GameRager: 1. Why ido you think playing games or watching media is a right and not a privelege as it really is?

GameRager: 2. There's a BIG difference between IP violation and theft..........do we really have to bring out the whole physical theft vs pirating example board again? Cuz my head hurts.....that's related to how many times i've had to haul it out here btw.

Roman5: Bottom line: people who want to play the games and get goodies with them will buy them here

Smannesman: I don't buy games here because they're the only way to get them, but because I like actually owning those games. Sometimes I even played pirated copies of the games back when they were originally released.
I highly doubt it will cost GOG any customers and might even attract some, if people know those games (and many, many more) are available at GOG.com

It's still a little bit sad to think someone from this community is doing this...
Although someone also pirated the Humble Indie Bundle and Minecraft, so it's only to be expected.

Vestin: The wording doesn't seem relevant - if it is necessary for something not to happen, it is not possible for it to happen. Privilege vs right works pretty similarly to possibility vs necessity.
Therefore:
You don't own it -> necessity not to use it regardless
You do own it -> ~necessity (possibility) to use it

Vestin: No we don't, no there's not. That's exactly why I explicitly stated how I define theft and I don't think it's counterintuitive either - if you have obtained something that doesn't belong to you, without the owners permission, that makes you as much of a thief as you can get, regardless of the object in question. I dare you to find examples of cases where such acts aren't immoral. Even then - these most likely would be borderline cases, reinforcing the general rule as its exceptions...

GameRager: [ 1. Why ido you think playing games or watching media is a right and not a privelege as it really is?

keim: wow, no you are wrong, horribly so, digital and physical property are completely different things based on completely different ideas

physical property is based on scarcity, ie: there is only so much land which can be owned etc, digital property has no scarcity at all except for all the artificial scarcity companies like to put up in order to over valuate their products.

dont get me wrong im very supportive of gog, i think what they are doing is great and respect the company alot, im also not supporting piracy, though its less of an issue than what most make it out to be, but do not make completely bogus statements like "ip violation and theft are the same thing" or "digital and physical property are interchangeable" because no they are not, even if we go with the basis of inside YOUR head they are the same, it only shows you are wrong because they are in fact not the same thing and are not considered the same thing by law

you say any argument against your idea is ridiculous, well i think the whole concept of having a monopoly on an idea for 100+ years is ridiculous, hell i find anyone stating that ip and physical are the same ridiculous

not trying to attack anyone but perhaps people should think some of this through a bit more before making horribly inaccurate claims

once again im not supporting piracy, i do support common sense and fairness though which is generally frowned on by those who helped push IP laws to their current self serving extremes and are still trying to push them further

as a last note, gog should ignore the piracy thing, for a couple of reasons

1. as has been stated its not as big as you might think
2. any change to try and fight it will most likely piss off actual customers
3. there is a limited selection so this can be advertising
4. people who pirate 8923764623423 games dont play them therefore your not really losing anything

once again keep up the great work gog

Rucksack: (many lines cut)

I see your point, but our legal system is not based on scarcity. We don't define what constitutes theft in accordance to rather or not it's a physical object. They are also considered largely the same thing by law, and any fuzziness on the point is due to the newness of the concept.

If I'm a musical artist and I put my MP3 for sale on iTunes, then I expect to be paid the price that I asked. I invested capital into the creation of the product--be it time, money, or energy--and thus I expect a return of capital in the form of the .99 cents the download costs.

Our legal system also allows me to sue you for stealing my goods. It is on this principle that rights holders, and large groups like the RAA, can sue individuals who pilfer their product.

Therefore, despite your claims, it's not "in my head". It's the law, it's ethical, and it's philosophically cohesive.

I know it's easy to make a boogie man out corporations, but the individual user does not have the "right" to any media that they did not personally produce; and, no amount of rhetorical gymnastics that people may attempt changes this fact.

Rucksack: I see your point, but our legal system is not based on scarcity. We don't define what constitutes theft in accordance to rather or not it's a physical object. They are also considered largely the same thing by law, and any fuzziness on the point is due to the newness of the concept.