the debate of theft or not.
I'm not talking morally here, but yes it is theft, and yes you are thieves, by law. Mojang has copyrights on Minecraft. Mojang has terms of use which states to not distribute anything they have made which includes modified versions (a cracked version is modified), to all those people who crack the game for others.
And to the owners of cracked versions you are just as guilty. Mojang creates the game, then if someone buys the game, then "gives" it (a cracked version) to a file sharing site then that file sharing site "gives" it to you, and you use Minecraft in an unauthorized way, it is unavoidable for you in this instance but, as I said you are using Minecraft in an unauthorized way, as set by the Mojang Terms of use and copyright laws, which does constitute theft.
For those who cracked it for personal use with no intent to distribute, you are in the clear.
"This does not reflect the personal views or beliefs of the poster"
Sometimes your daddy/mommy isn't going to pay for your online crack -- but in my case, my parent does not have a credit card. A relative of mine's credit card would not work with the minecraft website.
A friend donated me his account.
I haven't got enough money to buy a TV so let me go steal one really quick. By your logic that will be just fine, right?
Having cracked a game is bad enough, but then admitting to it? Shameful. But I do understand the "My parents won't let me buy it" logic. While exceptions apply, blah blah, here's my take on people who pirate the game:
* Pirates tend to grief more often, generally because they never paid for the game, and get enjoyment out of griefing a person who spent their $20
* Pirates tend to be younger people who cannot legally buy the game, therefore this returns to reliance on parents. This can also be tied to a rebellious mentality, that leads back to griefing: "Screw the rules, I'm doing what I want!"
* Pirates tend to whine about spawn jails, when they do manage to connect online, and also have worse typing. Again, they don't care. leads back to the circular logic that pirates grief more.
So in short, people who do buy the game are more appreciative of others' work, and are more willing to follow the rules.
Also, nobody gives piracy the credit it deserves, when people are tired of messing with cracks, dealing with developer-imposed limitations and generally, growing up. Some people won't buy the game (Even if they played an outated demo) because they want to see if it's really worth their money first, with a first-hand experience buying the game does not allow. People in disadvantaged countries in certain situations (Say, that black kid living in Africa getting by on a bowl of rice with his One Laptop Per Child PC) might want to play Minecraft after hearing about it from some of his more-fortunate friends.
While piracy is bad, Microsoft encouraged it by letting a whole lot of people sell pirated PCs, then go in with a sweep operation to make them "Work" with Microsoft. It goes without speaking, after they've paid the giant money to not go to jail, quite a few switched to selling with a form of Linux preinstalled instead. The moral here is people who pirate stuff may still end up paying some time in the future, even if it means taking it at a loss, as let's face it, there's no real "Loss" for Microsoft aside from cost of packaging and writing the data to specialized disks, and lots of people use hand-me-down PCs running an inferior version of Windows (But just enough to get by).
Piracy doesn't hurt Minecraft that much. In fact, despite the above, it spreads the name around. When someone says "Guess what I did in Minecraft!" and they get someone to listen, that person the pirate is talking to might just buy the game, and purchase a gift code to make their pirate friend legal. While the gray matter between piracy and legal use is slim, it does exist, and should be considered before throwing up an opinion.
To all those claiming that Piracy is not theft, maybe this approach will help make you understand where "legit" buyers are coming from.
Yes the legal definition of theft is taking something, and piracy is making a copy leaving the original in place. But why would anyone put a price on the original? To make money. Every person is a potential customer, who may or may not be willing to PAY for the digital item. When someone cracks the digital item, there is no need for them to PAY for it.
That is one customer, and in turn one potential REVENUE SOURCE gone. When you have the power to remove a revenue source, when not the company in charge, it seems like stealing to me.
tl;dr version:
minecraft (profit)
theft (original) =/= piracy (copy)
HOWEVER
customer (revenue source)
Cracking by (revenue source) removes (profit).
Mojang == in control of minecraft, but =/= in control of profit.
When someone outside the company has the ability to remove a profit stream, it is a more generalist term of THEFT.
“Piracy is not theft, If you steal a car, the original is lost. If you copy a game, there are simply more of them in the world.” ~Notch
I played a cracked minecraft, then bought 3 copies of it for me and friends. O guess I'm a bad person. >.>
"“Piracy is not theft, If you steal a car, the original is lost. If you copy a game, there are simply more of them in the world.” ~Notch
You're not. You bought the game afterwards, so it's fine.
My point was that if I go to a store and steal something then come back and buy something I still stole from them and they still actually lost something. If you copy something the only thing lost is potential profit.
I believe people confuse Potential with actual.
Potential: capable of being or becoming
What if person A has 0 Potential to buy "game" because they are extremely poor?
Then the potential profit from said person is also 0.
If person B can afford it then the potential profit is a positive value.
Also stealing implies that something was TAKEN from a victim, who is now at an actual lose.
A copy of something and the original are 2 separate things so the only thing actually lost was a Potential Profit, which depending on the circumstances might not even exist because it can be 0 or greater.
I'm not saying it's ok to Not pay for things, I am saying nothing is lost to anyone if the potential sale and profit was 0 in the first place. So yes there is a difference between person A and B.
TL:DR
anything times 0 is still 0
now go back and read it's not even long
"“Piracy is not theft, If you steal a car, the original is lost. If you copy a game, there are simply more of them in the world.” ~Notch
You aren't taking away a source of profit. Pirates are one of two types. The first group is those who pirate it because they want to try it out, and either stop playing because they don't like it or they buy it. The second group is people who never intended on buying it in the first place.
You can argue about how piracy is bad (which I disagree with), but it isn't going to change the fact that people who don't want to pay for the game aren't going to magically fork up the money if they can't pirate it. Notch hasn't lost any money because there was never a source there in the first place.
Anyone who uses "illegal" versions of whatever is in fact still a potential customer. In case he can't afford it -> Nothing is lost. If he doesn't buy it -> Still nothing lost. But he always will have the choice to purchase it at a later point.
But as long as he keeps playing it there's a chance a friend, relative or whoever will become a potential customer, too.
One last word on "nothing lost" : Of course companies claim loss of money, but this is ********. This is virtual loss, whatever they call it. It is money they may have gained
Copying stuff = Stealing is a thing invented by the content industry to gain ridiculous amounts of money.
No, he never offered a free version that lets you play only on Hamachi-based servers.
There is, however, a demo version.
I think that everyone is considered a potential for profit. If that wasn't the case, then anyone who doesn't feel like paying for something could claim they aren't a source of profit and take it anyways.
I would only have to say that I don't plan on buying it (for whatever reason), that way, it doesn't matter (in this case minecraft) if I crack it or not. See what I'm saying? If someone can exclude themselves and be considered outside of the potential customer market, then who's to say EVERYONE is outside the potential market, getting rid of the point to making a sale altogether.
EDIT: I'm open to any ideas. Sometimes understanding the scope of a discussion bars people from making credible claims themselves. If I am not looking at some aspect please let me know. After all everything anybody says is an opinion.
1. If I walked out of a store with a physical copy of a video game, without paying for it, the excuse that I didn't have the money wouldn't fly. People play cracked copies because they can get away with it, and because they can justify it to themselves that it's "not actually stealing."
2. If your parents think $20 is too much for a game, good luck ever playing anything except for games on an iPod, or something. $60 is an industry standard. If you walked out of a store with a physical copy of the game, got caught, and told the cops, "Mom and Dad thought it was too expensive", they'd still have a nice little chat with Mom and Dad.
3. If you have a computer, but no internet, and your parents think $20 is too much for software... you have bigger problems than cracked games.
Based on the points above, I conclude that you are in fact an Amish boy, rebelling against his parents. Fight the good fight, and move to the big city when you're at that age where they set you loose to experience the wonders of the outside world.
Do I really need to post the picture again? No, no it is not.
Guessing you missed my posts as well, but at this point it's 5 pages long so can't gripe. However I will quote it:
You missed the link that shows Notch actually agrees with us stating he does not lose or gain money from pirates :tongue.gif:.
please read the thread.
^
By your logic, this would be okay.
The simple fact is, it's illegal, and it is the same as stealing a real-world item.
Read the thread, and my posts/picture :tongue.gif:. Damn people, learn to check before you post.
and viola
"1.)Some people cannot afford $20 for a game"
They can, easily, but it's not on the list of priorities so they don't or feel they can't.
"2.)Some people's parents think its a waste of money to pay this much for a game"
I know exactly what you mean.
"3.)Some people don't have internet at their house, and cannot play"
People here seem to have forgotten about thumb drives for data transport, getting Minecraft to an unconnected computer is easy, play offline, no worries.
"Now i am currently cutting grass and babysitting my nephew every two weeks, giving me $80 a week."
Your profile says you're nineteen, seriously, get a real job.
Well now that that is over, on to the debate of theft or not.
I'm not talking morally here, but yes it is theft, and yes you are thieves, by law. Mojang has copyrights on Minecraft. Mojang has terms of use which states to not distribute anything they have made which includes modified versions (a cracked version is modified), to all those people who crack the game for others.
And to the owners of cracked versions you are just as guilty. Mojang creates the game, then if someone buys the game, then "gives" it (a cracked version) to a file sharing site then that file sharing site "gives" it to you, and you use Minecraft in an unauthorized way, it is unavoidable for you in this instance but, as I said you are using Minecraft in an unauthorized way, as set by the Mojang Terms of use and copyright laws, which does constitute theft.
For those who cracked it for personal use with no intent to distribute, you are in the clear.
"This does not reflect the personal views or beliefs of the poster"
It doesn't matter whether I support or object to the subject at hand, if your argument is stupid I am against you.
A friend donated me his account.
INB4 someone makes a joke about black people
* Pirates tend to grief more often, generally because they never paid for the game, and get enjoyment out of griefing a person who spent their $20
* Pirates tend to be younger people who cannot legally buy the game, therefore this returns to reliance on parents. This can also be tied to a rebellious mentality, that leads back to griefing: "Screw the rules, I'm doing what I want!"
* Pirates tend to whine about spawn jails, when they do manage to connect online, and also have worse typing. Again, they don't care. leads back to the circular logic that pirates grief more.
So in short, people who do buy the game are more appreciative of others' work, and are more willing to follow the rules.
Also, nobody gives piracy the credit it deserves, when people are tired of messing with cracks, dealing with developer-imposed limitations and generally, growing up. Some people won't buy the game (Even if they played an outated demo) because they want to see if it's really worth their money first, with a first-hand experience buying the game does not allow. People in disadvantaged countries in certain situations (Say, that black kid living in Africa getting by on a bowl of rice with his One Laptop Per Child PC) might want to play Minecraft after hearing about it from some of his more-fortunate friends.
While piracy is bad, Microsoft encouraged it by letting a whole lot of people sell pirated PCs, then go in with a sweep operation to make them "Work" with Microsoft. It goes without speaking, after they've paid the giant money to not go to jail, quite a few switched to selling with a form of Linux preinstalled instead. The moral here is people who pirate stuff may still end up paying some time in the future, even if it means taking it at a loss, as let's face it, there's no real "Loss" for Microsoft aside from cost of packaging and writing the data to specialized disks, and lots of people use hand-me-down PCs running an inferior version of Windows (But just enough to get by).
Piracy doesn't hurt Minecraft that much. In fact, despite the above, it spreads the name around. When someone says "Guess what I did in Minecraft!" and they get someone to listen, that person the pirate is talking to might just buy the game, and purchase a gift code to make their pirate friend legal. While the gray matter between piracy and legal use is slim, it does exist, and should be considered before throwing up an opinion.