| (Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) | |
Anonymous Source Posts: 1 Joined: 25 Sep 2008 | |
Anonymous Source  Posts: 2 Joined: 25 Sep 2008  | First of all, piracy implies that whomever pirates something steals it. When in actuality, its copied and you get to keep your original. because as Cheeze_Pavilion said it best "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." Second of all, you still get paid the same amount of bloody money. You do not work Now you may ask, "hey root, why should I stop my tearing cry for pain due to my app being shared more than a tijuana crack whore on bittorrent? Well I shall explain, I am a student in the 3D animation field, and trust me I have seen my share of BS "original" pirated work.( Which is the same in my eyes as how you feel about your apps being copied). BUT! I look at it this way, the illegal copying of software in the InternetZ will always continue, so deal with it.You and I are in fields of work in which piracy is common, but the real idea behind it is this: Can you really make an app that people will say " holy shit steve!, this app is not like the other 600+ other apps that people make, THIS THING IS ACTUALLY WORTH THE MONEY!!! thus they buy it. But with the amount of shit being pumped into the net today its no wonder people torrent most apps. Think of it as a DEMO for something before you buy it. I personally don't torrent shit. Since I use Ubuntu,the majority of my apps are free and open source. I understand what you mean, but this is just another way of looking at the topic. Cheers |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1011 Joined: 1 Dec 2007     |
Is-ought fallacy.
Straw-man. Nice work slamming Captian I-Never-Argued-For-Or-Against-Piracy. He's so pleased? |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 4193 Joined: 6 Sep 2008     | Honestly I can see the arguments on either side... i've done it for very old games that are hard to find. For instance i'm never going to find System Shock 2 legally- alas it didn't work with my version of windows. I despise the idea of picking up new releases or movies though, since the success of the title often determines sequels and extended support. Also thats a big F and U to anyone who wants me to PAY for an SNES game when nostalgia strikes me. Get out of here with that shit, Link to the Past is almost two decades old if not more. Theres a limit to the greed i'll tolerate. |
On the Record  Posts: 6742 Joined: 10 Apr 2007    |
Again: I am not talking about the "positive effects of piracy" or using them "to excuse piracy"; I am talking about the positive effects of pirates and your opinion of them.
That has nothing to do with the question I'm asking you: what do you think of pirates that buy more of your software than honest customers?
You're misstating what I'm asking: I'm not talking about any legal obligation to *watch* commercials; I'm talking about a legal obligation not to record a TV show so you can *skip* the commercials. In other words, if it's wrong to copy someone's data to make it possible violate the wishes of the person who develops software, why isn't it wrong to copy someone's data to make it possible to violate the wishes of the person who develops TV shows?
That has no relevance to my disagreement with you. You did not say that in the post I was replying to: you said "trespassing isn't any less wrong than is theft." That is what I was disagreeing with. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 4193 Joined: 6 Sep 2008 | Yeaah right, if you seriously make that much money can I be your best freind? |
Paperboy Posts: 29 Joined: 24 Sep 2008     | lol, that's not a lot of money, not in comparison to what this site will make. That's the problem i tend to find, people want to be friends with me only because of my money. Thats why i have a strict no loans/handouts etc. policy. They get nice presents, but that's it. |
Infamous Scribbler  Posts: 683 Joined: 29 Apr 2008    | My take on software piracy vs purchacing is that of respect and encouragement. People who devote a large part of their lives to create something that brings you happyness deserve respect. They ask that you show your respect via giving them money so that they can continue doing what they do, which in turn will bring more happyness to you and others later on down the line. This of course is the ideal situation where all software is fantasitc, and nobody tries to capitalize on fond child hood memories for a qucik buck. Basicaly I advocate only paying for good software. This doesn't necissarily meen pirate bad software or software you are unsure of quality wise. There exist enough demos and reviews of gaming software that you can form an edjucated oppinion of a game without spending a dime. Companies that are unwilling to offer a demo of their software, they probably don't have anything worth showing. It all boils down to this: If you don't pay for good games there will be no good games in the future. Likewise if you keep paying for bad games there will also be no good games in the future. Each individual consumer has a responsiblity to shape the gaming land scape of tomorrow. If it doesn't turn out the way we wanted, we have only ourselves to blame. |
On the Record Posts: 6742 Joined: 10 Apr 2007 |
Technically that's not always true, at least for U.S. corporations with shareholders. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 2174 Joined: 14 Nov 2007    |
And what were these conditions? Most people far as I know go to the shop, buy a game, then play it. They didn't sign any contracts or make any binding agreements in doing so. They don't have signs in HMV saying 'One video game per person. No lending of games to friends.'
So it's a case of one set of rules for books, but another for games? How does that work? I go to a bookshop, hand over money, the book is mine. I don't give a fuck if Tolkien himself wants to argue with me, that copy of the book is my property which I have paid for. Yet, if I go to a gameshop and hand over substantially more money for a game, in theory making that copy of the game my property, the publisher can still dictate who plays it and who doesn't? What if I want to sell my game, is that not allowed? This is ridiculous. If I went to a high street and told shoppers about this, people would either look at me in disbelief or laugh it off as a joke. The very idea that I can buy a book for a fiver, read it, lend it to my friends, or sell it to Oxfam as I see fit, yet I pay 30-40 quid for a computer game... and I'm not even allowed to lend it to a friend to play on his computer? Now who's having trouble getting the 'Yours and mine' concept? |
Web Developer  Posts: 841 Joined: 6 Jun 2007     |
Can you point those us of us that aren't familiar with this particular law where to get further info concerning it? I might be the only one since I don't watch TV, but I'd still like to get more info for curiosity's sake. |
Web Developer Posts: 841 Joined: 6 Jun 2007 |
Haven't purchased a game in a bit, but are they no longer including those lengthy EULA at some point during the installation? Apparently nobody reads them still, but they're a legally binding contract on the use of the software in question. |
Press Junketeer  Posts: 367 Joined: 11 Oct 2007    |
No. I never used the word nor the concept "theft" as an argument as to why I don't like piracy. Go back and read again and make a new summary because the one quoted above here is an epic failure in understanding what I'm saying.
No you did not understand what I mean. I never said piracy is theft. Join Ahnfelt over at the original post and read again.
No, it's not an Is-Ought fallacy. The concept of Intellectual Property and what it means is defined by law. Even if you think that something that is insubstantial cannot be owned, no legislation in the world agrees with you. And since legislation is the defining factor in this case, your argument that software or other IP cannot be "mine", is wrong. If you argue the opposite, then you'll have to admit that no physical object can be yours either since the right to ownership is defined in the same way: by legislation. Also it is not a Strawman argument because the question was not rethorical. I'll take your answer as that you meant "No" to my question... hence you do agree with me that when I creating something that is not physical, the population of the world does not have a right to take part of it on their terms; that I am in fact the owner of the work in question; and that I therefore have the right to control it and also to control access to it.
The question of what I think about pirates that buy more of my software than do non-pirates is an utterly irrelevant one and I have no interrest in answering it. It does nothing but muddle up the discussion without adding anything relevant to it. Renting a DVD from a store does not give you the right to occationally take one DVD home and watch it without paying. About the TiVo... again: you are allowed to unconditionally record TV transmissions that you subscribe to. No legislation, no deal, nothing in the agreement that was drawn up between you and the TV channel compells you to not record only the parts that you want. I am perfectly free to not take part of IP at any time I like. And again: the moral relativism has no bearing on the case either. Even if we were to extract some kind of wrongness measurement from acts of trespassing and theft, and these measurements turns out to be different, that still does not excuse piracy and as such, for this discussion, is a totally moot point. /S |
SUSPENDED  Posts: 172 Joined: 26 Aug 2008   | Perhaps all us pirates are souless, evil entities hell bent on destroying the game industry. In the end we enjoy free games, music and movies and you don't because of morality? Oh dear... User was suspended for: Poll: People should be made to take an IQ test before being allowed to create a Youtube account. (365 days) |
On the Record Posts: 6742 Joined: 10 Apr 2007 |
I actually can't. Just recently a court refused to rule on the issue after the studios backed down: http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/04/17-0 However, it is certainly the opinion of at least the CEO of Turner Broadcasting that skipping their commercials is theft: http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/1113 |
Press Junketeer Posts: 367 Joined: 11 Oct 2007 |
No it is not rediculous. I can agree that it is very tricky sea to navigate though. in short: lending software/a book to a friend, in the true sense that you yourself is not using the original while your friend has it, is normally not concidered wrong. However, the moment you copy the book or the software so that both people can use it at the same time, then it's a different thing. I am no expert on consumer rights but there is a alot being said legally about what is concidered Fair Use. This is fluid and in constant development, especially since IP has become easy to reproduce using technical means. I am fairly certain that lending is allright... but copying isn't.
The EULA's are still there but their legality is questioned. Copyright and Consumer Rights legislation has precedence over EULA's anyway. You cannot sign an agreement that lessens your rights compared to what law says you have.
Nonsense. If you have nothing substantial to add to the discussion, don't enter it. /S |
On the Record Posts: 6742 Joined: 10 Apr 2007 |
Your opinion of certain pirates is irrelvant to a discussion about your opinion that pirates are "pimply snot-nosed kids" who "don't have the manners or good graces to actually respect other people's property." Sorry, but, I think it's more likely that you don't want to acknowledge that there's a major hole in your position?
Legality aside, why do you think it's moral to use an IP in a way that the owner clearly does not want you to? You said in your original post: 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. What is unreasonable about ad-supported TV stations requiring people not to skip the ad?
It would only be a moot point if you had stopped at calling pirates wrongdoers. You went further than that, though, and you said that: 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. Just the fact that they are wrongdoers does not justify that conclusion about the extent of their wrongdoing and what is says about what they believe. |
Web Developer Posts: 841 Joined: 6 Jun 2007 |
Well, it'd be interesting if they ever tried to force the issue, rather than saber-rattling. I'd want to see how they'd determine there was a contract between the viewers and broadcasters, especially since in the system as it currently is designed the viewers are the product, and the advertisers are the customers. The only reason they care if a show is good or not is how much they can get for selling our eyes. Anyway, this is getting off topic... though given the differences in how the two industries work, I think the TiVo analogy isn't going to work here. |
Press Junketeer Posts: 367 Joined: 11 Oct 2007 |
In short his business model is flawed and he cannot use the "Theft" argument to defend it. I think he's wrong. /S |
Press Junketeer Posts: 459 Joined: 21 Nov 2007  | Piracy is illegal, that is as simple as the question gets. Have I pirated games? Yes I have and I've been caught at it by my ISP which resulted in a letter threatening to turn off our service if I continued to pirate games. So what did I do? I stopped pirating new games that they were paying attention to. I still torrented System Shock 2, AvP, and American McGee's Alice between then and now because either I couldn't find the game or I would have to buy from people who are illegally copying and selling the games anyway... Do I feel bad for my past pirating? No, I don't. When I spend my money on a game and it doesn't work on my computer even though their specs say it should I lose a little compassion for the developer. When I buy a game and install it just to find malware on my computer from it I lose a little more compassion. When I buy a game which made certain promises about content and it's not there I lose even more compassion. When I buy a game and have to wait a week, two weeks, a month for them to release patches so it actually works correctly I lose a lot of compassion. There is one thing that we have to face in the computer game industry: the developers hold all the cards. There is NO consumer protection in this industry and there is ever increasing protection for the developers. I've bought games and installed them just to see them crash over and over again until the developer finally released a patch. I've bought anti-virus programs which, when installed, caused my computer to completely stop functioning causing massive loss of personal information. More recently other people in my family bought computers with an operating system that didn't work with a single printer we owned and with only the newest games. So yes, it's illegal but no, I really don't feel sorry for developers. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1464 Joined: 20 Mar 2008   |
They're not a legal contract in every country. At least here in the Netherlands and I believe multiple other European countries, an EULA has no legal value unless it is visible at the moment of purchase. |
On the Record Posts: 6742 Joined: 10 Apr 2007 |
Well, if everyone TiVo's through the commercials, there aren't any eyes on the ads. Remember, they're not selling the eyes watching the program, they're selling the eyes watching the ads. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1011 Joined: 1 Dec 2007 |
Which is how things are. I am arguing about how things should be. You are using the former to attack the latter. Hence, an is-ought fallacy.
Uh, no, I've made no positions either for or against anything you've attributed. I've simply applied abduction to a point to argue against it. Put consecutively: 1. The patenting of scientific discoveries is silly |
On the Record Posts: 6742 Joined: 10 Apr 2007 |
Um, I don't know how much experience you have with TiVo, but, it's not really like closing your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears... And um...why are you saying "At most, not watching commersials could be concidered a breach of contract"? Isn't a contract the embodiment of a property owner's wishes? How do you go from your original post were you go on and on about how morally bankrupt pirates are when they don't respect your wishes for your property, but then turn around and trivialize an instance where some other property owner's wishes aren't respected? Don't you see the metric ton of contradiction in arguing that someone's "business model is flawed" due to advances in technology in a thread where you complain about software piracy? |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2174 Joined: 14 Nov 2007 |
May I then enquire as to your thoughts on copying a game I've already bought in case the disc goes el-scratcho. Or going so far as to pirate a game that I bought a long time ago, and have since scratched/lost the disc? Would I still be in the wrong then, despite having already bought the game? |
Press Junketeer Posts: 367 Joined: 11 Oct 2007 |
No, there is no hole in my position because my position is that anyone that does not respect my rights as the owner of property are doing something wrong and illegal. Wherether or not they are snot-nosed kids or the equivalent of such has no relevance to the position in question. I simply stated for the sake of example that such people peeve me. About the TV ads I think that falls under the reservation I made: the conditions you set up for using the IP must be reasonable. Forcing people to watch ads under the threat to cancel the subscription is not reasonable. And just saying that pirates are wrongdoers is not an argument... it's an unsubstantiated claim. My argument for the claim was that pirates do not respect the concept of Yours & Mine, a concept that encompasses the right for me to dictate (withing reasonable bounds) under what condition my proeprty can be used. Is there anythign in that argument which ou don't agree on? /S |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 2038 Joined: 7 Sep 2008  | EA is facing a class action suit because of the anti-piracy mechanism in Spore. I think that speaks volumes. |
Anonymous Source Posts: 2 Joined: 25 Sep 2008 | Piracy exists simply because there is so much crap that people have to go through to get a app that is actually worth the damn money we pay for it. Like this, who in hell is going to torrent starcraft 2?! seriously like 1% of people, and it will only be used on a LAN based idea anyway. EVERYONE who likes starcraft will buy STARCRAFT2! end of story, STOP MAKING SHIT APP/GAMES and ppl WIll START BUYING THE GOOD GAMES/APPS! |
On the Record Posts: 6742 Joined: 10 Apr 2007 |
So your position was always only that software pirates are doing something wrong and illegal, and you decided to title that post as:
and start your argument with:
and you conclude the post with:
GEE WHERE DID I EVER GET THE IDEA THAT YOUR POST WAS ABOUT WHETHER YOU LIKED OR DISLIKED PIRATES? +++++ Sorry, but you're just being silly now. |
Paperboy  Posts: 28 Joined: 14 Aug 2008  | Hey waaait a minute; I don't think pirates are deliberately trying to screw developers here. I think if there's any deliberate screwing it'll be focused primarily on the faceless giants - publishers. After all, games devs are the ones who toil and sweat into the long hours to bring about these shiny treats for the mind. It's the publishers who shaft the devs and consumers both in a multitude of ways. After everything is said and done about morality and ethics, it's still business at the end of the day and business needs a profit margin. Considering that a PR campaign can make or break a game these days, and said campaigns can cost as much or more than the whole multi-year dev cycle, what percentage of the total proceeds earned from the sale go back to the devs? Not much; they're salaried. The sales/performance bonus devs get after the game begins to make profits is pretty damn minimal. And it only happens once per game. Pirates don't reappropriate the artistic works from a game; they don't steal the code. They challenge the business model. Game devs aren't in it for the money; this is demonstrable by looking at their pay-cheques and comparing those to similarly skilled people in other industries. So quit moaning about loss of profits; at least someone has arrived at a method of disseminating your work to a market that can't afford it. I don't like to endorse piracy, but my feelings against poverty are far stronger. That's not necessarily money-poverty, it's cultural poverty. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go extract my faculty of intelligence and reason from my faculty of waste excretion. |
Time Lord  Posts: 10089 Joined: 13 Feb 2008    | |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1098 Joined: 25 Feb 2008  | US law allows me to defended myself against any attacks with equal or lesser force. When Starforce purposfully tries to break my dvd drive i am allowed to defend myself by getting a copy that doesn't do so. The riaa's ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR HARHARHAR lawsuits aside, piracy is the lesser evil here compared to destruction of property. The same applies to SecuROM rootkits. The only reason those remain legal is because their lobby can afford to blow several billions on changing laws in their favor and pirates can't. To everybody claiming that publishers have the legal high ground anyway: Why do they keep spending money on politics? Shouldn't their "basic rights" be covered standard? |
Press Junketeer Posts: 367 Joined: 11 Oct 2007 |
I don't know about where you live, but in Sweden, such malfunctions of a product is grounds for anulling the purchase at the point of sale and getting your money back. Such failures are you describe are clearly the result of a malfunctioning product and as such you have the right to get your money back. That's the way it works here at least, don't know about your country of residence.
So? That's a glaringly poor business model, relying on concepts that they cannot reasonably enforce. The customers are not obliged to bend over backwards to accomodate shoddy ideas. /S |
Web Developer Posts: 841 Joined: 6 Jun 2007 |
Actually, they are selling the eyes watching the program. It's "we have X people watching this program, and based on that, you can buy ad blocks at this rate". The problem they're encountering is no longer being able to claim with high certainty that those eyes are watching the ads, and apparently not being able to enforce the viewing of them as they are: 1) not legally considered part of the program; and 2) no contract between them and viewers mandating the watching of ads in addition to the program. Which puts them closer to how print and radio media operate in that sense. Recent ad placements in online multiplayer games aside, the closest analogy elsewhere in the entertainment industry is with the movie industry, as their income is directly tied to ticket and dvd sales, so it's a direct viewer-as-consumer relationship. |
| (Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) | |
Reply to Thread
|
|
Not registered? Sign up for a free account! |
I never thought of it that way before.
So to summarize, you dislike pirates because they steal?
That's pretty original thought right there. Pirates steal, do they. I'm glad I took the time to read your post, or it would never have occurred to me. It's brilliant. I hope you win the Nobel Peace Price!
...
The problem is, nobody cares that you hate software pirates. They are a fact of life, and as long as it's more convenient to illegally copy software than to acquire it legally, it's going to be a common thing.
When I try buying a game legally, the first thing I do is to go to direct2drive or another place where you can purchase & download. Then I search for the game, and usually it's not there. A few sites later, I find the game, but it's only available in the US. But let's say I want one of the few games that actually can be downloaded outside the US. I buy it, download it, and install it. During the installation process I'm asked to agree with an EULA I didn't know of when I bought the game. I'm not going to read it of course, and I wouldn't be able understand it even if I did. Luckily they're void where I live. I'm all set to play the game. Later I find out that it came bundled with malware, often known as "DRM". Customers: 0. Pirates: 1.
So you read up on what DRM is. It turns out it's a program that game companies fancy silently bundling with games you've legally bought, in order to stop you from copying it. This must be pretty new though, since it's never prevented piracy before. But no, it's from the eighties. Wait, a technology designed to stop piracy that failed to work EVEN ONCE in more than 20 years? Why is this still used? So you read on to discover that they commonly destroy data, modify drivers and contain root kits... and generally are a pain in the buttocks. Customers: 0. Pirates: 2.
With movies it's even worse. If you try to rent a movie online (and I do this frequently), the sites have like 100 movies each. There's nothing to pick from. When you do find a movie you want to see, it's usually more expensive than renting them as physical discs. And the resolution is so low you're gotta feel stupid that you're not downloading this as HD from some P2P service right now instead. But you continue on, only to discover that you can't play the movie. Because you're not in Windows. Or you haven't got the right version of Windows Media Player. So you install Windows, boot into it and install MP 10.00127rc45. And with these easy steps you're all set to see a low resolution version of the movie you picked because there weren't anything better available. Customers: 0. Pirates: 3.
IP owners whine a whole lot over piracy, but they do nothing to make it more attractive to acquire their products legally. Are we supposed to be sympathetic?