Uh, you’re right, I was describing plagiarism but it also copyright infringement, as per my original post.

Tesco is the equivalent of Wal-Mart in that they both dominate their local markets; that ASDA is owned by Wal-Mart is irrelevant in this instance.

You were when you said “Taking someones work and passing it off as your own”.

Also ASDA is the UK version of Wal-Mart, if we are being pedantic (they are owned by the same “family”).

I think one of the difficulties in the debate is the tangibility of the product: a disc on a shelf has a physical manifestation whereas a download manifests itself in no way other than pixels on screen and sound via speaker cones – do you actually, physically, posses something?

I suspect the excuse “I wouldn’t have bought it” is a spurious one at best – there are plenty of games that I wouldn’t buy and so, not only have I not bought them, neither have I downloaded them – I just don’t want them. I think you subscribe to that point with your statement about fooling oneself.

If one downloads a game, clearly, it is “wanted” so the retailer has lost a sale.

Nick
The “Computer Misuse Act 1990″ and the “Police and Justice Act 2006″ do criminalise “Unauthorised access to computer material” – though I know of no case where an individual has been prosecuted as Police resources dictate that they must go after large, organised groups.

I wasn’t describing plagiarism. If one is not the downloader but buys a game from a “mate” in the local pub, for example, the mate isn’t a plagiarist he is a criminal and so, by association, is oneself – receiving stolen goods.

Downloading a game is a civil offence, not a criminal one. It is copyright infrigement. The example you gave is plagarism.

There are several types of copyright, they cover the right to reproduce (make copies), create derivatives , perform (in the case of music) and so forth. It gets quite convoluted.

As I said, it is still illegal, but theft carries criminal rather than civil charges.

There are cases where it is a criminal act, but they are usually to do with mass reproduction and distribution of copyrighted material, or knowingly selling copyrighted stuff.

I think you’re focusing on the actual amounts of money, and they’re ancillary to the argument I’ve been advancing. It has nothing to do with who’s rich and who’s poor (except that poor people are less likely to spend their money on video games). Id could have lost money on Quake, and I could be using windex and thousand dollar bills to clean the windshield of my private jet, but it doesn’t change the fact that my illegal play of a game I would not have otherwise bought costs Id nothing.

If you shoplift a disc, one that you never would have bought, Tesco is out nothing, Walmart (or whoever) is out maybe twenty bucks, and you are up one game. You’re gaining at the expense of Walmart. There is a clear loser here, but it’s not Tesco.

If you download a game off of the internet, one that you never would have bought, Tesco is out nothing, Walmart is out nothing, and you’re up one game. There is no loser, assuming that you’re not just fooling yourself into thinking that you never would have bought the game.

You’re assuming that if I don’t pirate a game, that I buy it. That’s simply not true.

Id’s profit on Quake if I didn’t pirate it: 15 bazillion dollars. Id’s profit on Quake if I pirated it: 15 bazillion dollars.

But: Id’s lifetime profit if I didn’t pirate Quake: 100 bazillion dollars. Id’s lifetime profit if I pirated Quake: 100 bazillion and 50 dollars.

You can talk about right and wrong if you want, but they’re ultimately irrelevant to the financing of games, and there’s no solid ground to allow us a meaningful discussion of the differences in our moral judgments. To you, copying a bunch of information that somebody worked hard to create is capital-w Wrong. To me, walking by a homeless guy digging in the trash without giving him a couple bucks for a sandwich is Wrong.

We’ll just have to wait to hear what St. Peter says.

Rodafowa
Sorry, I hadn’t realised that using copies of games rather than retail originals doesn’t deprive anybody – what does the store do with the unsold copy for which they have paid?

The ananlogy sought to illustrate that the end doesn’t justify the means – just because the poster buys now, doesn’t excuse past actions.

What he doesn’t adress, and here is where Valve are ahead of the curve, is the realisation that flawed distribution models are just as much to blame as high prices and mistargeted games for low game sales.”

That’s funny… because Steam games are more expensive than in retail here in the UK. In some cases as much as twice as expensive. Not to mention that games released on Steam are able to be laden with the same copy protection on top of Steam’s copy protection.
Unfortunately, digital distribution is currently a big rip-off and will probably continue to be…. this isn’t being ahead of the curve… it’s a way for developers/publishers to gouge the customer even more.

Also i don’t call their crappy customer support to be ahead of the curve either…. I hate the fact that the gaming industry is worse than the music and movie industries with regards to trusting their customers. There are very few times i now feel good about purchasing a title because i know it’ll either be:

a)Unfinished (i) to allow for content to be sold to me in DLC or expansion packs or (ii) because the developers weren’t given enough time or money to get the game to a properly suitable state before going gold.

b)Laden to the gills with copy protection that could interfere with gameplay (TitanQuest) or limit my ability to play it on the ‘play anywhere’ service (Bioshock on steam) that i bought it on. Or stop me from playing if my internet connection goes down….

c)An overly expensive rip-off for content/gameplay. (I’m looking at you DS games!)

Every game i buy to enjoy gaming pushes this further down the road – it’s a positive reinforcement of bad habits. What do i do? Stop gaming? It’s sad that i should have to make that choice.