this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2023
1631 points (99.2% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
55085 readers
287 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Big brain move, getting you to acknowledge that you’re pirating for when the lawsuit comes.
More people need to accept that piracy helps sales in the end, not take sales.
If ppl like it enough to pirate it, ppl will also like it enough to buy it. That's the rule of thumb imo.
The caveat is that it has to be easy for people to find it and buy it without jumping through hoops. If you gotta jump through hoops just to buy it, you might as well jump through hoops and get it for free.
There will also be people who abuse it for nefarious means as well. Even if purchasing is easy.
They of course use these 2% to justify vilifying the rest though.
This is the method that is used to justify cutting welfare benefits for poor people.
Too bad they don’t see the hypocrisy of them doing the same with tax loopholes.
Yes. Corporate welfare is good for the country, human welfare is bad. /s
Hey everyone deserves some sympathy
Those poor entities!
Reminds me of everyone pirating the Mass Effect trilogy through 2015 until the remaster released because it was literally the only way to get all three games, with all of the dlc.
I really don't think this is true though, the cost of piracy is severely low when compared to buying it, I can see myself downloading some shit games just to play them for 15-30 minutes but I'd never buy them.
True. I would never pay for AC Rogue, and after having completed the game, I can justify that decision. To me, it felt lile Black Flag but worse. Could I justify but I Black Flag on Steam, after already paying for it on PS4? Yes. Could I justify any purchase of Rogue? No, none.
Arguably if you completed the entire game, the purchase would be justified
I completed it because I started it (and it's a shorter game), not because I was actually invested. I've played Black Flag 3 times, I've paid for it once, and would both replay it and pay for it again. I've played Rogue once, and I have no intention of replaying or paying for it.
Its about justifying it to myself. I'm not rich and don't really have disposable income for games.
If those games had demos would you still pirate the full game to only play a small portion?
I don't really understand what it has to do with buying the game but yeah I probably would since I'd rather have the unlimited experience in case the game is halfway decent.
I am not a lawyer, but... This does not prove you're pirating the software. It's informing the customer (who, as far as they may be aware, obtained the key in a totally legit manner) that the company thinks the key to be a pirated key (of which, it might not actually be, but, rather identified as such by the company or software in error). It is definitely designed to illicit some form of guilt if you did in-fact pirate the software (which is between you and your conscience), but it is not proof that you pirated it. That said, I totally back what this company is doing!
Doesn’t matter how you acquired the key, it’s still a pirated copy.
Do you think buying a stolen car or phone changes that it’s still stolen? Plenty of places also have laws against buying or keeping knowingly stolen items. So even just being informed and you continuing to keep it can now be used against you as well.
That's the key, though... KNOWINGLY stolen! If you purchased an item but where unaware that it was stolen, there's no legal issue and, unless there's something that can link that item back to it's original owner... I guess it's yours then.
As far as the digital key is concerned, this is even more nebulous. Sure, their database or software thinks the key is stolen, but that's just a binary bit somewhere which could, by accident or by a bug in the software, be in error. If, as a purchaser, you were unaware that the dealer from which you purchased said key was selling keys illegally, they is the same as buying a stolen TV from the flea market. Unless you knew, you did nothing wrong. As for the software telling you it's stolen... again, that's only what the software things. It could be wrong.
Additionally, purchasing suspect keys is even more legal as there's no intrinsic value to the key itself. It's just a string of numbers and symbols. Keep it, it's yours. Have fun. Play hangman. The company who owns the software for which that key was intended... didn't loose anything. They still have their software. If the key worked? Well, if the key worked, that means the company and/or software doesn't think the key stolen or otherwise illegitimate (which, can also be an error on the companies part).
In this case, the company says, in essence, "We think this key is stolen, but we cannot prove you did the stealing. We're not going to belabor the issue. Keep on, and let your conscience guide you"
Sounds like that may rankle your sense of right and wrong, but, them's the fact. You have never seen someone arrested for purchasing a software key, nor have you seen anyone arrested for purchasing a physical product they believed to be legit even when it wasn't.
Uhh… what do you think the notice is telling you…? That’s it’s not a legal copy. Now you can’t claim you didn’t know… this is literally a legally accepted measure to remove that entire defense that you didn’t know. It’s hilarious you comprehend that, but don’t see how this notifies you of it being illegal! It’s along the same veins of reselling a book without its cover and the notice telling you. Of course it’s legal and accepted to remove your ignorance defense. Ignorance has never been a defense and this would be no different.
And yeah people have been arrested for those before, of course I haven’t personally seen it. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
Legal or not legal isn't determined by the licence key anyway. You can buy it for real, then crack it and you still have a legal copy.
Actually, no... it's telling you that it thinks it's not a legal copy. The company doesn't actually know. It's not like they sit down and write out by hand every key that is created. Those keys are generated by some algorithm. The company can identify if an algorithm was compromised (either the generation method identified or a significant portion of keys from said algorithm being used without them having been generated by the company), or they surmise that a chunk of codes, that had been previously generated for distribution, were nabbed when a number of them start to get activated without the company seeing a corresponding increase in sales. They more than likely do not have an exact list of which codes were stolen, just an assumption.
Here's an example for ya... Company gives Legit LTD a set of codes to sell. Unfortunately, the thieves seal hack into Legit LTD's systems and are able to copy a chunk of those codes. Legit LTD does not realize the breach for a day, or a week, and sells those codes to customers. At the same time, the thieves setup a seeming legit web store and started selling their ill gotten codes on that site. Two different customers are looking for Company's software. One buys a code from Legit LTD. The other buys from thieves seemingly legit store. Just so happens that both stores sold the same code. Now two people have a copy of the same code. Both customers, in this case, believed they were buying a legit code. Both believe their code is valid. Before either can activate those codes, however, Legit LTD realizes they've been hacked and tell Company. Company, not knowing exactly which codes were stolen, decides to invalidate the batch... but there are legit customers in the wild that have codes from that batch and there's no way for Company to tell who bought from who. BOTH customers, at this point, go to activate their code and both are told they're running a pirated code. Neither of them really pirated, however. The thief did, but the thief isn't the run using the code.
As such, no... Company and Legit LTD would find it very difficult, if not impossible, to determine who bought legitimately. Most companies, when this happens, would say, fuck'em and let both customers suffer. This company chooses to tell them they're running suspected pirated codes (though, they don't know for sure), and, regardless, neither customer would be pirating because both believe they purchased legit codes all above board.
Welcome to software, my friend. :D
The other possibility of course is the developers themselves seeded keys to display this notice to pirates who might not otherwise purchase the software legitimately. There's plenty of well-known cases where a developer has released pirated copies/keys into the wild.
That sounds like EULA territory, ergo, not defensible in court
Can’t say you didn’t know the key was pirated when you bought it off kijiji if there’s this warning.
It removes a potential defence, it’s not for them to admit any evidence, it’s to destroy your rebuttals.
How can they sue you if they literally say they don't oppose the use of this pirated serial and it's okay to do and the software will continue working?
If anything if you agree to this you can sue them if they ever disable this key because they agreed to accept it.
Do you even know how contracts/agreements work?
Do you really think this is a contract or agreement of legal enforceability? Holy hell.
If they actually used this for that reason it would be to merely remove your defense of saying you didn’t know you bought a pirated copy. They don’t even need you to agree to it, a splash screen would be enough.
Look up the legal principle of estoppel. In general you can't turn around and sue someone for doing something after informing them (in writing no less) that you're okay with it, even if you would otherwise have had a valid basis to sue.
"my friend gave it to me as a gift. What's Kijiji?"
And you said you acknowledged it was pirated, doesn’t matter where you got it from…..
You didn't, you typed the words "I understand", which isn't acknowledgement of comprehension, exactly the same as it is when you "accept the EULA" after not having read it. The very thing that has been deemed non-defensible for EULA litigation.
Oh man this thread makes me miss Reddit.
Kind of debatable depending on the floor price but not bad an idea either way, it's all about margins and looking to let yourself understand how much your product is really worth to the customer vs simple market cost