I'm a software developer and I don't like software piracy. I have absolutely no sympathy for software pirates.

Why?

Because software pirates don't care about the most simple of principles: Yours & Mine.

The sanctity of ownership is what I'm talkin' about, that is to say: what's yours is yours, and what's mine you keep you damned dirty monkey-paws away from until I say differently.

When I create something, I own it. It's a basic concept that most of the 6 billion people on this planet agree on. What I make, is mine. What this means is that whatever is mine, I have the right to say who gets to play with it, allright? Whatever I own, I have the right to say: you don't get to play with this, because there is nothing, in any legislation anywhere, that gives you the right to veto my decisions about what's mine.

But software pirates don't believe in Yours & Mine. Software pirates think that just because I have offered to let people use my software for a fee, they suddenly have the right to say "Fuck it" to all my wishes and use my property as if it was their own.

And that is what peeves me... that some pimply snot-nosed kids have the gall to claim that they have some kind of right to screw my rights over; that they don'ty have to heed the most basic of principles taught to us as small kids, which is: stay the heck away from that which you don't own, or at least go ask if you may play with it before you try to do so.

Now granted I shouldn't be a jerk about it. The conditions I put up for using my property shouldn't be unreasonable. If I charge money for the usage of my property, the conditions must be fair, and I'm all for that. Consumer rights are very important.

But so are owner's rights. If I say that usage of my software is allowed only after a fee has been collected, then that's my decision to make and not yours. And just because you paid me somewhere between 5 and 50 bucks does not grant you ownership over my stuff. What you bought was a piece of plastic that just happened to contain the software, and also you bought a right to use it. You did not buy the full rights to re-distribute, multiply, crack, hack or reverse-engineer my stuff to steal it.

So that's why I dislike software pirates... because they don't have the manners or good graces to actually respect other people's property.

/S

Well put. As a fellow software developer (although I haven't developed anything worth distributing yet) I feel exactly the same way.

Sayvara:

When I create something, I own it. It's a basic concept that most of the 6 billion people on this planet agree on. What I make, is mine. What this means is that whatever is mine, I have the right to say who gets to play with it, allright? Whatever I own, I have the right to say: you don't get to play with this, because there is nothing, in any legislation anywhere, that gives you the right to veto my decisions about what's mine.

/S

Some one sixth of the worlds population (China) would disagree with you. But on to my point.

If you are an indie developer, I will gladly give you my money, to use your software, however, if you work for a publishing corporation, *cough* EA *cough* then the developer's rights become whatever the corporation says your rights are. The fact remains that if corporations continue to effectively insult the consumer by automatically assuming that they are pirates, they will increase piracy. Most gamers are honest, they will often, overwhelmingly choose to actually spend money on a game, rather than pirate it. However, if you push a consumer far enough, you will eventually drive said consumer to pirate the game out of pure principle. The general thought process is, if you insult my integrity outright, then you dont deserve my money. If said software is of sufficient quality and you stop troubling them after the purchase, people will overwhelmingly choose giving you money for it, rather than pirate it.

matrix3509:
If you are an indie developer, I will gladly give you my money, to use your software, however, if you work for a publishing corporation, *cough* EA *cough* then the developer's rights become whatever the corporation says your rights are. The fact remains that if corporations continue to effectively insult the consumer by automatically assuming that they are pirates, they will increase piracy. Most gamers are honest, they will often, overwhelmingly choose to actually spend money on a game, rather than pirate it. However, if you push a consumer far enough, you will eventually drive said consumer to pirate the game out of pure principle. The general thought process is, if you insult my integrity outright, then you dont deserve my money. If said software is of sufficient quality and you stop troubling them after the purchase, people will overwhelmingly choose giving you money for it, rather than pirate it.

This is a perfect case of "you can't have your cake and eat it, too." If you don't like invasive DRM practices - and I certainly don't - boycott them. Unfortunately, that also means you can't play the game, since piracy is a violation of the publishers' basic property rights.

...

Fuck it.

You make a good point, however when I'm confronted by a game that has hidden spyware, that I can't play when I'm not online because then the auto-security checker doesn't work, when I can only install it 3 times before it throws a hissy fit at me... then I get a little pissed off.

It's like buying a book, but you can't read it unless you phone up the library and they unlock the pages, and if you open and close it more than 5 times it catches fire and burns to nothing.

You want to be compensated for your labor, fine. I want to own what I pay for. I want to be able to modd the damn thing if I please, play it whenever I want, and not be treated like a suspected criminal the whole bloody time I'm doing so.

And then when your game development company is invariably swallowed whole by EA or goes bust, I want to be able to legally get a hold of the game which is now 6 months old yet can no longer be found on the sodding shelves - but which is STILL illegal to download. You want me to buy your game, then sell the sodding thing to me. Which brings me to the next point of my rant: Cost! You want $130 for your new, half finished, still buggy, rushed out the door to meet the christmas rush piece of shambled together code? Get real. Buy a game now and you're lucky to get 5 hours of gameplay, in fact you're lucky if it works right off the bat without needing to be patched. And games keep getting shorter because designers have decided that we want 'episodic gameplay', well that's nice, but shouldn't shorter games cost less? OH hell no you say, we sell you half a car for the same price and you should be thankful.

Basically what I'm saying is, if you're going to gouge me for $130 bucks, make it worth my while. But if you're going to give me a half length, half finished, buggy piece of crap that is so loaded with protection software (which you put more time into than the sodding game) that it barely works... then your game ceases to be worth what you're asking for. I'm not saying piracy is good, but like hell I'm buying it. And I seriously doubt that the vast majority of people who pirate your games would actually buy them if they hadn't pirated them.

There are a lot of assholes in the world. There are. However, I agree with matrix above that mega-publishers like EA are making more assholes. Even though I personally disagree with stealing software, I can understand when people get so angry as to say that they will steal a game to prove a point to a publisher, even if I don't necessarily condone the act.

The larger issue, though, is that software thieves are often the same people who complain about the quality of games, length of games, etc. Especially PC gamers. Now, as an avid PC gamer who almost exclusively plays PC games and will often wait for Xbox games to come out on his PC to play them (Mass Effect) I can tell you I am very upset with this trend.

PC game enthusiasts need to realize that we are screwing ourselves over by pirating games. I'm not talking about having to deal with DRM, I'm talking about the fact that we are beginning to be denied games that we our the biggest fans of. (I waited half a goddamn year for Mass Effect) I can't necessarily blame Bioware for this, I blame other PC gamers. If you're like me, and you actually go to the store or buy your games online then I thank you on behalf of myself and others like you.

We're all in this together, guys.

I disagree that my copy of the game is still yours after you sell it to me. And so does the law: it's called doctrine of first sale, buddy. No, I don't have the right to make copies of it and give them out, but I DO have the right to use the one copy you sold me where I want, on whatever computer I want, whenever I want and I don't need your bloody permission. And if I want to sell my copy to someone else, that is my right.

Point in case: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080523-court-smacks-autodesk-affirms-right-to-sell-used-software.html

So while I don't support piracy, I don't support your (and EA's) blatantly wrong idea that you still somehow own the copy of the game that you sold me, either. Call me a stickler for the law.

except when DRM makes it a hassle to make what's mine mine for any length of time. A website goes down, a system changes in the years to come, and suddenly, what's mine isn't mine anymore.

Did the fact that this drivel came directly from a software developer make you want to pirate his work even more?

What did you make sir?

But then you have to think of uni students/others who simply can't afford things like Photoshop or other software which cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars.
I myself am a student who had access to Photoshop legally until the computer left the house. I didn't do any major photo editing, just minor cropping or cloning. Now I cannot do these things as I only have a small amount of cash to spend on food and whatnot.

I am NOT saying that I pirate software or that i like it, I just understand why people do it.

Wolfy01:
But then you have to think of uni students/others who simply can't afford things like Photoshop or other software which cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars.
I myself am a student who had access to Photoshop legally until the computer left the house. I didn't do any major photo editing, just minor cropping or cloning. Now I cannot do these things as I only have a small amount of cash to spend on food and whatnot.

I am NOT saying that I pirate software or that i like it, I just understand why people do it.

This is completely absurd. If you're only doing "minor cropping and cloning," then 1. you don't need Photoshop and 2. You can do the exact same thing with any number of free programs that are very, very easy to find.

And just to clarify my previous point, I'm saying that DRM is bullshit, but piracy isn't any better.

Sayvara:
I'm a software developer and I don't like software piracy. I have absolutely no sympathy for software pirates.

Why?

Because software pirates don't care about the most simple of principles: Yours & Mine.

The sanctity of ownership is what I'm talkin' about, that is to say: what's yours is yours, and what's mine you keep you damned dirty monkey-paws away from until I say differently.

...

If I say that usage of my software is allowed only after a fee has been collected, then that's my decision to make and not yours. And just becauseyou paid me somewhere between 5 and 50 bucks does not grant you ownership over my stuff. What you bouth was a piece of platic that jut happened to tontain the software, and also you bought a right to use it. You did not buy the full rights to re-distribute, multiply, crack, hack or reverse-engineer my stuff to steal it.

So that's why I dislike software piractes... because they don't have the manners or good graces to actually respect other poeple's property.

Starnerf:
Well put. As a fellow software developer (although I haven't developed anything worth distributing yet) I feel exactly the same way.

Right. Because no software developer uses their TiVo to skip commercials...

I could go on a rant about DRM and piracy and all that, but I think Shamus here shares my views, and can put them far more eloquently.

I agree with you on the idea of piracy being about respect ad honouring the rights of the creator.

There are three thoughts I would be curious to hear your perspective on:

1. As piracy is such an established norm any more, isn't it naive to not see this as a reality of the culture and equally naive to try not to build games / business models to include this culture.

2. Look at anime, here is a primarily obvious example of an entire entertainment subculture expanding into the mainstream because of piracy. Though not to the same extent, the video game industry has reaped similar benefits. Isn't that a good thing?

3. Piracy reflect barriers to gaming established by developers / publishers themselves. In this case cost / convenience. If a publisher deigns to charge $60 US then isn't it just asking for that pimply faced kid to download it from the internet store?

Personally, and this is just me, I wouldn't mind if people pirated my software. As long as people are enjoying what I make, I couldn't care less. I mean, if people like it enough to pirate it, I must be doing something right. If they're like "Man, I got this awesome game the other day. You've gotta try it." that's all I'd want. As long as they're not claiming they made it (Which they usually don't.) it's all good. Word of mouth is one of the most powerful advertising methods available. A few pirates get a hold of your game, and they tell their friends, and they tell their friends, eventually everyone knows about it and wants to play.
"But," you say, "All these people are playing my game that I worked so hard on and I'm not even getting paid." Well, here's a secret. Most people that pirate your game, if they like it, would be more than willing to donate to your cause and support you. I know I would. The reasons the majority of people pirate is because they don't want to pay for something they might not like, or that it costs too much. But add a paypal link to your site and I guarantee people will support you if your game (Or what have you) is good enough.

Good morning blues:

Wolfy01:
But then you have to think of uni students/others who simply can't afford things like Photoshop or other software which cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars.
I myself am a student who had access to Photoshop legally until the computer left the house. I didn't do any major photo editing, just minor cropping or cloning. Now I cannot do these things as I only have a small amount of cash to spend on food and whatnot.

I am NOT saying that I pirate software or that i like it, I just understand why people do it.

This is completely absurd. If you're only doing "minor cropping and cloning," then 1. you don't need Photoshop and 2. You can do the exact same thing with any number of free programs that are very, very easy to find.

And just to clarify my previous point, I'm saying that DRM is bullshit, but piracy isn't any better.

I'm not saying that I need photoshop, and I know there are programs out there that do the things that I require but that's not my point.
My point is if you need photoshop for whatever reason but cannot afford it, I know where you're coming from.

The Original Post is absurd.

Let me relate a story to you: I like art, especially a set of four prints inspired by the four seasons from Daisy (honestly, that was the artist's name). If I understand what that first post is saying, that is like saying that artist still owns the prints I bought from her. Its not like I stole her originals, I just purchased a copy and should I desire to make copies of my prints to preserve them in some form, modify them by adding some additional ink, or even sell my prints, what business is it of hers? Once I have bought her prints, I have already supported her wonderful work as best I could and owe her nothing more for those prints.

Is the original post now suggesting I don't actually own those prints? Or the great games on my shelves that I install and uninstall from time to time? Absurd.

If you want to only rent out your art, that is your business, just don't expect me to be a customer.

[long post removed]

I'm a musician and software developer. If you want to make money, you have to sell something tangible.

The interweb has changed things, and the value of the stuff you're making has drastically decreased as a result. People enjoy having fun and dislike paying money for things. You're going to need to figure something else out.

Yes, just created this account to post here once (browsing after a Zero Punctuation).

The point isn't I bought a painting/spoon/rug and can do what I want with it.
*IF* the artist had said: "I will rent you my painting and you can hang it on your wall, but only facing the east and only on Tuesdays, and you have to call me every time, and I can take it back when I want", you would probably not want to give them money. The thing you need to remember is they can set the rules. You can't 'agree' to their terms and then own their painting and copy it for your friends or do anything they didn't agree to when you purchased it!
If you don't agree with the 'renting' idea, don't use the damn game! When you rented games from Blockbuster, you don't suddenly own them cause you think they are worth 2.99. Pirating is wrong, and people can't justify it (although they certainly try - can't afford it but need it, they would buy the game but only if they play it 50+ hours each week...).

I'll repeat: Pirating is wrong! You morally can't use/own a game/service if you don't agree to the terms that were made explicit during a sale.

BTW Even realizing pirating is wrong I do it - my justification is that I know I wouldn't buy it if it wasn't free.

The main reason why people pirate is the quality of the games, and the stupid drm that gets put on them these days, since pirates can get around that and get an unbroken copy, but most people who pirate games, only do it to see if the game is good, so if you make good games, people will be like "Hey, this games good, this guy deserves money" and then buy the game, game quality is a big issue these days as developers seem to care more about graphics than gameplay, so, make good games and you'll make good money, simple

truthfully, the tone of the original post in this thread is appalling to me.

I see this snarling individual on one side telling me he owns what I purchase, and I have another person on the otherside talking quietly and offering me ownership of a product for nothing.

You make pirates look good in comparison sir.

Altorin:
truthfully, the tone of the original post in this thread is appalling to me.

I see this snarling individual on one side telling me he owns what I purchase, and I have another person on the otherside talking quietly and offering me ownership of a product for nothing.

You make pirates look good in comparison sir.

Here's a question. Have you ever had something stolen from you?

Seems the little pirate kiddies didn't read my first post properly. What you specifically missed is this:

Sayvara:
Now granted I shouldn't be a jerk about it. The conditions I put up for you using my property shouldn't be unreasonable. If I charge money for the usage of my property, the conditions must be fair, and I'm all for that. Consumer rights are very important.

I agree that DRM is a hastle and is some ways it gets in the way of consumer rights. Some DRM is wrong. I also think that willfully and subversely installing bad software on an end-user's computer is very wrong. As someone put it: "It's your software, not your computer". If you bought the rights to use my property, well then I must, of course, let you use it! And if I can't do that, well natually I shall not make a fuss if you correct my shortcomings by making it work on your system.

I say again: consumer rights ARE important.

This doesn't put software pirates in the clear though. Property has to be respected, even if it's an indie dev or a megacorp. If you start loosening that up and thinking that you can go mess with the property of the megacorps, what makes you think that they can't and won't mess with you back? Respect is a two-way street.

/S

Copyright law is VERY clear on the subject of software "licensing": if you have been paid for it, you no longer have any rights to further compensation and can NOT require further validation to use the software. Accepting the EULA do NOT negate the concept of first sale no matter what is in the EULA (and in many cases because the EULA doesn't contain any separation clause [so that when one part is invalidated by the law the rest is not invalidated with it] the WHOLE EULA becomes unenforceable in court.) Appeals courts have all but in a few cases ruled in favor of the consumer in software licensing cases.

Sayvara:
Seems the little pirate kiddies didn't read my first post properly. What you specifically missed is this:

Sayvara:
Now granted I shouldn't be a jerk about it. The conditions I put up for you using my property shouldn't be unreasonable. If I charge money for the usage of my property, the conditions must be fair, and I'm all for that. Consumer rights are very important.

I agree that DRM is a hastle and is some ways it gets in the way of consumer rights. Some DRM is wrong. I also think that willfully and subversely installing bad software on an end-user's computer is very wrong. As someone put it: "It's your software, not your computer". If you bought the rights to use my property, well then I must, of course, let you use it! And if I can't do that, well natually I shall not make a fuss if you correct my shortcomings by making it work on your system.

I say again: consumer rights ARE important.

This doesn't put software pirates in the clear though. Property has to be respected, even if it's an indie dev or a megacorp. If you start loosening that up and thinking that you can go mess with the property of the megacorps, what makes you think that they can't and won't mess with you back? Respect is a two-way street.

/S

I get the funny feeling that you nonetheless have a view of gamers that leans more toward EA's side of the fence than toward Stardock's. You notice Stardock (and CD Projekt, and Paradox Interactive) don't have much of a piracy problem? It isn't because people don't want to play their games (well, maybe in the case of The Witcher, but...) It's because they start from the point of view that their customers are valuable and worthy of being treated with respect. And not surprisingly even the pirates pick up on this and realize "hey, we have no fucking way of pretending to claim the moral high ground here." The curtain is pulled back, the Wizard is revealed, and like a bad magic spell the piracy largely goes "poof!"

I would never even begin to dream of pirating Hearts of Iron 3 when it comes out next year. I am, however, seriously considering pirating The Sims 3 when it releases. Is it because of some moral ambiguity on my part? No! It's because Paradox is guaranteed to give me a fair shake as far as how I choose to use the license to play the game they created for me (and the rest of their customers). They own the code, but I own the site license. OWN. Not "rent", as in limited installs or convoluted DRM schemes or, frankly, the pirated version being of higher quality than the version I'd pay fifty bucks for (see Spore and I guarantee you the next Sims will be just as bad).

Respect may be a two-way street, but I am absolutely not above using (economic) violence in the cause of smacking around a company with blatant contempt for its potential clients.

I am technically against piracy. However, I am also against people earning money for doing nothing. This obviously requires some clarification:

Patents and rights expire too slowly. I greatly dislike the idea that you can potentially write a hit song (as an example) and live off the incomes of said song for the next fifty years. It pisses me off that record companies make billions re-releasing songs that were popular thirty years ago. This does not encourage new ideas, growth or evolution in the industry, be it music or games. It encourages scheming, moneygrubbing and stagnation.

I agree that you should pay for using someone else's product. But if the person who created the product in the first place is dead and gone and the people making the money just happened to pick up the rights to the product as a way to squeeze a little more money out of the creator's rotting corpse, it's time to let said product become freely available to everyone, while properly crediting its creator. I think every piece of art should become "freeware" at some point. Any limit would be arbitrary at best, but I think 15 or 20 years is a decent place to start.

I will always buy games to support the industry. That is just one of my moral standings and I dont feel that pirated games are worth the trouble. If you cant afford that new game you want, then get something else that you can afford or wait. I think that the issue in terms of game piracy is pretty black and white.
In a software perspective, I only buy software if i am going to make money off it, I need it for uni or it is affordable. The only issue I have with software is that it is so bloody expensive, and I understand that it needs to pay salaries but to the average kid who wants to learn it is beyond reach. Most of the piracy that I encounter arent large scale, or arent trying to make money from undermining the company that created it. I feel it is more the fact that because it is beyond the reach of the average person than just being plain malicious.

SimuLord:
I get the funny feeling that you nonetheless have a view of gamers that leans more toward EA's side of the fence than toward Stardock's. You notice Stardock (and CD Projekt, and Paradox Interactive) don't have much of a piracy problem? It isn't because people don't want to play their games (well, maybe in the case of The Witcher, but...) It's because they start from the point of view that their customers are valuable and worthy of being treated with respect. And not surprisingly even the pirates pick up on this and realize "hey, we have no fucking way of pretending to claim the moral high ground here." The curtain is pulled back, the Wizard is revealed, and like a bad magic spell the piracy largely goes "poof!"

I would never even begin to dream of pirating Hearts of Iron 3 when it comes out next year. I am, however, seriously considering pirating The Sims 3 when it releases. Is it because of some moral ambiguity on my part? No! It's because Paradox is guaranteed to give me a fair shake as far as how I choose to use the license to play the game they created for me (and the rest of their customers). They own the code, but I own the site license. OWN. Not "rent", as in limited installs or convoluted DRM schemes or, frankly, the pirated version being of higher quality than the version I'd pay fifty bucks for (see Spore and I guarantee you the next Sims will be just as bad).

Respect may be a two-way street, but I am absolutely not above using (economic) violence in the cause of smacking around a company with blatant contempt for its potential clients.

Well as strange as i may seem to you, we are actually both on the same track here. The difference is how far we are willing to go to enforce our rights.

Me, I'm in favour or breaking protection schemes if it allows you to use software on your system. I think that the DCMA is a plate of Bullshit & Chips in that is prevents you from doing that. As long as it is a matter of making sure you can use the thing you actually paid for, then I have no qualms about going against the EULA because my lawful right (in my country) as a customer says that inhibitative DRM and other such things are wrong.

However I will not, as you put it, use "economic violence" against a producer. You can never claim a moral ground high enough to let you willfully try to hurt them just because you don't like their practices. The best thing you can do is to voice your opinion against them, and taking yoru business elsewhere. But if you start trying to hurt their sales through piracy, then I think you have stepped way out of line. Then it's not the matter of enforcing consumer right any more but a case of petty vendetta.

/S

mark_n_b:
1. As piracy is such an established norm any more, isn't it naive to not see this as a reality of the culture and equally naive to try not to build games / business models to include this culture.

2. Look at anime, here is a primarily obvious example of an entire entertainment subculture expanding into the mainstream because of piracy. Though not to the same extent, the video game industry has reaped similar benefits. Isn't that a good thing?

3. Piracy reflect barriers to gaming established by developers / publishers themselves. In this case cost / convenience. If a publisher deigns to charge $60 US then isn't it just asking for that pimply faced kid to download it from the internet store?

1) Of course. It is just plain stupid of producers to not see piracy as a competitor. Sure piracy is morally and leaglly wrong, but people will do it. So what you as a producer have to do it make a better offer than the pirates'. I think that most anti-piracy schemes are stupid and very bad business decisions. What the producers need to do is make people want to buy their products.

Now some will say "You're crazy... how can you compete with a pricetag of 0.00 USD?!". Well price isn't everything. It's about how easy it is to buy and use the product; about extras that come with the sale; about customer service. You have to look at the whole experience, not just the purchase. And there it is indeed possible for producers to compete with the pirates and take back "market shares".

Constrictive DRM is not a good way to go there.

2) Those are positive side-effects yes. Exposure of your product to more people is good. Therefore it is up to you as a producer to try to find a balance between trying to secure your revenue and getting people to use your product.

Again, this is not impossible. Take for instance the case of Java, the programing language. All my programming tools... I mean all of them that I use at work, are available freely for download. Here at my work, we made a huge webshop that is in operation now, expecting millions of hits daily in just a year, and we used almost nothing by tools that are free to download. the only exception I have seen so far is the databases. Even Microsoft has understood that and offer the "Express" version of Visual Studio free for download. Finding a balance between paying customers and exposure is the key.

3) See 1) above. It's a matter of competition. I can be willing to pay 60 USD for something instead of downloading, if I think it's worth it. this is somethign the producers have to be aware: that it's a matter of competition. Price is a factor there.

Of course when we are kids we see little more than the price tag and think we have made a real bargain, even though we have to play the game standing on our heads and the viruses and worms use our computers for a tequila-party every second minute. But as we grow older and start having our own incomes, we start to value other things too.

/S

I agree with OP.
I'm just going to say one thing. I don't have a lot of money since I have bills to pay, and I'm also studying and currently without a job.
I pirate stuff, but I think of it as a trial-run. If I like it, or if it's a stand-alone software developer I buy it to support the publisher.
If I hate it badly I just delete it and don't look at it again.

privatehuff:
I'm a musician and software developer. If you want to make money, you have to sell something tangible.

I agree. One of the problems that piracy stems from is that people don't really know what it is they are buying. It's not just about the piece of plastic that makes up the transport medium for the property, it's also about the license to use it. And when it comes to that, the licence is poorly defined. It's not that it isn't precise, because the EULA's tend to be damned precise... but they are not very tangible as you put it. The problem is further compounded by the fact that the legal weight of most EULA's, are questionable at best.

/S

matrix3509:

Sayvara:

When I create something, I own it. It's a basic concept that most of the 6 billion people on this planet agree on. What I make, is mine.

Some one sixth of the worlds population (China) would disagree with you. But on to my point.

I think that if you confront a chinese citizen that has created something, and you tell them "Now I'm going to use your property as I see fit and not care about what you say", they are going to be quite angry with you.

/S

Sayvara:

However I will not, as you put it, use "economic violence" against a producer. You can never claim a moral ground high enough to let you willfully try to hurt them just because you don't like their practices. The best thing you can do is to voice your opinion against them, and taking yoru business elsewhere. But if you start trying to hurt their sales through piracy, then I think you have stepped way out of line. Then it's not the matter of enforcing consumer right any more but a case of petty vendetta.

Taking your business elsewhere is the most sensible choice, but it's not always an option. EA is directly involved in publishing most of the Western developed major titles coming out these days for any system, and it's unlikely that their influence will lessen. They more or less control the market, and there are few alternatives. How do you deal with a huge corporation that holds your favorite franchises as well as new original developers hostage through sheer dominance? If the current trend continues, there will be no other place to take your business in ten years or so.

nilcypher:

Altorin:
truthfully, the tone of the original post in this thread is appalling to me.

I see this snarling individual on one side telling me he owns what I purchase, and I have another person on the otherside talking quietly and offering me ownership of a product for nothing.

You make pirates look good in comparison sir.

Here's a question. Have you ever had something stolen from you?

Here's a question back: why did you ask what you did, and not, say:

have you ever had your property trespassed upon?

In other words, why is piracy like having something stolen from you? When something is stolen from you, not only does someone enjoy your property without permission, but you are also deprived of the ability to enjoy it yourself.

Isn't software piracy more like a trespass if the pirate just uses the software without the developer's permission? And doesn't that change the issues involved in this debate significantly?