Talk about rationalization. Guarantee you that if you created some media product capable of being pirated you'd scream bloody murder whenever someone did so and send the lawyers out to reap in every cent.
Are you illiterate or just trolling? I would call it exactly what it is, copyright infringement, and would pursue it along those lines (or not, depending on many factors involved, including costs, potential benefits and public reaction).
Let me repeat: illegally downloading and sharing a program constitutes copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is one particular offense, theft is another particular offense.
Cloaked Figure said:
I wouldn't say it isn't stealing. Digital media is relatively new and thus it does not make sense to use outdated definitions of stealing in such discourse.
This is incorrect, as copyright infringement did not start with digital media (and digital media industry is not that new anyway). It has been present for a long time in the music industry, with bootleg tapes, for example. Also, copyright infringement laws have been present for a long while and copyright infringement and theft have always been distinct offenses.
When somebody rips a game and uploads it to a torrent sharing site; he is doing two things:
1. Breaching the contract that he agreed to upon installing the game, and
In most legislatures, EULA is (still) not a legally binding contract, due to the fact that it is not signed at the purchase. Even if it was, it could be circumvented / cracked. Even with the legally binding "signed" EULA still wouldn't transform software piracy from copyright infringement to theft.
2. Distributing the product for free to hundreds/thousands/millions, a percentage of whom (no matter how small) would have purchased the game legally had they no other recourse, thus harming the sales of said product by breaching the aforementioned contract.
You are discussing hypothetical quantities that cannot be verified. I claim that the number of pirates that would have bought the game is zero, as argued in my first post on the topic (I've even included those who torrent AND buy the game, as I often do and you've stated yourself that you do - how can that be a "lost sale"?). What is your estimate? In any case, the best we can do is pull the numbers out of our asses. There is no informed estimate. Hence, we are discussing hypothethical damages that may or may not exist and cannot be proven to exist (and the burden of proof is on the claimant). Calling something theft based on imaginary damages doesn't cut it.
I hope you realize that I'm not arguing about morality or legality of software piracy. I'm arguing about nomenclature. My argument still stands: what took place was not transfer of property, which would make it the case of theft, but unauthorized copying of someone's (intellectual) property, making it a case of copyright infringement.
The fact is that both legislature and the industry (given that they pursue the offenders through copyright violation laws) recognize this dinstinction. There is no reason to use incorrect terminology or to redefine current terminology, which is clear and logical.
Kz3ro said:
and, get real, Skyrim is RPGCODEX most played game, so bawing about Witcher's quality is quite inane.
Ah, the dreaded imaginary hivemind. The opinion of some portion (be it majority or not) of RPG Codex users about Skyrim has no bearing on my opinion on Skyrim, let alone on my evaluation of quality of The Witcher. Some prefer a hard turd to a diarrhea to grace their dinner plate, but I'll choose steak instead. Of course, de gustibus...