GTA: San Andreas Leaked 705
Anonymous Coward cuts-and-pastes: "Less than a week after a pirated version of Halo 2 began appearing on the Web, another of the year's most sought after games has been stolen. Ironically, it also happens to be a game titled after a larcenous act itself. That's right. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas has become the latest victim of piracy, with illegal copies of the game, its manual, and its cover appearing on various Web sites." Update: 10/21 13:54 GMT by Z : Rockstar adds some details to what we know about the crime in a press release covered by CVG.
Re:What Next? (Score:2, Informative)
Dont be dismissive of this, they have two different, and distinct meanings.
PC Version (Score:1, Informative)
The PC San Andreas wont even be out until SPRING 2005.
Re:It's like a free ride when you've already paid. (Score:1, Informative)
Irony would be paying for a copy of a "Grand Theft" game (or "Steal This Book"). Getting it illegally is just a humorous coincidence.
GTA for FREE (and Legal) (Score:5, Informative)
but Rockstar has made the orig GTA free for dl [rockstargames.com]
Grump
Actually... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's like a free ride when you've already paid. (Score:5, Informative)
Do you really think the general public wants a new word for copyright infringing when most will look at it as Hey Why Don't They Just Say Theft Or Piracy, Because Thats What It Is. Other than the morons that take 1984 to heart and want to shape public perception by forcing the use of word choice to promote their lifestyles
I know this wasn't directed at me but I'm gonna jump in here anyway. English, like most other languages, is evolving over time as new words are introduced and others fall into disuse. Generally this is not a problem as new words are required to describe new things/concepts and older words may describe things/concepts that are no longer useful or relevant.
I agree that sometimes new meanings are attached to words that already used to mean something else. This is perfectly acceptable for most words where meaning can be derived from context. But, when we are talking about legal language, or words used in a legal context, we have to restrict ourselves to very specific definitions. "Piracy" is used to describe a specific violation (or group of violations)of the law while "theft" describes another. They are not interchangeable in the legal context. The same is true for "copyright infringement". This is a specific violation of law that is separate from both theft and piracy.
The definition of these terms aren't kept separate because there is some plot by the "man" to restrict your freedom of expression. They are kept separate in order to prevent chaos within the legal system and to maintain some sort of societal order.
If this was not the case we might see this situation:
Person 1: I want to charge that guy for "theft", and by theft I mean the guy walked on my lawn.
Cop: That would be trespassing.
Person 1: Not in my world buddy
Re:Please don't copy it. (Score:2, Informative)
If you honestly think that GTA:SA won't sell an absolutely absurd number of copies, making everyone associated with Rockstar a ton of money, you're deluding yourself. I do not worry for this man's family. But to make you feel better, I'm either going to buy it or have someone get it for me for Christmas.
--trb
Re:It's like a free ride when you've already paid. (Score:1, Informative)
If you don't like the price they charge for a luxury item, then don't fucking buy it. If you aren't willing to pay what they want to charge for it, then tough. I have no pity for you. If you download it illegally, you are a criminal and deserve your punishment.
Any questions about "why do they charge X" will be referred to an introductory economics book. You know how Slashdot likes to criticize people for not having an elementary knowledge about (computers/network security/science/whatever the article is about)? Well, here we can criticize you for not knowing dick about capitalism. Short form: The seller sets the price wherever they damn well please. If they set it too high, people won't buy their product, and they won't make money. If they set it too low, they'll sell a lot, but they won't make much money due to low margins. Selling price has nothing to do with production cost (other than price > cost for sustainability). DVD is worth more to the consumer, so they can charge more for it.
Comment removed (Score:1, Informative)
Re:It's like a free ride when you've already paid. (Score:2, Informative)
> profit
As somebody who works as a software developer professionally, all I gotta say to you in response to this is "FUCK YOU" followed by a "KISS MY ASS".
> except in as much as customers will
> voluntarily pay them.
Oh
> But please, don't demand that I pay money to
> publishers and artists
That's fine as long as you don't go ahead and use their work without paying for it (assuming the developer wants you to pay for it). If you don't want to pay, then don't use it.
Re:This Begs A Half-Life 2 Question (Score:3, Informative)
It most certainly is illegal, thanks to our screwy IP laws, but since you actually paid for it, it's highly questionable exactly what harm they would suffer as a result of your actions. Let me repeat that: it is illegal in any country which has signed the Berne treaty recognizing copyrights. There are damned few countries that haven't signed that treaty. If you're in an english-speaking country, you're probably covered by it, with the possible exception of Sealand.
Given the lack of harm suffered by the publisher in that case, however, it's an open question as to how wrong it was. And for parent, I'd like to remind you that not everything that is legal is moral, just as not everything illegal is necessarily immoral--we don't have the power to change laws for nothing.
If our laws work against the many for the benefit of the few, is it so unreasonable to rethink them?
The reason people react so with the debate over whether or not it's "stealing" is because until quite recently it wasn't. Let me repeat that: it wasn't considered wrong. Why should someone own an idea just because they thought it first? If it's really "property," why do the rights to it expire? Have our laws not forgotten the public domain--the very thing they were meant to *enrich* by encouraging publication?
So then, in my view, one should obey the law as it is for now, but work to change it into something more reasonable and more workable.
Re:Clarification (Score:3, Informative)
And 24-hours doesn't mean just one full day, you can play it for an hour a day for 3.5 weeks if you want.
I don't like to say this often, but you're a complete idiot.
Console or PC? (Score:2, Informative)
Just don't give it to anyone else, okay? (Score:3, Informative)
(Now, let's see if I can break my personal best for up and down mod points in the same post.)