Well, I think I do. Is it legal? I guess not. Is it immoral? It's fine for me. Did the author lose anything? No, he didn't.

I can write things in bold too: Once you use something, you are a consumer.

How is this? My friend buys a gift for me, he is a customer. He gives me the gift for free. I am using that gift, I'm a consumer. Am I customer? NO! Because I didn't pay anything for it.

Where are they excusing anything? In the article it's pretty obvious they are trying to understand the reasons behind piracy and perhaps also the real effects of it.

So, there. Now I give up.

We all know that from "Most likely I'll never launch it again, and it'll be either uninstalled or lost when I change a PC/OS" and "I'll play it but don't buy it because it doesn't deserve it" there is a very very thin line.

You couldn't do this with a house or a car, if you can't buy it, then you can't have it, what makes you think it could be different with music, video-games, etc...?

"Oh no wait, I'm going to use your Ferrari but since I don't intend to buy it there is no problem ok?, after I use it I'll give you back."

After three years...

"I don't like the color and the engine it's no like a Maclaren so take it I don't want it."

How easy would it be the life...

What about if you go to a bar to see a local band that plays music that you like maybe some Tool, God Smack, or Korn (anything, but you get the idea), do you consider them to be "pirates" because they are playing music created by someone else? Just wondering on how you would feel about the subject...seems like everyone has a differing view about what is really considered copyright infringement and what the law actually says is copyright infringement.

Well, perhaps. I'll agree that I'll be done something immoral if I actually play it, but the odds are that I won't.. Not first & not last game I tried out this way. Vast majority were downloaded and were not ever even tried & were deleted to free up hundreds of gigabytes. This one I did try out cos' a friend of mine had suggested me to have a look at the graphic.

I find the rest of your post irrelevant.

I agree, mostly. But I don't like where todays border is, what I do like however is lack of enforcement, and inability of enforcement to enforce some of these laws. What's enforced is more than enough for the industries to function however.

Example where copyright is justified in my eyes:
That actual game, if I play it I should buy it. Maybe I'll actually "steal" it, and then it's bad(I don't think I harmed anyone with it yet), also it maybe said that those originally bought it & shared it just lent it to me(yes yes, they shouldn't be able to share it with all those downloaded it, but in this specific case due to very few time spent in it- the usage can be compared with book lending out by a library).
So: if I play the game, I'm morally obligated to buy it. Agreed.

Two examples of not justified copyrighting:
If you live in India, China, or in Russia somewhere away of a big city- you can't afford to buy it, hence you "can't" use it cos' you're poor, although nobody would be harmed if you pirate it(as you're not potential customer).
All arguments against this statement will come down to "there's no strict border", and "the author has the right to decide how his work is used".

My answer to first(strict border): this border is result of a conflict of freedom and greed of copyright owners. I doubt you support the laws that actually sparked the thread, but there are those wanted these laws. So there's no strict border, everyone decides them for himself(or it's decided for various persons by other persons).

My answer to second(author's right to decide):
This guy didn't look like he was willing to be bombing anyone with Nukes, nobody asked him however.

Second example of "bad" copyrighting, is a commonly ranted topic:
A teacher wrote a coursebook, he should be compensated. He has updated it, he should be compensated. Students shouldn't be forced to pay full price each year. Yet they are, it's bad.
And what it leads us to, is more expensive education and the industry being either over-pumped with uselessly similar coursebooks, or the authors are "unfairly" wealthy due to monopolies or whatsoever. The situation does no good for humanity in either case, and less cash in the industry wouldn't make it function any worse.

Edit: various grammar..

You're pretty ignorant man... Practically you're saying poor people has the right to steal.

Those people download pirated software because THEY CAN, not "because they're poor, and won't hurt the industry..." Yeah right... I want to see some of those people steeling a car to see what happens.

Offer people something free or something which cost money, let's see what they're going to grab... And even worse the people of those countries you have mentioned, I'm pretty sure the word "steal" is nothing new to them... What kind of idiot do you take me for?, clothes don't make the man...

Seriously? You're all going to split hairs about the difference between a consumer and a customer? If you 'consume' something, generally, you're expected to pay for it in some manner (which makes you a customer), except for things like free meals at the salvation army. You're just a bunch of flippin free loaders.

People who jack cars were never going to pay for them, so by all of your logic, it isn't theft. Get real.

That's basically what a pirate is, yes ...

I used to commute quite a ways to work several years ago, and there was a guy who lived directly on the route. He figured he didn't have to pay me anything since I was going that way anyway, but after I waved as I passed him one day brought him around to my point of view. This is a much better analogy than if he'd forced me to a stop somehow and threw me out of the car and drove to work by himself.

Ah, real world examples ...

It's how you think it is. Others may disagree. I do not. I prefer this definition: when the owner of an item losses something as consequence of actions of the thief, it is theft. No loss no theft, plain & simple

Yes, they are profit. But in case of no loss to the owner, it's not theft and is, therefore okay in my eyes. Regardless of the law.

It's not my point of view. I agree I should buy the game if really play it.