|
On December 02 2011 16:12 kurosawa wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 15:40 Lightwip wrote:
I pirate things, albeit infrequently. I live in the United States, so I can't say I can't afford games; I have plenty of money. The reason I do it is because I want free stuff. Who doesn't?
But here's the question: why not do it? I don't have any moral obligation to support massive gaming corporations that will be fine without my money. I'd rather be $60 richer.
If there's a good reason to buy a product rather than pirate it, I will. That's why I don't pirate DS games etc. But if I can get a comparable or better experience for free, why would I bother paying?
This is a situation very similar to evolution. If organism A is a parasite to organism B, both will evolve in a way that will harm the other. If they had a mutualist relationship, they would work to gain more benefit out of supporting the other. Corporations making DRM's is like a parasitic relationship between them and consumers/pirates.
Instead of making things worse for everyone, the gaming/movie/music companies need to make the bought product worth buying instead of pirating. Then the problem will become negligible as far as money lost goes.
As for indie games, I sure as hell wouldn't want a DRM-ridden infestation of a game. The fame gained from more people playing it is probably worth more. In much the same way I have no moral obligation to not smash in your front door, share your family, use your computer and shit in your toilet. Why do I care if I can get it for free? I don't want to spend money on a computer, a house or a toilet. It's funny because it's YOU that's the parasite in this equation. I don't really want to hear about how you feel these guys may or may not rip you off for what they deliver. If you take offence to the cost of these games then DONT BUY IT. You are not entitled to things that are not yours...or are you somewhat special? With your suspect moral compass I highly doubt it.
You are constrained by practical considerations. Perhaps you have no moral obligations. However, I have no reason not to call the police and have you arrested, which is an almost certain negative consequence of taking my stuff.
If I were likely to get in trouble for piracy, I wouldn't do it. Simple as that.
Also, pirated goods are pretty nonrival, but a house is. Horrible comparison.
|
On December 02 2011 16:36 refmac_cys.cys wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 16:31 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 16:26 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 16:22 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 16:03 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 15:55 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 15:44 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 15:42 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 15:26 HereAndNow wrote:On December 02 2011 15:22 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
Man, you may be fine functionally, but... Except his points were all more or less correct. Do you ever read the ToS or EULA? Probably not. Everything we're arguing is clearly stated on there. :D And for the record, I don't honestly care anywhere near as much as I've made myself out to. There was a small moment where I was honestly taken aback by the ignorance of the dude I originally quoted, but that's about where my sincere emotional involvement ended. Seriously though, any rational adult that has a) Paid an electric bill and b) Had even the smallest notion of what they were agreeing to would know that you don't own the services you pay for, you pay for the rights to use the services. You don't own a cabbie and his cab because you commissioned him to drive you somewhere. You commissioned him to drive you somewhere with the understanding that he could tell you to get the fuck out of his car at any moment because you violated any of his fully arbitrary unvocalized conditions that are your end of the bargain in him providing you a service. Spoiler alert : I'm not actually mad, I'm just being dramatic. It'd be pretty awesome if someone actually got mad enough to SHOUT certain specific words for EMPHASIS, but seeing as this is the internet and I can do it not because of how I'm feeling but because the person I'm directing my message to will actually believe I'm mad, plus it makes me laugh my head off... yeah. Don't believe everything you read (or do, because I probably want you to :D) Obviously not. But I do own certain physical items, which I can use in any manner I choose. What, your computer? Sure, you can use your computer however you choose. The physical CD that files come on? Heck yeah, cut that thing into a ninja star and see if you can get it to stick into the wall. The files on the CD? Nope, not really. You paid for the right to access the files but I'm pretty sure there's a stipulation that the files you've been "given" are not to be modified or redistributed without permission of the developer. Same goes for digital copies. The internet? Nope, right to a service. You may not engage in copyright infringements simply because you think you made a case strong enough to vindicate your actions, because it is not your decision to make. You noted that this was not your decision to make when you agreed to the terms of service your internet service provider displayed to you when you signed the thing that says they could cut off your internet -because they're bored-, much less because you're using it to engage in illegal activities. Claiming that purchasing a right to a service gives you the right to abuse that service is contradictory. It's something akin to renting a canoe, filling it with dynamite and trying to blow up a cruise liner with it... and expecting the canoe rental company to be totally fine with it because you paid that 80 bucks for the day of what they understood as "using the canoe to canoe around in for a day" and you understood as "Owning a canoe for 24 hours" Same goes for electricity, though you'd be much harder pressed to find ways to power your electronics maliciously than you would be to use the internet for illegal activities. I said nothing about distributing. I'm just in the act of acquiring here. My computer, my power source, and my internet so long as it's not prohibited in my contract with my ISP. I should have the absolute right to do what I will with those things, just as I have the absolute right to do what I will with my clothing, or my desk drawer. I'm not saying that I have a right to abuse my property, only that someone else's imaginary property shouldn't be able to control what I do with my property. If that seems to you to be abuse, so be it. To me, it seems like ample justification for the abolition of Intellectual Property. The point I've been trying to make is exactly that you do not own your power source or your internet in the same way that you own your clothing or your desk drawer. The very obvious difference is that where you do actually own your clothing and your desk drawer, you don't actually own your power source or your internet. As such, you do not actually get to decide what you do with your power source or your internet, the companies providing that service to you get to decide; Unfortunately (debatable) internet service providers do not currently have the resources to track exactly what everyone is doing while still maintaining a profitable business model. The next-best solution is the honor system, which has you sign something that says "I won't abuse the service being provided to me" and then just trust you to actually not abuse it, because they have few ways of checking whether or not you ARE, and actually policing it is counter-productive, for them. Again, you do not have an absolute right to do with these things what you will, because you do not actually own these things and they are not yours to do with what you will. So far, our simple debate has gone thusly: Me : You can't do what you want with these things because you do not actually own them. You : Yeah but I should own them so I should be able to do whatever I want with them. Me : Yeah but you don't actually own these things, so you can't do what you want with them. You : Yeah but I should own them so I should be able to do whatever I want with them. I challenge you to provide clear, sound reasoning as to -why- you should own these things based on factual analysis and empirical reasoning rather than emotional reasoning and theoretical analysis. Unless you can provide this, our simple debate is likely to continue thusly until I get bored and stop replying. But so long as my agreement with my landlord doesn't mention anything about using the power outlet for piracy, and my public library doesn't mention piracy or illegal downloads in their ToS, then I'm perfectly within my rights to pirate whatever I damn well please. You're doing it wrong... Sure - upon your birth, you didn't sign a form when you were born agreeing to all US laws... Sadly, you're still not allowed to kill people. Laws override the fact that you don't know about them. Piracy is illegal - and your best shot was not to pretend it's not the case, your best shot is to explain why your so-called "piracy" is justified. In many cases it isn't - in others, IMO, it is. My argument is not that it isn't illegal. It is, in all cases. My argument is that Intellectual Property - the basis for all piracy legislation and litigation - is not a legitimate concept, as it infringes on my physical property rights, which ought to be sacrosanct. If intellectual property is non-existant, piracy is perfectly legal.
Yeah I don't know about that 
Anyway going to bed since most people don't bother answering my more "difficult" questions... =P Cheers people. Note: Turns my Usenet usage is perfectly legal in Canada =D
|
On December 02 2011 16:35 kurosawa wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 16:26 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 16:22 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 16:03 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 15:55 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 15:44 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 15:42 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 15:26 HereAndNow wrote:On December 02 2011 15:22 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 15:20 Staboteur wrote:
Yes, Imad, but at least I'm not functionally retarded. Man, you may be fine functionally, but... Except his points were all more or less correct. Do you ever read the ToS or EULA? Probably not. Everything we're arguing is clearly stated on there. :D And for the record, I don't honestly care anywhere near as much as I've made myself out to. There was a small moment where I was honestly taken aback by the ignorance of the dude I originally quoted, but that's about where my sincere emotional involvement ended. Seriously though, any rational adult that has a) Paid an electric bill and b) Had even the smallest notion of what they were agreeing to would know that you don't own the services you pay for, you pay for the rights to use the services. You don't own a cabbie and his cab because you commissioned him to drive you somewhere. You commissioned him to drive you somewhere with the understanding that he could tell you to get the fuck out of his car at any moment because you violated any of his fully arbitrary unvocalized conditions that are your end of the bargain in him providing you a service. Spoiler alert : I'm not actually mad, I'm just being dramatic. It'd be pretty awesome if someone actually got mad enough to SHOUT certain specific words for EMPHASIS, but seeing as this is the internet and I can do it not because of how I'm feeling but because the person I'm directing my message to will actually believe I'm mad, plus it makes me laugh my head off... yeah. Don't believe everything you read (or do, because I probably want you to :D) Obviously not. But I do own certain physical items, which I can use in any manner I choose. What, your computer? Sure, you can use your computer however you choose. The physical CD that files come on? Heck yeah, cut that thing into a ninja star and see if you can get it to stick into the wall. The files on the CD? Nope, not really. You paid for the right to access the files but I'm pretty sure there's a stipulation that the files you've been "given" are not to be modified or redistributed without permission of the developer. Same goes for digital copies. The internet? Nope, right to a service. You may not engage in copyright infringements simply because you think you made a case strong enough to vindicate your actions, because it is not your decision to make. You noted that this was not your decision to make when you agreed to the terms of service your internet service provider displayed to you when you signed the thing that says they could cut off your internet -because they're bored-, much less because you're using it to engage in illegal activities. Claiming that purchasing a right to a service gives you the right to abuse that service is contradictory. It's something akin to renting a canoe, filling it with dynamite and trying to blow up a cruise liner with it... and expecting the canoe rental company to be totally fine with it because you paid that 80 bucks for the day of what they understood as "using the canoe to canoe around in for a day" and you understood as "Owning a canoe for 24 hours" Same goes for electricity, though you'd be much harder pressed to find ways to power your electronics maliciously than you would be to use the internet for illegal activities. I said nothing about distributing. I'm just in the act of acquiring here. My computer, my power source, and my internet so long as it's not prohibited in my contract with my ISP. I should have the absolute right to do what I will with those things, just as I have the absolute right to do what I will with my clothing, or my desk drawer. I'm not saying that I have a right to abuse my property, only that someone else's imaginary property shouldn't be able to control what I do with my property. If that seems to you to be abuse, so be it. To me, it seems like ample justification for the abolition of Intellectual Property. The point I've been trying to make is exactly that you do not own your power source or your internet in the same way that you own your clothing or your desk drawer. The very obvious difference is that where you do actually own your clothing and your desk drawer, you don't actually own your power source or your internet. As such, you do not actually get to decide what you do with your power source or your internet, the companies providing that service to you get to decide; Unfortunately (debatable) internet service providers do not currently have the resources to track exactly what everyone is doing while still maintaining a profitable business model. The next-best solution is the honor system, which has you sign something that says "I won't abuse the service being provided to me" and then just trust you to actually not abuse it, because they have few ways of checking whether or not you ARE, and actually policing it is counter-productive, for them. Again, you do not have an absolute right to do with these things what you will, because you do not actually own these things and they are not yours to do with what you will. So far, our simple debate has gone thusly: Me : You can't do what you want with these things because you do not actually own them. You : Yeah but I should own them so I should be able to do whatever I want with them. Me : Yeah but you don't actually own these things, so you can't do what you want with them. You : Yeah but I should own them so I should be able to do whatever I want with them. I challenge you to provide clear, sound reasoning as to -why- you should own these things based on factual analysis and empirical reasoning rather than emotional reasoning and theoretical analysis. Unless you can provide this, our simple debate is likely to continue thusly until I get bored and stop replying. But so long as my agreement with my landlord doesn't mention anything about using the power outlet for piracy, and my public library doesn't mention piracy or illegal downloads in their ToS, then I'm perfectly within my rights to pirate whatever I damn well please. Edit: I'm not saying I should own these things. Never have been, with the internet (could build my own power source if necessary to prove this point). But if it's not mentioned in the contract, then it's fair game. In general I think we can agree we despise lawyers. They find loopholes in everything to break moral obligation. Not really sure why you would go down this path of reasoning. Just because it's not written down in a contract doesn't mean you have free reign to do what you want. I guess general decency doesn't factor into your thought process. Time and again Ive met people both online and in real life that use absolutes to make their points, which factor in nothing of reality. Good entertainment for me nonetheless.
Because I'm tired of seeing pirates give half truths and partial justifications for their actions. Unless you break down the concept which establishes piracy (as separate from the sharing of ideas), there's no way to justify the action.
|
On December 02 2011 16:26 refmac_cys.cys wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 16:22 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 16:03 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 15:55 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 15:44 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 15:42 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 15:26 HereAndNow wrote:On December 02 2011 15:22 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 15:20 Staboteur wrote:
Yes, Imad, but at least I'm not functionally retarded. Man, you may be fine functionally, but... Except his points were all more or less correct. Do you ever read the ToS or EULA? Probably not. Everything we're arguing is clearly stated on there. :D And for the record, I don't honestly care anywhere near as much as I've made myself out to. There was a small moment where I was honestly taken aback by the ignorance of the dude I originally quoted, but that's about where my sincere emotional involvement ended. Seriously though, any rational adult that has a) Paid an electric bill and b) Had even the smallest notion of what they were agreeing to would know that you don't own the services you pay for, you pay for the rights to use the services. You don't own a cabbie and his cab because you commissioned him to drive you somewhere. You commissioned him to drive you somewhere with the understanding that he could tell you to get the fuck out of his car at any moment because you violated any of his fully arbitrary unvocalized conditions that are your end of the bargain in him providing you a service. Spoiler alert : I'm not actually mad, I'm just being dramatic. It'd be pretty awesome if someone actually got mad enough to SHOUT certain specific words for EMPHASIS, but seeing as this is the internet and I can do it not because of how I'm feeling but because the person I'm directing my message to will actually believe I'm mad, plus it makes me laugh my head off... yeah. Don't believe everything you read (or do, because I probably want you to :D) Obviously not. But I do own certain physical items, which I can use in any manner I choose. What, your computer? Sure, you can use your computer however you choose. The physical CD that files come on? Heck yeah, cut that thing into a ninja star and see if you can get it to stick into the wall. The files on the CD? Nope, not really. You paid for the right to access the files but I'm pretty sure there's a stipulation that the files you've been "given" are not to be modified or redistributed without permission of the developer. Same goes for digital copies. The internet? Nope, right to a service. You may not engage in copyright infringements simply because you think you made a case strong enough to vindicate your actions, because it is not your decision to make. You noted that this was not your decision to make when you agreed to the terms of service your internet service provider displayed to you when you signed the thing that says they could cut off your internet -because they're bored-, much less because you're using it to engage in illegal activities. Claiming that purchasing a right to a service gives you the right to abuse that service is contradictory. It's something akin to renting a canoe, filling it with dynamite and trying to blow up a cruise liner with it... and expecting the canoe rental company to be totally fine with it because you paid that 80 bucks for the day of what they understood as "using the canoe to canoe around in for a day" and you understood as "Owning a canoe for 24 hours" Same goes for electricity, though you'd be much harder pressed to find ways to power your electronics maliciously than you would be to use the internet for illegal activities. I said nothing about distributing. I'm just in the act of acquiring here. My computer, my power source, and my internet so long as it's not prohibited in my contract with my ISP. I should have the absolute right to do what I will with those things, just as I have the absolute right to do what I will with my clothing, or my desk drawer. I'm not saying that I have a right to abuse my property, only that someone else's imaginary property shouldn't be able to control what I do with my property. If that seems to you to be abuse, so be it. To me, it seems like ample justification for the abolition of Intellectual Property. The point I've been trying to make is exactly that you do not own your power source or your internet in the same way that you own your clothing or your desk drawer. The very obvious difference is that where you do actually own your clothing and your desk drawer, you don't actually own your power source or your internet. As such, you do not actually get to decide what you do with your power source or your internet, the companies providing that service to you get to decide; Unfortunately (debatable) internet service providers do not currently have the resources to track exactly what everyone is doing while still maintaining a profitable business model. The next-best solution is the honor system, which has you sign something that says "I won't abuse the service being provided to me" and then just trust you to actually not abuse it, because they have few ways of checking whether or not you ARE, and actually policing it is counter-productive, for them. Again, you do not have an absolute right to do with these things what you will, because you do not actually own these things and they are not yours to do with what you will. So far, our simple debate has gone thusly: Me : You can't do what you want with these things because you do not actually own them. You : Yeah but I should own them so I should be able to do whatever I want with them. Me : Yeah but you don't actually own these things, so you can't do what you want with them. You : Yeah but I should own them so I should be able to do whatever I want with them. I challenge you to provide clear, sound reasoning as to -why- you should own these things based on factual analysis and empirical reasoning rather than emotional reasoning and theoretical analysis. Unless you can provide this, our simple debate is likely to continue thusly until I get bored and stop replying. But so long as my agreement with my landlord doesn't mention anything about using the power outlet for piracy, and my public library doesn't mention piracy or illegal downloads in their ToS, then I'm perfectly within my rights to pirate whatever I damn well please. Edit: I'm not saying I should own these things. Never have been, with the internet (could build my own power source if necessary to prove this point). But if it's not mentioned in the contract, then it's fair game.
Yeah, totally. You find a library that has no restrictions about what you are and aren't allowed to use their internet connection for AND has an internet connection that they've got based on the same "do whatever, no worries!" principle... then yeah, go nuts.
...but that -shouldn't- exist. And not even from a moral sense, but in the sense of companies covering their own asses.
A library will have a "You can't use the internet for illegal activities" clause in their terms not because they care, but because
An ISP will have a "You can't use the internet for illegal activities" clause in their terms not because they care, but because
Copyright infringement and illegal activities are illegal.
You could offer a hypothetical situation where both an ISP and a library are providing you with a service that you can use for whatever you please, but all that really would be doing is shifting the blame to themselves rather than you, because at the very base of it all it is STILL ILLEGAL. Sure, -you- wouldn't be doing anything illegal (the blame would be on the ISP / library for allowing you to) but the fact that something illegal is still being done is the point in itself.
And to pre-emptively refute your claim of "Well I don't respect Intellectual Property so it isn't illegal"...
It comes back to the same theme. It's always felt really strange to me, but by living in the country that you live in you agree to abide by the rules that that country has laid out for you. It is not your DECISION to respect IP because you do not OWN your country, it is the decision of the country and you must respect their decision because you choose to live there. If you do not respect the country's decision, you must, by law, face the consequences of not respecting the "Terms of service" that your country involuntarily forced you to sign by mere fact of your existence (lolol countries r mean :D).
Ultimately you are only free within your country to be a unique individual and do whatever you want within the confines of morality and fairness laid out by the country you live in. If this were not the case, there are people who would have solved this long, drawn out argument simply by killing anyone who opposed them. Though anarchy is often a glorified theme, it doesn't actually sound that pleasant, to me.
|
On December 02 2011 16:30 Lightwip wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 16:04 HereAndNow wrote:On December 02 2011 15:55 Lightwip wrote:
"Don't be cheap" is one of the stupidest arguments in existence.
No one has enough money to throw it around and waste it. If there's a good way to save money without harming yourself, you will do it. How about not overspending? I don't buy every good game that comes out. I rent some, I borrow some, I just watch people play some. It's not so much "don't be cheap", it's "don't be cheap if you have the money, and don't feel you need to spend money you don't have". There are so many people implying that they only pirate because they legitimately can't afford it. First of all, budgeting out $60 a month isn't an impossible task if you're not in poverty. If you have a PC that can handle the types of games you're pirating, you can afford a game a month. Hell, even $120 is easy on most salaries. If you actually, seriously can't afford a game, then that still doesn't entitle you to get it anyway. You'll live without games. Use the time you would spend playing pirated games working to get a better job or playing old games you can afford. "Why should I pay when I can perform a selfish, illegal action for free" is one of the stupidest arguments out there. You are tragically uneducated in practical applications of economics. Not overspending? Define overspending. There is literally always more use for money. I could always use the $60 I get here for something else. I could also save said $60 by pirating the game. When it's 2-8 hours worth of a working day saved in money, that is a logical choice. When it's more, it's even more reasonable to "be cheap." It's not about not having the money, it's about not being wasteful when you don't have to be. $150 million earmarks are chump change for the US government. Problems arise when they add up. Similarly, $60 for a game here and there, a $25 cd, 3 $20 DVD's and you're suddenly up to $225. Who wouldn't want $200 more? Your last two points also show a terribly narrow-minded world view. What if someone has to steal food or work an illegal job to survive? Is it immoral to immigrate to the United States illegally to be able to live a better life? Is the INS a glorious moral crusade? Both of those actions are selfish and illegal. Does that make it immoral? You can argue that pirating games and these situations are different. But you'd live without a job in America as a Latin American, right? Why is it important to become better off? Also, what makes it so immoral to steal from an entity that as a whole behaves as a conniving, greedy, villainous psychopath? That's exactly what a corporation is.
Overspending isn't that difficult of a concept. Maybe 1 good AAA game comes out a month. You probably don't want every single one, so maybe a full priced game every 2 months. Maybe an old game or pre-owned game or two every month. That's like, $60 a month for enough entertainment.
You're also using the argument "who cares if it's illegal as long as it's better for me?" Well, it's still illegal. You are committing an illegal act. So there's that.
Are you insinuating that video games are in any way the same as food, shelter, or a job? Talk about bad logic. You can survive without games, you don't need to pirate and steal shit to stay alive. No one is forcing you to pirate, you won't have a seizure if you don't play games. There's a difference between entertainment and self-preservation.
If you see all corporations like that, you're missing the people who hold it up. I'm sure the guy who programmed the /dance for Zerglings really goes home and murders puppies for fun.
No, they're built on people who have jobs, who don't get paid as much as they would in the corporate sector, who make games because they like it. Game developers, artists, and programmers make a fraction of what they could if they took their skills outside the game industry. Those are the people you're taking money away from. Good job.
|
Society is changing (nothing new here, this has always been the case)
Internet for the common man is what? - maybe 10 years old (in Sweden most people have had access to internet for approx 10 years)
Now, people are *really* starting to use it for the first time, since changes in society takes a lot of time (but now my whole family is using internet). It is *now* that the real changes in society are taking place. It is now that the laws will not be able to keep up with these changes, since they happen very quickly.
But lets take a step backwards, look at Radio, the legal system have always been something that changes slowly (and indeed this is good). But we must of course realise that the changes in society must lead to changes in our legal system, since our legal system should be a codification of our society. Radio was introduced many years ago, but as Radio come to change society (and in time came to change legal system as well), so will Internet come to change society (and our legal system).
The question is how do you want our society to look like for your children?
Edit: spelling
|
Piracy isn't an issue. It's just media corporations pricing themselves out of the market. The fact of the matter is digital intellectual property has an overly inflated price due to the previous distribution monopoly they had during the 20th century. The way I see it, they can drop their prices or adopt new business models (as many companies already have, such as Steam and Spotify etc). I see piracy as a legitimate socialist movement, much like Occupy Wallstreet. Right now the system (copyright law, DMCA, the whole recording and film industries) is set up to favour the profits of a very, very small percentage of media producers.
|
On December 02 2011 16:37 Lightwip wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 16:12 kurosawa wrote:On December 02 2011 15:40 Lightwip wrote:
I pirate things, albeit infrequently. I live in the United States, so I can't say I can't afford games; I have plenty of money. The reason I do it is because I want free stuff. Who doesn't?
But here's the question: why not do it? I don't have any moral obligation to support massive gaming corporations that will be fine without my money. I'd rather be $60 richer.
If there's a good reason to buy a product rather than pirate it, I will. That's why I don't pirate DS games etc. But if I can get a comparable or better experience for free, why would I bother paying?
This is a situation very similar to evolution. If organism A is a parasite to organism B, both will evolve in a way that will harm the other. If they had a mutualist relationship, they would work to gain more benefit out of supporting the other. Corporations making DRM's is like a parasitic relationship between them and consumers/pirates.
Instead of making things worse for everyone, the gaming/movie/music companies need to make the bought product worth buying instead of pirating. Then the problem will become negligible as far as money lost goes.
As for indie games, I sure as hell wouldn't want a DRM-ridden infestation of a game. The fame gained from more people playing it is probably worth more. In much the same way I have no moral obligation to not smash in your front door, share your family, use your computer and shit in your toilet. Why do I care if I can get it for free? I don't want to spend money on a computer, a house or a toilet. It's funny because it's YOU that's the parasite in this equation. I don't really want to hear about how you feel these guys may or may not rip you off for what they deliver. If you take offence to the cost of these games then DONT BUY IT. You are not entitled to things that are not yours...or are you somewhat special? With your suspect moral compass I highly doubt it. You are constrained by practical considerations. Perhaps you have no moral obligations. However, I have no reason not to call the police and have you arrested, which is an almost certain negative consequence of taking my stuff. If I were likely to get in trouble for piracy, I wouldn't do it. Simple as that. Also, pirated goods are pretty nonrival, but a house is. Horrible comparison.
So you pirate things that are not yours because you dont fear arrest from it? So in essence you are saying anything that wont land you in a pile of shit you have no moral obligation to think twice about doing. I guess this is why this world is so fucked up.
Thing I love most is that you kick off your post with "You are constrained by practical considerations". I'm sorry. I didnt know abstract madness/nonsense was what progressed the human race.
|
On December 02 2011 16:42 Staboteur wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 16:26 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 16:22 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 16:03 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 15:55 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 15:44 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 15:42 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 15:26 HereAndNow wrote:On December 02 2011 15:22 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 15:20 Staboteur wrote:
Yes, Imad, but at least I'm not functionally retarded. Man, you may be fine functionally, but... Except his points were all more or less correct. Do you ever read the ToS or EULA? Probably not. Everything we're arguing is clearly stated on there. :D And for the record, I don't honestly care anywhere near as much as I've made myself out to. There was a small moment where I was honestly taken aback by the ignorance of the dude I originally quoted, but that's about where my sincere emotional involvement ended. Seriously though, any rational adult that has a) Paid an electric bill and b) Had even the smallest notion of what they were agreeing to would know that you don't own the services you pay for, you pay for the rights to use the services. You don't own a cabbie and his cab because you commissioned him to drive you somewhere. You commissioned him to drive you somewhere with the understanding that he could tell you to get the fuck out of his car at any moment because you violated any of his fully arbitrary unvocalized conditions that are your end of the bargain in him providing you a service. Spoiler alert : I'm not actually mad, I'm just being dramatic. It'd be pretty awesome if someone actually got mad enough to SHOUT certain specific words for EMPHASIS, but seeing as this is the internet and I can do it not because of how I'm feeling but because the person I'm directing my message to will actually believe I'm mad, plus it makes me laugh my head off... yeah. Don't believe everything you read (or do, because I probably want you to :D) Obviously not. But I do own certain physical items, which I can use in any manner I choose. What, your computer? Sure, you can use your computer however you choose. The physical CD that files come on? Heck yeah, cut that thing into a ninja star and see if you can get it to stick into the wall. The files on the CD? Nope, not really. You paid for the right to access the files but I'm pretty sure there's a stipulation that the files you've been "given" are not to be modified or redistributed without permission of the developer. Same goes for digital copies. The internet? Nope, right to a service. You may not engage in copyright infringements simply because you think you made a case strong enough to vindicate your actions, because it is not your decision to make. You noted that this was not your decision to make when you agreed to the terms of service your internet service provider displayed to you when you signed the thing that says they could cut off your internet -because they're bored-, much less because you're using it to engage in illegal activities. Claiming that purchasing a right to a service gives you the right to abuse that service is contradictory. It's something akin to renting a canoe, filling it with dynamite and trying to blow up a cruise liner with it... and expecting the canoe rental company to be totally fine with it because you paid that 80 bucks for the day of what they understood as "using the canoe to canoe around in for a day" and you understood as "Owning a canoe for 24 hours" Same goes for electricity, though you'd be much harder pressed to find ways to power your electronics maliciously than you would be to use the internet for illegal activities. I said nothing about distributing. I'm just in the act of acquiring here. My computer, my power source, and my internet so long as it's not prohibited in my contract with my ISP. I should have the absolute right to do what I will with those things, just as I have the absolute right to do what I will with my clothing, or my desk drawer. I'm not saying that I have a right to abuse my property, only that someone else's imaginary property shouldn't be able to control what I do with my property. If that seems to you to be abuse, so be it. To me, it seems like ample justification for the abolition of Intellectual Property. The point I've been trying to make is exactly that you do not own your power source or your internet in the same way that you own your clothing or your desk drawer. The very obvious difference is that where you do actually own your clothing and your desk drawer, you don't actually own your power source or your internet. As such, you do not actually get to decide what you do with your power source or your internet, the companies providing that service to you get to decide; Unfortunately (debatable) internet service providers do not currently have the resources to track exactly what everyone is doing while still maintaining a profitable business model. The next-best solution is the honor system, which has you sign something that says "I won't abuse the service being provided to me" and then just trust you to actually not abuse it, because they have few ways of checking whether or not you ARE, and actually policing it is counter-productive, for them. Again, you do not have an absolute right to do with these things what you will, because you do not actually own these things and they are not yours to do with what you will. So far, our simple debate has gone thusly: Me : You can't do what you want with these things because you do not actually own them. You : Yeah but I should own them so I should be able to do whatever I want with them. Me : Yeah but you don't actually own these things, so you can't do what you want with them. You : Yeah but I should own them so I should be able to do whatever I want with them. I challenge you to provide clear, sound reasoning as to -why- you should own these things based on factual analysis and empirical reasoning rather than emotional reasoning and theoretical analysis. Unless you can provide this, our simple debate is likely to continue thusly until I get bored and stop replying. But so long as my agreement with my landlord doesn't mention anything about using the power outlet for piracy, and my public library doesn't mention piracy or illegal downloads in their ToS, then I'm perfectly within my rights to pirate whatever I damn well please. Edit: I'm not saying I should own these things. Never have been, with the internet (could build my own power source if necessary to prove this point). But if it's not mentioned in the contract, then it's fair game. Yeah, totally. You find a library that has no restrictions about what you are and aren't allowed to use their internet connection for AND has an internet connection that they've got based on the same "do whatever, no worries!" principle... then yeah, go nuts. ...but that -shouldn't- exist. And not even from a moral sense, but in the sense of companies covering their own asses. A library will have a "You can't use the internet for illegal activities" clause in their terms not because they care, but because An ISP will have a "You can't use the internet for illegal activities" clause in their terms not because they care, but because Copyright infringement and illegal activities are illegal. You could offer a hypothetical situation where both an ISP and a library are providing you with a service that you can use for whatever you please, but all that really would be doing is shifting the blame to themselves rather than you, because at the very base of it all it is STILL ILLEGAL. Sure, -you- wouldn't be doing anything illegal (the blame would be on the ISP / library for allowing you to) but the fact that something illegal is still being done is the point in itself. And to pre-emptively refute your claim of "Well I don't respect Intellectual Property so it isn't illegal"... It comes back to the same theme. It's always felt really strange to me, but by living in the country that you live in you agree to abide by the rules that that country has laid out for you. It is not your DECISION to respect IP because you do not OWN your country, it is the decision of the country and you must respect their decision because you choose to live there. If you do not respect the country's decision, you must, by law, face the consequences of not respecting the "Terms of service" that your country involuntarily forced you to sign by mere fact of your existence (lolol countries r mean :D). Ultimately you are only free within your country to be a unique individual and do whatever you want within the confines of morality and fairness laid out by the country you live in. If this were not the case, there are people who would have solved this long, drawn out argument simply by killing anyone who opposed them. Though anarchy is often a glorified theme, it doesn't actually sound that pleasant, to me.
Nah, that's not where it would go. This argument is the argument for why IP shouldn't exist, not why I should pirate stuff (I don't, really, you may be surprised. Once or twice for hard to find songs). IP shouldn't exist because it prevents me from using those services to do what I want. It's better in it's less technical form (say balsa wood and a dollhouse, or chemicals and a drug), but it's still applicable.
|
On December 02 2011 16:48 refmac_cys.cys wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 16:42 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 16:26 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 16:22 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 16:03 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 15:55 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 15:44 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 15:42 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 15:26 HereAndNow wrote:On December 02 2011 15:22 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
Man, you may be fine functionally, but... Except his points were all more or less correct. Do you ever read the ToS or EULA? Probably not. Everything we're arguing is clearly stated on there. :D And for the record, I don't honestly care anywhere near as much as I've made myself out to. There was a small moment where I was honestly taken aback by the ignorance of the dude I originally quoted, but that's about where my sincere emotional involvement ended. Seriously though, any rational adult that has a) Paid an electric bill and b) Had even the smallest notion of what they were agreeing to would know that you don't own the services you pay for, you pay for the rights to use the services. You don't own a cabbie and his cab because you commissioned him to drive you somewhere. You commissioned him to drive you somewhere with the understanding that he could tell you to get the fuck out of his car at any moment because you violated any of his fully arbitrary unvocalized conditions that are your end of the bargain in him providing you a service. Spoiler alert : I'm not actually mad, I'm just being dramatic. It'd be pretty awesome if someone actually got mad enough to SHOUT certain specific words for EMPHASIS, but seeing as this is the internet and I can do it not because of how I'm feeling but because the person I'm directing my message to will actually believe I'm mad, plus it makes me laugh my head off... yeah. Don't believe everything you read (or do, because I probably want you to :D) Obviously not. But I do own certain physical items, which I can use in any manner I choose. What, your computer? Sure, you can use your computer however you choose. The physical CD that files come on? Heck yeah, cut that thing into a ninja star and see if you can get it to stick into the wall. The files on the CD? Nope, not really. You paid for the right to access the files but I'm pretty sure there's a stipulation that the files you've been "given" are not to be modified or redistributed without permission of the developer. Same goes for digital copies. The internet? Nope, right to a service. You may not engage in copyright infringements simply because you think you made a case strong enough to vindicate your actions, because it is not your decision to make. You noted that this was not your decision to make when you agreed to the terms of service your internet service provider displayed to you when you signed the thing that says they could cut off your internet -because they're bored-, much less because you're using it to engage in illegal activities. Claiming that purchasing a right to a service gives you the right to abuse that service is contradictory. It's something akin to renting a canoe, filling it with dynamite and trying to blow up a cruise liner with it... and expecting the canoe rental company to be totally fine with it because you paid that 80 bucks for the day of what they understood as "using the canoe to canoe around in for a day" and you understood as "Owning a canoe for 24 hours" Same goes for electricity, though you'd be much harder pressed to find ways to power your electronics maliciously than you would be to use the internet for illegal activities. I said nothing about distributing. I'm just in the act of acquiring here. My computer, my power source, and my internet so long as it's not prohibited in my contract with my ISP. I should have the absolute right to do what I will with those things, just as I have the absolute right to do what I will with my clothing, or my desk drawer. I'm not saying that I have a right to abuse my property, only that someone else's imaginary property shouldn't be able to control what I do with my property. If that seems to you to be abuse, so be it. To me, it seems like ample justification for the abolition of Intellectual Property. The point I've been trying to make is exactly that you do not own your power source or your internet in the same way that you own your clothing or your desk drawer. The very obvious difference is that where you do actually own your clothing and your desk drawer, you don't actually own your power source or your internet. As such, you do not actually get to decide what you do with your power source or your internet, the companies providing that service to you get to decide; Unfortunately (debatable) internet service providers do not currently have the resources to track exactly what everyone is doing while still maintaining a profitable business model. The next-best solution is the honor system, which has you sign something that says "I won't abuse the service being provided to me" and then just trust you to actually not abuse it, because they have few ways of checking whether or not you ARE, and actually policing it is counter-productive, for them. Again, you do not have an absolute right to do with these things what you will, because you do not actually own these things and they are not yours to do with what you will. So far, our simple debate has gone thusly: Me : You can't do what you want with these things because you do not actually own them. You : Yeah but I should own them so I should be able to do whatever I want with them. Me : Yeah but you don't actually own these things, so you can't do what you want with them. You : Yeah but I should own them so I should be able to do whatever I want with them. I challenge you to provide clear, sound reasoning as to -why- you should own these things based on factual analysis and empirical reasoning rather than emotional reasoning and theoretical analysis. Unless you can provide this, our simple debate is likely to continue thusly until I get bored and stop replying. But so long as my agreement with my landlord doesn't mention anything about using the power outlet for piracy, and my public library doesn't mention piracy or illegal downloads in their ToS, then I'm perfectly within my rights to pirate whatever I damn well please. Edit: I'm not saying I should own these things. Never have been, with the internet (could build my own power source if necessary to prove this point). But if it's not mentioned in the contract, then it's fair game. Yeah, totally. You find a library that has no restrictions about what you are and aren't allowed to use their internet connection for AND has an internet connection that they've got based on the same "do whatever, no worries!" principle... then yeah, go nuts. ...but that -shouldn't- exist. And not even from a moral sense, but in the sense of companies covering their own asses. A library will have a "You can't use the internet for illegal activities" clause in their terms not because they care, but because An ISP will have a "You can't use the internet for illegal activities" clause in their terms not because they care, but because Copyright infringement and illegal activities are illegal. You could offer a hypothetical situation where both an ISP and a library are providing you with a service that you can use for whatever you please, but all that really would be doing is shifting the blame to themselves rather than you, because at the very base of it all it is STILL ILLEGAL. Sure, -you- wouldn't be doing anything illegal (the blame would be on the ISP / library for allowing you to) but the fact that something illegal is still being done is the point in itself. And to pre-emptively refute your claim of "Well I don't respect Intellectual Property so it isn't illegal"... It comes back to the same theme. It's always felt really strange to me, but by living in the country that you live in you agree to abide by the rules that that country has laid out for you. It is not your DECISION to respect IP because you do not OWN your country, it is the decision of the country and you must respect their decision because you choose to live there. If you do not respect the country's decision, you must, by law, face the consequences of not respecting the "Terms of service" that your country involuntarily forced you to sign by mere fact of your existence (lolol countries r mean :D). Ultimately you are only free within your country to be a unique individual and do whatever you want within the confines of morality and fairness laid out by the country you live in. If this were not the case, there are people who would have solved this long, drawn out argument simply by killing anyone who opposed them. Though anarchy is often a glorified theme, it doesn't actually sound that pleasant, to me. Nah, that's not where it would go. This argument is the argument for why IP shouldn't exist, not why I should pirate stuff (I don't, really, you may be surprised. Once or twice for hard to find songs). IP shouldn't exist because it prevents me from using those services to do what I want. It's better in it's less technical form (say balsa wood and a dollhouse, or chemicals and a drug), but it's still applicable.
By a similar vein of logic, the United States shouldn't exist because it prevents you from doing what you want.
Sleep is more important than this debate. Your argument is senseless but you are too stubborn to even consider it.
|
On December 02 2011 16:59 Staboteur wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 16:48 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 16:42 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 16:26 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 16:22 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 16:03 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 15:55 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 15:44 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 15:42 Staboteur wrote:On December 02 2011 15:26 HereAndNow wrote:
[quote]
Except his points were all more or less correct. Do you ever read the ToS or EULA? Probably not. Everything we're arguing is clearly stated on there. :D And for the record, I don't honestly care anywhere near as much as I've made myself out to. There was a small moment where I was honestly taken aback by the ignorance of the dude I originally quoted, but that's about where my sincere emotional involvement ended. Seriously though, any rational adult that has a) Paid an electric bill and b) Had even the smallest notion of what they were agreeing to would know that you don't own the services you pay for, you pay for the rights to use the services. You don't own a cabbie and his cab because you commissioned him to drive you somewhere. You commissioned him to drive you somewhere with the understanding that he could tell you to get the fuck out of his car at any moment because you violated any of his fully arbitrary unvocalized conditions that are your end of the bargain in him providing you a service. Spoiler alert : I'm not actually mad, I'm just being dramatic. It'd be pretty awesome if someone actually got mad enough to SHOUT certain specific words for EMPHASIS, but seeing as this is the internet and I can do it not because of how I'm feeling but because the person I'm directing my message to will actually believe I'm mad, plus it makes me laugh my head off... yeah. Don't believe everything you read (or do, because I probably want you to :D) Obviously not. But I do own certain physical items, which I can use in any manner I choose. What, your computer? Sure, you can use your computer however you choose. The physical CD that files come on? Heck yeah, cut that thing into a ninja star and see if you can get it to stick into the wall. The files on the CD? Nope, not really. You paid for the right to access the files but I'm pretty sure there's a stipulation that the files you've been "given" are not to be modified or redistributed without permission of the developer. Same goes for digital copies. The internet? Nope, right to a service. You may not engage in copyright infringements simply because you think you made a case strong enough to vindicate your actions, because it is not your decision to make. You noted that this was not your decision to make when you agreed to the terms of service your internet service provider displayed to you when you signed the thing that says they could cut off your internet -because they're bored-, much less because you're using it to engage in illegal activities. Claiming that purchasing a right to a service gives you the right to abuse that service is contradictory. It's something akin to renting a canoe, filling it with dynamite and trying to blow up a cruise liner with it... and expecting the canoe rental company to be totally fine with it because you paid that 80 bucks for the day of what they understood as "using the canoe to canoe around in for a day" and you understood as "Owning a canoe for 24 hours" Same goes for electricity, though you'd be much harder pressed to find ways to power your electronics maliciously than you would be to use the internet for illegal activities. I said nothing about distributing. I'm just in the act of acquiring here. My computer, my power source, and my internet so long as it's not prohibited in my contract with my ISP. I should have the absolute right to do what I will with those things, just as I have the absolute right to do what I will with my clothing, or my desk drawer. I'm not saying that I have a right to abuse my property, only that someone else's imaginary property shouldn't be able to control what I do with my property. If that seems to you to be abuse, so be it. To me, it seems like ample justification for the abolition of Intellectual Property. The point I've been trying to make is exactly that you do not own your power source or your internet in the same way that you own your clothing or your desk drawer. The very obvious difference is that where you do actually own your clothing and your desk drawer, you don't actually own your power source or your internet. As such, you do not actually get to decide what you do with your power source or your internet, the companies providing that service to you get to decide; Unfortunately (debatable) internet service providers do not currently have the resources to track exactly what everyone is doing while still maintaining a profitable business model. The next-best solution is the honor system, which has you sign something that says "I won't abuse the service being provided to me" and then just trust you to actually not abuse it, because they have few ways of checking whether or not you ARE, and actually policing it is counter-productive, for them. Again, you do not have an absolute right to do with these things what you will, because you do not actually own these things and they are not yours to do with what you will. So far, our simple debate has gone thusly: Me : You can't do what you want with these things because you do not actually own them. You : Yeah but I should own them so I should be able to do whatever I want with them. Me : Yeah but you don't actually own these things, so you can't do what you want with them. You : Yeah but I should own them so I should be able to do whatever I want with them. I challenge you to provide clear, sound reasoning as to -why- you should own these things based on factual analysis and empirical reasoning rather than emotional reasoning and theoretical analysis. Unless you can provide this, our simple debate is likely to continue thusly until I get bored and stop replying. But so long as my agreement with my landlord doesn't mention anything about using the power outlet for piracy, and my public library doesn't mention piracy or illegal downloads in their ToS, then I'm perfectly within my rights to pirate whatever I damn well please. Edit: I'm not saying I should own these things. Never have been, with the internet (could build my own power source if necessary to prove this point). But if it's not mentioned in the contract, then it's fair game. Yeah, totally. You find a library that has no restrictions about what you are and aren't allowed to use their internet connection for AND has an internet connection that they've got based on the same "do whatever, no worries!" principle... then yeah, go nuts. ...but that -shouldn't- exist. And not even from a moral sense, but in the sense of companies covering their own asses. A library will have a "You can't use the internet for illegal activities" clause in their terms not because they care, but because An ISP will have a "You can't use the internet for illegal activities" clause in their terms not because they care, but because Copyright infringement and illegal activities are illegal. You could offer a hypothetical situation where both an ISP and a library are providing you with a service that you can use for whatever you please, but all that really would be doing is shifting the blame to themselves rather than you, because at the very base of it all it is STILL ILLEGAL. Sure, -you- wouldn't be doing anything illegal (the blame would be on the ISP / library for allowing you to) but the fact that something illegal is still being done is the point in itself. And to pre-emptively refute your claim of "Well I don't respect Intellectual Property so it isn't illegal"... It comes back to the same theme. It's always felt really strange to me, but by living in the country that you live in you agree to abide by the rules that that country has laid out for you. It is not your DECISION to respect IP because you do not OWN your country, it is the decision of the country and you must respect their decision because you choose to live there. If you do not respect the country's decision, you must, by law, face the consequences of not respecting the "Terms of service" that your country involuntarily forced you to sign by mere fact of your existence (lolol countries r mean :D). Ultimately you are only free within your country to be a unique individual and do whatever you want within the confines of morality and fairness laid out by the country you live in. If this were not the case, there are people who would have solved this long, drawn out argument simply by killing anyone who opposed them. Though anarchy is often a glorified theme, it doesn't actually sound that pleasant, to me. Nah, that's not where it would go. This argument is the argument for why IP shouldn't exist, not why I should pirate stuff (I don't, really, you may be surprised. Once or twice for hard to find songs). IP shouldn't exist because it prevents me from using those services to do what I want. It's better in it's less technical form (say balsa wood and a dollhouse, or chemicals and a drug), but it's still applicable. By a similar vein of logic, the United States shouldn't exist because it prevents you from doing what you want. Sleep is more important than this debate. Your argument is senseless but you are too stubborn to even consider it.
My argument is sensible, but it stems from a questionable premise. Night!
|
Its fair to say, that if we had quality games like Little Big Adventure, Baldurs gate, Broodwar, Deus Ex, Unreal Tournamente 2000, etc... (crysis).
Those will sell well. Sure, those will be pirated 20 billion times if you want, but you still get rich from that game.
Look at Bill Gates: 75% ppl use illegeal windows OS and he is still very, very rich. Thats how you do it. You get a great thing, that 20% wont steal, and you are golden.
Now we get crappy games everywhere (Sorry im from the old version and i belive apart from Deus Ex 3, all other games released this year are a joke), and they want the same ammount of money they wanted for a 4-6 year development game, they want us to buy DLCs that are basicly stripped down from the game before release (thou others are not, and in very few cases, ilove the idea, like in witch hunt from dragon age), and then ask us to spend even more on it.
Why is this something that gets me angry?
Becouse the game producers know that noone in their right mind will pay 60 E for a SUB 5 hour game.
I have about 3 copies of every game i really liked, and they keep beeing bought in every store i know.
See World of warcraft:
Its not that the game cant be hacked, its that its so good you are not feeling raped while you pay for it (my case i like guild wars more as WoW looks like dolls for me, but hey.).
Also note that the call of duty franchise is one of the most downloaded in history, and they got the 3rd out not long ago.
Well its gonna get them a ton of money anywa so, why not, right?
I dont carre at all since i got enought games that are "replayable" for the rest of my life, but untill game start beeing actually good again (i mean you can turn on a game and think what you are seeing is impossible), im not buying another game.
Ill get a magazine that adds old games in full version with it and thats it...
EDIT: I noticed that many people are arguing about if it is moral to do this or that.
Do you know how Pirate rings work? Most of them give you free access to every game, movie song, os, etc you want.
They do Always say: IF you like the game, plz buy it!.
Now... I downloaded some time ago Battlefield 3. I turned it on and played for about 40 minutes. After that i uninstalled it and deleted the 3 DVD image from the PC. I didnt like it at all to have another heavy scripted console first person shooter, thats all.
As you can guess, i did not buy the game.
On the other hand i did the same with Deus Ex 3, and i did buy the game.
I will buy skyrim as well, once the expansons come in one "game of the year edition" pack, and i wont buy modern warfare 3 (didnt even bother in donwloading it).
If i had DEMOS, i would not do this, but since publishers decided NOT to give demos anymore....
And in fact, i dont get it, demos are basicly made to lure ppl in, so they only reason i can think about not giving demos is becouse you know your game sucks :D.
|
Pirates aren't a socialist movement heroicly taking down big business, they are people like me. Broke and/or lazy with no moral objections to pirating stuff. I do not blame businesses from trying to protect their IP, and I actually agree that pirating should be illegal and prosecuted (it isn't in Netherlands). And no, this still doesn't conflict with my belief that pirating is not morally wrong. When I pirate I do not take away anything from anyone, that is all I need. No need to come up with complex arguments about the great social benefits of pirates.
DRM makes alot of sense, I have bought games because they were difficult to pirate at the time (many corrupted versions). And I have pirated games because were pirating them was easier than buying. I was about to buy Portal 2 from Steam when I realized I had left my phone downstairs, which I need for online purchasing, so I pirated instead. Maybe some day pirating will be so difficult I will stop doing it. Maybe there will be an actual chance of being caught, or maybe I will have to read through a 5 page guide on how to install a crack. Untill then, I will pirate, and so will pretty much everyone else I know.
|
To combat piracy you can either start sending out more ships, convoys, if you will. Or you can shoot the three gunmen simultaneously.
Whichever the US gov. decides.
|
I am happy to buy all my games, since those who provide me with entertainment deserve some money for it. But at the same time I like the fact that people who cannot afford the games I buy can still play them. I just don't see a reason that a resource that is almost unlimited by virtue of its nature is restricted to those who can afford it.
Yes there are those that abuse illegal software downloads, but in a world of material injustice software piracy wouldn't really be on my list of urgent moral problems. (And, as was said in this thread time and time again, profit expectations derived from the number of illegal software downloads are unrealistic)
What bugs me, however, is that I had to forfeit the right to resell some of my more recent computer games during purchase. Software companies apparently have no problems with restricting the right of property when it suits their interests.
|
I know how to combat piracy. Make games cheaper and charge extra for frequent patches. At the cost of losing some initial money in the western world, you gain millons of new costumers in the eastern world.
|
Those numbers mean basically nothing. You can't judge piracy on a single case basis. There is a group of pirates that have a huge throughput and literally pirate everything that is possible and due to the sheer amount there's no way to twist them into "lost customers".
Even with a low estimate of a fifty million gamers in total, only a small portion of like 2-3% high-volume pirates would already account for most of the illegal downloads for any game.
|
Piracy is an issue for publishers if they let it be. Valve understands that providing a better/equal service that pirates offer, will deter piracy and result in greater sales. This has been proven by their business model and profit estimates.
Ubisoft however, is doing the exact opposite thing; forcing downright cruel DRM into their games that causes the honest customer infinity more hassle than the pirate has to deal with. Now they've seen Assassin's Creed:Rev fully pirated and released three weeks earlier than the official PC launch as a result.
Piracy is not *beatable* until ISPs deal with it personally, which is almost impossible/never going to happen due to privacy laws. Second-hand selling that retail outlets do is a bigger issue that the gaming industry will certainly eliminate sooner or later.
|
The guy "cracking" the game and making it available to download is a pirate.
The guy downloading it isn't. (hasn't any technical knowledge)
There is a massive difference here !
About "killing" / "camping" the pirates I don't know...I mean if you consider "pirates" with the definition I took at the beginning of my answer they WILL find a way around it anyway so that you think that they are legit or other sneaky hacks.
I mean look at World of Warcraft, Blizzard programmed one of the most advanced anti-hacking / anti-third-party tools that currently exists (The Warden) and there are still people hacking, botting that don't get caught. Even after ban-waves.
Some time ago there were even talks of mass disconnections (10-15 people at the same time in Rated Batlegrounds) by DDoS...
The real question is actually the same one that the music industry and the movie industry faces (or pretty similar one since there aren't that many "men in the midle" in the video game inudstry".
If you fix video games, you will probably fix music and movies at the same time.
You heard it here first (or not ^^).
|
When a person pirates something it isn't a lost sale. How do you know that they were going to buy the game anyways? How do you know they even played the game? And even if they would've bought the game had their experience with the game been good, so what? Can you really blame people for pirating games when developers continue to release console port after console port onto PCs with mass DRM designed to hurt paying customers? Also with the used PC game market being virtually non-existent, I better be playing a damn good game. The problem isn't pirates running amuck and "ruining" the industry. The problem is the developers/publishers releasing horrible games in the first place that no one would've payed for otherwise.
I bought Skyrim the day it came out. I was excited as fuck to play that game. When I played it I was very very disappointed. Looking back, I should've taken the opportunity to pirate the game first before paying $60 for a non-refundable watered down console port catered to casuals. Now to be fair the game isn't horrible, but it definitely isn't worth $60 and the fact that I can't sell/get a refund it is even more painful.
Now on the other side of the spectrum you have the Witcher. When I pirated that game I loved every second of it. Everything about it was so detailed and rich. You could tell that CDprojeckt (I think thats how you spell it) put tons and tons of effort into this game. I at first bought the game on steam, but then when they released The Witcher on GOG.com I bought that as well, because any developer that releases their game DRM free deserves every dime they get. I then would buy the Witcher 2 before finishing The Witcher, because that game is also DRM free. That DRM free game also sold 1,000,000 copies which is pretty darn good for a single player PC game. The 4.5 Million pirated is basically meaningless when you take into account what those 4.5 million people did with their "pirated" drm free copies.
When developers provide an excellent service and put out a quality product, then more people will trust them and give them their money. Pirates are unaffected by DRM it is pointless to have the legitimate buyer of the game be affected by things that Developers/publishers think is going to prevent piracy.
TL;DR: Make a quality game and more people will be willing to pay for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
