but then again, this is just me, and we all know there are people out there that are simply thieves. I am not protecting this people, I am protecting the term piracy being a good thing for both sides.
Similar to hackers. People see them as being thieves and criminals but in reality, some hackers are attacking webs and servers for security purposes, not only it gives them an challenge, but they leave a message for the admin what needs to be fixed (thats actually the real meaning of the term "hacker".). In that example both sides profit from the "fun" of one.
In the States, people on government assistance tend to be labeled as "lazy bums who don't want to work." Anyone who knows me knows that I am a hard worker (a workaholic according to a good few), and anything but lazy. I am on government assistance, because I cannot work, not because I just don't want to. In fact, I was disabled before I was legal to work (people who knew me from back then said that), yet I went through college, got my degree, went to work... and it just ended in a near catastrophe. Even knowing that, I waited two years before even applying for assistance. I was turned down the first time (I hate to say it, but the system is rigged to unfairly favor people based on race, and I happened to be born the wrong color), and gave up. Finally, at the behest of my conscience (I had no income, so I was being a burden on my parents), and with the help of my psychiatrist and a volunteer lawyer, they sat down with me, helped me fill out the questionnaire (apparently I was in a poor frame of mind to properly answer those types of questions the first go-round), and was declared legally disabled within a month.
But, of course, the vast majority of people will target the whole "you look like you can work, so get a job you freeloader" mantra, simply because they lump me in with "government assistance is bad" mentality. Why? Not because of anything I did (no one who is well-acquainted with me or my situation has ever called me a freeloader), but because of abuse of the system (and, sadly, racial discrimination).
Moral of the story? Labels are meant to dumb things down, but in the end, just make things WAY too complicated.
As far as I know (And i am not exactly a law encyclopedia) but when you buy a game you only own the license and not the product. thus it is illegal for the user to distribute the content because he only owns the license to use the content.
It is exactly the opposite thing with the end user. he is not doing anything illegal by downloading the content and as long as he doesn't distribute it or sell it he is free to keep it. but since he does not possess the license to use it he is doing something illegal by running it.
thats should be a lose version of the law i think.
That pretty much sums it up. (Laws change at the drop of a hat, so everything is subject to change, but this explanation is pretty much dead-on as of the last I checked, a couple years ago.)
I really like what Starcraft II did with its starter edition. You can download it for free, you get a part of the story to play for free and you can play multiplayer for free but only with the Terran race. Thats a really good way of doing a "demo" version cause it shows you a big part of the game including MP and then you can easily decide if its worth your time. for example I am not a big fan of starcraft and I am not familiar with the story, so I downloaded the starter edition thus avoiding the risk. I considered not buying it because I am not really interested in the story and I sometimes play it with my friend and I am happy using only the Terran race since we play like once in 2 or 3 weeks when there is nothing better to do. everybody is happy, everything is legal, perfect solution.
Really, any game should have a demo similar to this, or at least in some form. If I can't get my hands on a demo, then I read reviews. If I don't like what I read/hear, I don't even bother. If it's not worth paying for, I won't waste any more time on it.
also Mugai and Squills, you are saying the same thing no? Distribution = exchange between more people, and thats done by uploading (over the internet that is, I guess nothing is stopping you from burning it and giving it to someone directly)
I think the difference is that Squills is saying that uploading something doesn't constitute distribution. If so, I believe his rationale is that you aren't directly sending it to someone. While technically true (and law is often a game of technicalities), intent always betrays the lack of logic in that line of thought.