Starforce, that Reputable Russian Company

[Tannhauser]

Starforce accused of posting pirate software links.

Well, I'm sure most modern gamers know the woes of Starforce (the fact that it is now included in game demos is extra irritation).

A rather interesting philosophy behind the release of Galactic Civilizations II, though any hope that it will ever seep into the large publishing companies is a forlorn one.

 

[Brother None]

A rather interesting philosophy behind the release of Galactic Civilizations II, though any hope that it will ever seep into the large publishing companies is a forlorn one.

The question being whose fault is that.

But, to be honest, a lot of theft prevention causes discomfort to people. Cameras in shops, occasional innocent customers getting spoken to by staff, alarm gates malfunctioning...

Starforce makes bad copy protection programs, probably because they are slightly incompetent. Why this is seen as a sort of crime which deserves boycotting is beyond me. Though the whole spyware-esque thing is kinda disturbing.

And what disturbs me more than Starforce is the reaction to Starforce. The righteous indignation and calling them the devil because, essentially, they're pretty incompetent programmers trying to prevent theft.

Because quite frankly, beyond conspiracy theories, their only intent, end results asides, was to prevent theft. I've rarely called someone evil for attempting to prevent theft.

And a tier above that is the people hiring Starforce, publishers. Also generally decent people, not vaguely evil at all, who see that a number of their products are being stolen and unsure of whether or not piracy is good or bad for sales (which is a point proven and disproven in many paper) go with the base logic of "If someone dowloads it and doesn't buy it, I lose a sale." And the assumption that more people download a game and then don't buy it than download it and do is not a very amazing one.

Is it the cop's fault that they are in existence? Should stores be scorned for their faulty and often annoying ways of preventing theft?

I'd rather blame the thief.

That said, the level of incompetence and probablty mafia-inspired double-dealing of Starforce is pushing it a bit too far. It would be nice if software companies were less hindered in their ways of dealing with piracy so they would not have to resort to such means.

This is funny, though

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Should stores be scorned for their faulty and often annoying ways of preventing theft?

No, because most of those ways are actually *effective* and necessary.

Copy protection methods, on the other hand, are laughably ineffective. I have yet to see a copy protection that any half-way decent cracking team can't break in a matter of days. Copy protection is a waste of money and a great inconvience for legitimate buyers, because it makes it difficult to create a copy of the content (which the consumer is legally entitled to) and often generates lots of technical problems (like having to reinsert the disc a dozen times in order to get the autorun to execute).

In fact, the only ones who aren't inconvenienced by copy protection one bit are people who use pirated copies (i.e. people like me). Really, in all my life no copy protection, no matter how sophisticated, has ever prevented me - or even *delayed* me - from playing a game or watching a movie. I can only feel sorry for the poor souls who pay for their multimedia content only to endure the terror of faulty copy protection software every day.

 

[Brother None]

Copy protection methods, on the other hand, are laughably ineffective. I have yet to see a copy protection that any half-way decent cracking team can't break in a matter of days. Copy protection is a waste of money and a great inconvience for legitimate buyers, because it makes it difficult to create a copy of the content (which the consumer is legally entitled to) and often generates lots of technical problems (like having to reinsert the disc a dozen times in order to get the autorun to execute).

In fact, the only ones who aren't inconvenienced by copy protection one bit are people who use pirated copies (i.e. people like me). Really, in all my life no copy protection, no matter how sophisticated, has ever prevented me - or even *delayed* me - from playing a game or watching a movie. I can only feel sorry for the poor souls who pay for their multimedia content only to endure the terror of faulty copy protection software every day.

Aye, but I mentioned that myself, the means are limited because of the way law deals with it, inadequately. At this point, considering good faith no longer works, law-givers should reconsider their stance towards software theft to a more hardline one.

Copy protection is there because it is the only thing they got against thieves. This goes for protection stores use too. Stores aren't allowed to beat up their customers themselves to protect their wares. Contrary to popular belief, though, this isn't because this is uncivilized, it is because it is unnecessary, because proprietors don't need such extreme means to keep the damage to their profits to a lower level.

The same does not hold for piracy, which means we need to solve the problem of piracy wholesale to prevent companies from reaching for their only options. It's not their fault that they do, it's the only thing they have.

What we need is hard supression of theft of any kind. Enough of this weak, half-arsed attitude of "it's barely a crime". It is stealing, by definition not a victimless crime, and the arrest numbers should be equal to that of real thefts, because their damage is no less.

The best way to do that would be to throw a net over this damned internet and stop treating it like some kind of unreachable anarchist ideal.

The illusion that somehow the internet is entitled to be an area of free speech is just that, an illusion. It has been given its chance on good will of more freedom than any other media had. But it's just that, another media amongst the others, and it should not be allowed to be a safe place for criminality any more than newspapers should be allowed to distribute or promote illegal software.

The free internet is not a given right. Pirates are abusing the right, hence it should be taken away.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

The best way to do that would be to throw a net over this damned internet and stop treating it like some kind of unreachable anarchist ideal.

The illusion that somehow the internet is entitled to be an area of free speech is just that, an illusion. It has been given its chance on good will of more freedom than any other media had. But it's just that, another media amongst the others, and it should not be allowed to be a safe place for criminality any more than newspapers should be allowed to distribute or promote illegal software.

The free internet is not a given right. Pirates are abusing the right, hence it should be taken away.

I don't know what exactly you mean by "throwing a net over this damned internet", but I suspect I would strongly disagree. Internet isn't exempt from any laws. There is already plenty of control over it. Governments have the authority to shut down websites which offer illegal content, and they exercise that authority zealously. Too zealously, sometimes. I don't know what more you want, but I suspect it involves rigid China-style control. But one of the basic premises of the Internet is that it provides quick, free access to information without unnecessary restrictions, and throwing a Chinese net defeats that premise. Frankly, that's not an Internet I would want to use.

What does piracy have to do with free speech, anyway?

Anyway, your anti-Internet efforts are poorly thought out and misdirected. You make it sound as if 90% content on the Internet is illegal. That's bullshit. Pirated products, child porn and suchlike constitute an underground echelon of the Internet and majority of its users never come in contact with it, let alone abuse it. To place Nazi-style restrictions on the Internet because a small percentage of its population uses it to obtain illegal content would be folly, like shutting down a cinema because someone sneaked in without a ticked. Even worse, it would be completely and utterly idiotic, because, as you said yourself, there is no clear proof that Internet piracy has negative effects on media industries.

Which brings us to another important point. Piracy didn't emerge with appearance of the Internet, and it won't go away if Internet is shut down or contained in a box. Maybe 20% of my pirated games were downloaded off the Internet. The overwhelming majority were obtained through other channels, channels which, I daresay, are much more difficult to trace than warez sites or peer-to-peer networks.

In conclusion, it's obvious that the movie industry, game industry and music industry have a problem, but I don't think that problem is the Internet, the legislation concerning the Internet, or even mischievous consumers who opt to not pay for their shitty products. In fact, I suspect the problem is just that - shitty products.

 

[Montez]

Which brings us to another important point. Piracy didn't emerge with appearance of the Internet, and it won't go away if Internet is shut down or contained in a box. Maybe 20% of my pirated games were downloaded off the Internet. The overwhelming majority were obtained through other channels, channels which, I daresay, are much more difficult to trace than warez sites or peer-to-peer networks.

Back in 1984 when I first started getting into computers, my friend's dad had every single piece of software made for the Apple II in his library, all pirated. When they eventually switched over to an IBM 486, same thing. He was a member of a group who would exchange software and tips on how to crack things through the mail. They even had a print newsletter. Even though the copy-protection was good enough to prevent a computer illiterate from making copies these guys would have it done in a day or two and send it out to each other in the mail, just like they do now over the internet, and then give it to anyone who wanted it. The internet isn't the problem - all it does is allow greater/faster distribution; instead of just the neighbors getting free software, everyone with an internet connection can get it. Crack down on the internet and people will just start doing it through the mail again or invent some other method.

So, yeah, I agree with Ratty on this one. Plug one hole and another one is just going to spring up to take its place. The best software makers can ever hope for is to keep the leaks at a reasonable level, they're never going to stop it completely.

 

[Brother None]

What does piracy have to do with free speech, anyway?

Nothing. So let me reformulate;

I would like an internet with more authoritized institutions hunting down piracy. No, not those wackjobs who format hard disks because they see mp3s on 'em, real authorities, rather than the few men a country we have on it now, as no country I know of has a serious anti-piracy institution online that also has significant freedom to fight piracy.

The means must match the goal. If we are incapable of properly battling piracy with the means given now, means must be expanded. Piracy is not a right.

If this means outlawing all p2p and torrent programs...fine, why not? p2p is not some kind of Frith-given right. Abuse it enough and it will be taken away.

Anyway, your anti-Internet efforts are poorly thought out and misdirected. You make it sound as if 90% content on the Internet is illegal. That's bullshit. Pirated products, child porn and suchlike constitute an underground echelon of the Internet and majority of its users never come in contact with it, let alone abuse it. To place Nazi-style restrictions on the Internet because a small percentage of its population uses it to obtain illegal content would be folly, like shutting down a cinema because someone sneaked in without a ticked.

That is not even close to anything I said. I suggest you stop mouth-stuffing.

The internet is entitled to only as much free speech as any other institution. This precludes child porn and piracy, so such things should be dealt with. This is all I said, all I said (if I did state it a bit vaguely) was that the internet is not some promised valhalla of extra-ordinary free speech that goes beyond the normal right of man, it should be just as confined as any.

Even worse, it would be completely and utterly idiotic, because, as you said yourself, there is no clear proof that Internet piracy has negative effects on media industries.

Mostly irrelevant as it is still theft. If someone downloads a product and does not buy it, which anyone with half a brain knows is what happens most of the time, that is theft and it is harmful to the industry.

The industry itself isn't stupid, it has realised and will realise more that oppertunities exist within the internet. Piracy is not an oppertunity, though, it is abuse, and it is for the companies to decide what policies they will follow to boost their sales, not for a bunch of thieves.

Which brings us to another important point. Piracy didn't emerge with appearance of the Internet, and it won't go away if Internet is shut down or contained in a box. Maybe 20% of my pirated games were downloaded off the Internet. The overwhelming majority were obtained through other channels, channels which, I daresay, are much more difficult to trace than warez sites or peer-to-peer networks.

Yes, but this is a seperate problem. I always laugh at people like you, who, when someone offers a solution to a problem, say "but there's another problem just like it as well."

I. Don't. Care. Piracy is theft. Theft is illegal. Hence piracy should be stopped. Internet is a part of piracy and piracy over the internet should be halted.

That leaves illegal industries like exist a lot in Eastern European countries but are not a major problem in places where media companies can hope to make a profit (i.e. The West), and the problem Montez pointed out, to which I again say; it is a problem, but that is no reason to solve this problem.

In conclusion, it's obvious that the movie industry, game industry and music industry have a problem, but I don't think that problem is the Internet, the legislation concerning the Internet, or even mischievous consumers who opt to not pay for their shitty products. In fact, I suspect the problem is just that - shitty products.

Shitty products?

Then why are you downloading them? If they are shitty, what do you want with them?

You are *lying* in the most disgusting way possible. You and people like your are thieves. You think of excuses to hide behind, but the excuses are smaller than the problem.

Imagine a jewelry thief getting caught and saying "I did it because the jewelry industry stinks, I hate their products!" At best this would get a laugh and a friendly slap across the jaw from his interoggating officers. Yet you thieves think you have the right to congratulate yourselves for being so clever, for finding this great loophole in morality which allows you to steal without feeling a bit of guilt.

How dare you actually blame the producers for the fact that their products are being stolen? The audacity! Imagine a baker getting robbed and me walking up to him and saying "You totally had it coming, you make terrible bread." What the hell?

How could it possibly be their fault their products are being stolen? They offer their products for a profit (a bare profit, especially where gaming companies are concerned), just like any other business does, they balance their price, profit and supply just like any other business does and people buy their products, be it movie, music or gaming, because they enjoy them. If they don't enjoy them, they can not buy them, not enjoying them does not give anyone the right to steal, that is disgusting.

See, this is obfuscating the whole issue. Yes, music, movie, gaming all have their creative problems and money-making issues, a lot of people do buy less because they think the musical is terrible, and the industries adapt, sometimes slowly, to whatever demand they still see in the populace.

What does stealing solve? Nothing. It takes away revenue, hurting the businesses and giving *them* excuses to hide behind.

Hah, how lazy you are. The oil industry is much worse than the media companies, do you steal oil because you feel morally justified for the same reasons? Of course not, because you can get caught, you coward. You only hide behind your petty morality on this point because you feel safe nobody will ever catch you. The perfect crime, morally excusable and nobody can get you. Except that anybody with the brain of an ass can figure out that the reason you're making up these weak moral excuses is because you lack the moral fiber not to steal when it is made easy to do so, which makes you no better than a petty robber. Worse, even, because he at least has some balls.

 

[Tannhauser]

I tremble at the notion that Kharn is ever put in charge of the internet. Secret police bashing doors down at four in the morning and draging offenders off to internment camps. Of course, they had it coming, being not only thieves, but cowards; no mercy for the likes of them.

'oh wise Kharn, what can we poor sinners do to repent ourselves?

 

[Brother None]

Oh yes, a very witty comeback, Kotario, but don't you think you might be completely missing the point? Who said anything about secret police bashing doors down, anyway, or internment camps? Again, watch the mouth-stuffing.

If you're a thief, you can get caught, if you get caught, you should go to prison. It works like this for every thief, except for a software thief.

Any justification you can think of for this can never be enough.

Repartees, no matter how good, won't count.

 

[Montez]

The perfect crime, morally excusable and nobody can get you.

Ha, that's the same train of thought this thread got me on yesterday, and brought back to mind something I've thought before - the only difference between software and anything else is it's ease of replication. If someone could aquire a schematic of a DVD player, HDTV set, or any other hardware item whether expensive or inexpensive, and within minutes or hours have a perfect replica, the result would make software piracy look like a joke.

I'm not up for a piracy debate so I'll keep quiet on my opinions, but I would like to know what your's and Ratty's, or anyone else's, opinion is on the pricing of games. This thread got me thinking yesterday about it; they're $50 now, in 2006. They were ~$30-$50 in the mid eighties. Now, I know for a fact that games were exponentially cheaper to make back then, and that someone making my salary in the 80's was living a much better lifestyle than I can afford today. So why have games not changed price to reflect that? Have they been artificially inflated for decades? A quick search indicates that in terms of what my dollar can get me today, I paid ~$75 dollars for my copy of Wasteland or King's Quest IV in 1988. My understanding of economics is pretty weak so I won't be surprised if there is some reasonable explanation for it, but it seems pretty fishy to me.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

I would like an internet with more authoritized institutions hunting down piracy. No, not those wackjobs who format hard disks because they see mp3s on 'em, real authorities, rather than the few men a country we have on it now, as no country I know of has a serious anti-piracy institution online that also has significant freedom to fight piracy.

The means must match the goal. If we are incapable of properly battling piracy with the means given now, means must be expanded. Piracy is not a right.

If this means outlawing all p2p and torrent programs...fine, why not? p2p is not some kind of Frith-given right. Abuse it enough and it will be taken away.

I mostly agree, but this seems to me like an issue of expertise rather than an issue of legislature. I mean, how capable *are* the authorities of dealing with Internet crime? Sure, you have police "cybercrime" departments here and there ("cybercrime" is, by the way, a stupid word and needs to be outlawed), but how much can a handful of policemen slash CS graduates in a small Canadian town realistically do against tens of thousands of illegal servers scattered across the globe? Little or nothing.

The first step in dealing with illegal content on the Internet is acknowledging that it is an international issue. The second step is organizing a coordinated international effort to confront that issue. This effort would include devising a quality strategy for eliminating illegal content, outlining clear long-term and short-term goals of this strategy, creating specialized information science divisions in every police force in the world, ensuring these divisions are properly staffed, properly funded, properly equipped and properly coordinated, encouraging the experts' community to engineer new sophisticated methods of tracking, purging and prevention of illegal content, etc. etc.

Only if such an effort failed would outlawing peer-to-peer services be even remotely justified. Not before.

By the way, I certainly hope it doesn't come to that. P2P services and protocols like BitTorrent and Napster before it are a natural step in the evolution of computer networks, as important as, for instance, client/server architecture (which is the fundamental architecture of almost every network service in existence, from HTTP and FTP to remote databases). In fact, one could say that two things which most contributed to evolution of modern networking are Internet porn and Internet piracy.

That is not even close to anything I said. I suggest you stop mouth-stuffing.

Didn't mean to stuff your mouth. With words, that is. You weren't very clear in your assertions, hence I said "you make it sound like".

The internet is entitled to only as much free speech as any other institution. This precludes child porn and piracy, so such things should be dealt with. This is all I said, all I said (if I did state it a bit vaguely) was that the internet is not some promised valhalla of extra-ordinary free speech that goes beyond the normal right of man, it should be just as confined as any.

By "institution" I assume you mean "media". In which case I concur, there is no reason why Internet and traditional media should be judged by separate standards. I wouldn't, however, exclude the possibility that Internet might lead to redefinition of those standards.

Mostly irrelevant as it is still theft. If someone downloads a product and does not buy it, which anyone with half a brain knows is what happens most of the time, that is theft and it is harmful to the industry.

The industry itself isn't stupid, it has realised and will realise more that oppertunities exist within the internet. Piracy is not an oppertunity, though, it is abuse, and it is for the companies to decide what policies they will follow to boost their sales, not for a bunch of thieves.

It's very relevant. Above you mentioned theft prevention in stores. Nowadays stores have cameras, alarm gates, guards and whatnot, yet none of these methods have completely rooted out shoplifting. They have, however, reduced it to a level where it no longer significantly impacts their profits.

Now, there is no conclusive evidence that piracy impacts the industry's profits. To conclusively prove the effects of Internet piracy, one would need to do a serious and extensive study. Remember, piracy is an intellectual property theft, and damage from such a theft is a lot more difficult to measure than simple inventory of what's missing from the store shelves.

In addition to this, take into account that deploying methods for confronting and containing piracy, much like installing a state-of-the-art security system in a store, is a tremendous and demanding effort from standpoints of expertise, technology and finances. Therefore, to undertake such an effort when you don't even know if piracy eats at your profits would be foolhardy.

Yes, but this is a seperate problem. I always laugh at people like you, who, when someone offers a solution to a problem, say "but there's another problem just like it as well."

I. Don't. Care. Piracy is theft. Theft is illegal. Hence piracy should be stopped. Internet is a part of piracy and piracy over the internet should be halted.

That leaves illegal industries like exist a lot in Eastern European countries but are not a major problem in places where media companies can hope to make a profit (i.e. The West), and the problem Montez pointed out, to which I again say; it is a problem, but that is no reason to solve this problem.

See above. First it must be determined if the problem is real or perceived.

<snip a good, but misdirected rant>

You completely misunderstood me. I didn't mean to imply that people pirate games and other multimedia products because they are shitty, much less that shitty products justify piracy. That would be quite moronic.

No, I was actually referring to the way the industry consistently targets Internet piracy as the sole source of their problems (namely, the slumping sales), even though no correlation has been found between the two. Instead, the industry ought to finally acknowledge the fact that quality of their products and quality of their services have sucked lately and confront *those* issues.

 

[Tannhauser]

Oh yes, a very witty comeback, Kotario, but don't you think you might be completely missing the point? Who said anything about secret police bashing doors down, anyway, or internment camps? Again, watch the mouth-stuffing.

Besides me? No one at all, did I claim otherwise? Pure fantasy on my part, inspired by the Gestapo and something in your tone no doubt. All in the name of facetiousness, not meant as a serious rejoinder. In fact, to call such remarks "mouth-stuffing" strikes me to the quick. I start to wonder if you are opposed to such repartees as part of some dour character trait, by not taking them in the proper tone that they are intended.

In all seriousness, your reply to our poor Ratty strikes me a bit over the top. I doubt you meant it that way, but that is the impression it leaves, rather vividly at that.

In addition, your views seem to be a bit draconian (from thence the Gestapo appear, in a jocular fashion). Would you outlaw file sharing programs, because of abuse; apparently. A sidenote: does this warrant an accusation of mouth-stuffing? It seems to me to be a fair representation of what you said, without being a direct quote.

My perception is that game piracy is too easy at this point, regardless of various software solutions (inevitably and quickly cracked it seems). Rather, the industry should look at minimizing the distribution of pirated games. If you look back to the article, Stardock had the torrent removed from the torrent website by merely asking for its removal (though I'm sure legal action was hanging unsaid). By creating an environment where every Tom, Dick, and Harry is unable to download any game they please (limiting it to whatever hardcore underground, which would be a lost cause for sales in any case); you will substantially improve the piracy situation. Mainly making it hard enough to find a source to download a game that it is a daunting task for your average consumer. Of course, this means the industry would have to gain the cooperation of the distributors, and occasionally fall back on legal action. Of course, what do I know?

Basically, I believe that publishers are following the wrong path entirely. They are looking for the quick, easy, and complete solution, which they will not find. Not to say this all isn't a rather large tangent, because it is. Traveling back to some lost time before we were denouncing thieves (how carefree and innocent those days were).

*Sigh* It seems that the topic has evolved while I was involved in writing my post. Regardless, I suspect people will want to ban my use of italics forevermore.

 

[Paladin Solo]

Why don't they just implement the sort of copy-protection software that Bohemia Interactive had in their game Operation Flashpoint? You make illegal copies, the game detects it, and overtime, the gameplay makes it impossible for you to continue on playing as your accuracy begins to worsen, your vehicles begin to skid, etc...

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Because it wouldn't work. I recall spending many gay hours playing a cracked version of OF without encountering the copy protection you speak of, which means the crack was very effective in disabling it.

 

[Tannhauser]

By the way, a follow-up on the original story. The interesting part is the interview with Brad Wardell, head of Stardock.

GameSpot: Copy protection company encourages piracy?

 

[Sander]

Only if such an effort failed would outlawing peer-to-peer services be even remotely justified. Not before.

By the way, I certainly hope it doesn't come to that. P2P services and protocols like BitTorrent and Napster before it are a natural step in the evolution of computer networks, as important as, for instance, client/server architecture (which is the fundamental architecture of almost every network service in existence, from HTTP and FTP to remote databases). In fact, one could say that two things which most contributed to evolution of modern networking are Internet porn and Internet piracy.

It's also a form of figthing the symptoms, not the source. People want to pirate, so they use P2P to achieve that, and outlawing P2P programs is pretty much impossible to do effectively.
Besides that, p2p software, especially Bittorrent-software, is extremely useful in cutting down bandwith costs for a lot of sites, such as many Linux distributions, or several other free programs.

Mostly irrelevant as it is still theft. If someone downloads a product and does not buy it, which anyone with half a brain knows is what happens most of the time, that is theft and it is harmful to the industry.

The industry itself isn't stupid, it has realised and will realise more that oppertunities exist within the internet. Piracy is not an oppertunity, though, it is abuse, and it is for the companies to decide what policies they will follow to boost their sales, not for a bunch of thieves.

No, the industry isn't stupid, it's mainly slow. It took iTunes to rise for them to realise how profitable and useful on-line media distribution is, and people have been screaming for it for about five years, ever since P2P came into existence.
If they were to now release a good system for this, that will most certainly help battle piracy because its combatting some of the source of the problems.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Besides that, p2p software, especially Bittorrent-software, is extremely useful in cutting down bandwith costs for a lot of sites, such as many Linux distributions, or several other free programs.

Even companies are using it now. Blizzard, for instance, uses the torrent protocol to distribute WoW patches.

P2P rocks.

 

[Vax]

One of the issues that has really never been nailed down is if software piracy is theft. I see it compared to the theft of goods directly from a store but there is a large difference. Taking a copy of Custer's Revenge from your local store deprives the lawful owner of that copy. Download Custer's Revenge from the internet does not deprive the lawful owner of the software.

Piracy might be considered theft due to the loss of income for the copyright owner but there is no guarantee that a person who downloaded a pirated copy would otherwise purchase a legal copy.

 

[Sander]

One of the issues that has really never been nailed down is if software piracy is theft. I see it compared to the theft of goods directly from a store but there is a large difference. Taking a copy of Custer's Revenge from your local store deprives the lawful owner of that copy. Download Custer's Revenge from the internet does not deprive the lawful owner of the software.

Piracy might be considered theft due to the loss of income for the copyright owner but there is no guarantee that a person who downloaded a pirated copy would otherwise purchase a legal copy.

Yes, but that doesn't actually give that person the right to use that software without paying for it, whether or not he would like or buy it

 

[Brother None]

I'll reply to you later, Ratty, when I have more time, apologies.

One of the issues that has really never been nailed down is if software piracy is theft. I see it compared to the theft of goods directly from a store but there is a large difference. Taking a copy of Custer's Revenge from your local store deprives the lawful owner of that copy. Download Custer's Revenge from the internet does not deprive the lawful owner of the software. .

But oddly enough, from an economic point of view downloading can be worse. Stealing from a store hurts the store owner, they are equipped and prepared to handle this and it does not really affect the entire line of production and transportation leading up to the store.

If you download it and do not buy it, that means it never need be in production, it means the store never needed to order it, it means that rather than just killing the revenue of the store, you're killing the revenue from the store all the way back to the developers working on it.

From a purely economic point of view, it's always better to steal from a store than to download and not buy.