Premium Piracy

On the Hacker News-posted article (originally found on Gaming on Linux), I found this comment:

I’m starting to believe this is copypasta — I see this so often, nearly word-for-word each time. If it is copypasta, I’m officially out of touch. Even with the risk of Old Man Yells at Thieves, I’ll go ahead with the critique.

I began pirating around 2000 or so. Napster was enough for a while, when individual songs sufficed, but before long I moved to torrents. For a while, after I got a car, I frequently drove to Blockbuster to rent DVDs for movies I couldn’t find torrents for so as to rip them with Gordion Knot and host them. I reckon my finest moment was uploading a vinyl rips of Lord Tariq and Peter Gunz’s “Deja Vu (Uptown Baby)” b/w “Marmalade.” I was convinced “Marmalade” was not available online prior to that point, as it wasn’t (to the best f my knowledge) on the album Make it Reign, so I was doing heads a favor by rectifying that situation. A slightly wiser me knows this was wrong.

The Comment

Ownership is the premium version of a product.

I concur with bitsandboots on this point (see previous posts re: ownership)…

Turns out piracy is sometimes the only ownership option.

… yet on this point I strongly disagree with bits. Regardless of how much you may want something, pirating is not a justifiable option. To think — planting a flag on this point over Grand Theft Auto! Is the only other option in this scenario not to thieve? Where is the line in the sand on this — that is, what’s the point of decision wherein it becomes an acceptable form of recourse to steal a thing, and does this decision framework extend to others? Say I decide I want — I just cannot live without! — your Toyota 4Runner. Is it acceptable to just steal it?

So we’re clear on what I mean by “pirating:”

One type of copyright infringement is popularly known as piracy. This involves duplicating and distributing copyrighted materials without permission from the copyright holder. Piracy in the Entertainment Industry & Legal Penalties

I don’t buy the digital vs. tangible goods division: That the difference in the 4Runner and a video game is that as a digital good, GTA is copyable with comparatively minimal effort. It’s just bits and bytes, after all. This argument shifts the discussion away from when it’s acceptable to steal to why it’s acceptable to steal, which is some mighty serious conclusion jumping.

Here’s an undercurrent of entitlement: To wit, that Rockstar games owes you or I something, or that we have any right to products they make.

By no means do I desire to create animosity between bits and myself, but this is foolishness. If I’m adverse to playing games requiring kernel-level anticheats, then the solution is to not play the game. That’s the simplest way to adhere to my principles on the matter. Principles often require you to not do things you’d (possibly) rather do, if it weren’t for the principles getting in the way. That’s part of the entire point of the matter. Stealing, as the third option, strikes me as a betrayal of principle while robbing the individual or group of individuals who created the good. Principles that don’t stand up to the whimsy of desire are weak, flimsy things.

As I was writing this post, another game was removed from the Steam Deck scene: Apex Legends is taking away its support for the Steam Deck and Linux. If I were a Valorant player, my options would be:

1. Play Valorant on an OS that could pass security checks, or
2. do not play Valorant.

The former might even require me to build a separate computer (or just dual-boot) but the point stands: I’m not entitled to this video game and Electronic Arts is not in a position wherein they owe me anything.

Licensed, Not Sold

In fact, game companies rarely, if ever, sell you anything. Let’s take a gander at the terms of service for Rockstar games (developers of Grand Theft Auto):

1. Limited License. 2.1. We Reserve All Rights to our IP. We, and our licensors, own and reserve all rights, title, and interest in and to the Services, Virtual Items, and your Account (excluding any tangible medium the Services may be supplied on), including all: (1) information, text, data, files, code, scripts, designs, graphics, artwork, illustrations, photographs, sounds, music, titles, themes, objects, characters, names, dialogue, locations, stories, plot, animation, concepts, audio-visual effects, virtual goods and in-game currency (including Virtual Items), interactive features, gameplay, methods of operation, the compilation, assembly, and arrangement of the materials of the Services, Virtual Items, or your Account, and all other copyrightable material; (2) trademarks, logos, trade names, trade dress, service marks, and trade identities of various parties, including ours; and (3) other forms of intellectual property (all of the foregoing, collectively “Content”).

Furthermore:

2.2. Your Personal, Non-Commercial Use. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, we grant you a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensable, revocable license to access and use the Services, including Virtual Items and your Account, for your personal, non-commercial enjoyment. The Services, Virtual Items, or your Account, including the Content, but excluding any tangible medium the Services may be supplied on, are licensed, not sold. This license is personal to you only and does not give you any ownership rights in any of the Services, Virtual Items, or your Account (or in or to any of their features or Content).

You never owned the game, because you can’t — you merely purchased a license to play (access the service). Rockstar is very clear on this point, and they are not alone in this method agreement.

A final note, here, on the “agreement” bit. If one agrees to the terms of service, they are in effect giving their word — and, lest we forget, word is bond.

Update: “Give it to me, it’s mine”

I was browsing Slashdot and found this:

Piracy also provides a way of watching your content whenever you want and does not depend on the existence of upstream provider or whether they still have a license for it.

“Your” content? To what legal framework can you point to that substantiates this claim?