paulgruberman:

Actually, I believe I can safely state that 1) holds. If the ads were considered part of the program, then they had every legal right to pursue their lawsuits against DVR manufacturers for including a feature that allowed for modification of their programming as intended. I'm far from a legal expert, but to me their lack of pursuit can be seen as a precedent,

It can't. Read the link to the EFF article--the judge in that case declined to give the DVR plaintiffs a declaratory judgment that would have settled the issue.

Edited to add: the reason they did not pursue the suit is because the manufacturers filed for bankruptcy and agreed to take out the ad skipping features from future models http://www.eff.org/cases/newmark-v-turner

Piracy affects the commercial relationship concerning retail sales,

That's not always true--if someone never would have bought the product, the piracy does not affect retail sales.

Taking the TiVo/piracy comparison from a moral perspective, they're still apples and oranges. There are no moral issues involved with the watching, or not watching of ads. There are when payment for products or services is involved.

First, I'm not talking about the *watching* of ads; I'm talking about the *skipping* of ads. That's a big difference.

Second, according to your logic that there's only a moral issue involved when we're talking about not paying for products or services offered for sale, there would be no moral issue involved in me going into a movie theater and pointing a camera at the screen.

That's where the moral issue comes in--a TiVo is not a TARDIS. In order to ad skip, you must first record a broadcast of a performance. The moral issue arises from going beyond just *viewing* a broadcast to *recording* a broadcast without getting the permission of the broadcaster to make that recording.

Edited to add: also, it's only true that there's no "payment for products or services is involved" if we're talking about OTA programming--if it's on cable, you paid for it and there's a commercial relationship.

At any rate, a society's morals tend to become the basis for its laws, so I'm not sure why the specification for legal/moral is needed.

That's not true--think about it:

--Murder is both illegal and immoral.

--Driving through a red light is always illegal, but if there's no one around, it's not immoral.

--Cheating on your boy/girl friend is immoral, but is not illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mala_in_se vs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_prohibitum

I solved the whole Piracy Analogy thing, but it got entirely overlooked, so I'll state it again

Piracy is most analogous to Prostitution.

Altorin:
I solved the whole Piracy Analogy thing, but it got entirely overlooked, so I'll state it again

Piracy is most analogous to Prostitution.

Give us a chance! I was going to make a horrible joke about software BUTT piracy! Digital cornhole corsairs...

paulgruberman:

"Mainstream gaming's lowest-common-denominator, bland, useless-feature-bloated offerings are a direct result of piracy. 10,000 units pirated on a game by EA that sells millions of copies looks like a drop in the bucket to the gamers, but to the eyes of smaller developers who expect to appeal to a smaller base it's discouraging at the very least.

Maybe that was true in the past, but now that they have the example of _Sins of a Solar Empire_, there's no excuse for that kind of thinking.

In my opinion the solution to the "piracy issue" is far more simple: Follow the Stardock/CDProjeckt formula. It's subtle, and it is very effective in preventing the worst aspects of Piracy.

Step 1: Accept that you cannot prevent Piracy. Make a protection, it will be cracked.
Step 2: Having accepted that, treat everyone, including the pirates, with respect. Gonna pirate, fine. Here, have at it. We would rather you buy it, though, and we will give you a reason.
Step 3: Create additional contect with extended value that is available to those who register their copy. Stardock did an awsome job with this in GalCiv 2, and CDP just revamped the Witcher and created two new stories for their new edition. . . and then made it all open to anyone that purchased the original. If you didn't buy the original at the $50 price point, well here is the super duper version at $40. Oh, and we've included the editor, so mod away.

As I am sure many people will agree, PC gamers are a big fan of Step 3. I've already made the call that regardless of what happens, these two companies (And Good Old Games through CDP) will have my loyalty for as long as they remain true to these principles.

Do the above, create consumer loyalty, keep your game in circulation, make money. What floors me is Spore could have been a huge example in this vein. It's perfect for this kind of system. EA just chose to be too restrictive.

The same arguement could be made for keeping your console games in the hands of consumers and out of the used market. Make a good game, then keep producing for it through quality DLC and make me WANT to keep it and play it again.

Sayvara:

Cheeze_Pavilion:
Nilcypher asked: "Is that theft?"

you asked: "Right or wrong?"

Two different questions.

That may be the case but trespassing isn't any less wrong than is theft.
/S

Not important to the original point, but here I must say you're wrong. Even the courts agree (at least here). If you trespass (and the person actually bothers to press charges), you may get a fine, whereas a theft conviction becomes jail time. So yes, trespassing actually is less wrong.

Black is black and white is white, but the law is full of nigh-infinite shades of gray.

Sensei Le Roof:
Not important to the original point, but here I must say you're wrong. Even the courts agree (at least here). If you trespass (and the person actually bothers to press charges), you may get a fine, whereas a theft conviction becomes jail time. So yes, trespassing actually is less wrong.

Black is black and white is white, but the law is full of nigh-infinite shades of gray.

What? No it's not. The law has to deal with situations that are not black & white, but in the end it comes to a very binary decision: guilty or not guilty.

/S

Altorin:
I solved the whole Piracy Analogy thing, but it got entirely overlooked, so I'll state it again

Piracy is most analogous to Prostitution.

Eh? No it is not. That was a really vague and silly analogy.

/S

Cheeze_Pavilion:

It can't. Read the link to the EFF article--the judge in that case declined to give the DVR plaintiffs a declaratory judgment that would have settled the issue.

Copyright law has provisions for legal precedent being set if you fail to act to defend your copyright. I can't say if it extends to other branches of the US Legal system, but they are obviously not ignorant of the feature, and I can't see how any case they might decide to bring forth is helped by delaying years.

That's not always true--if someone never would have bought the product, the piracy does not affect retail sales.

They are in use of a product they have not purchased. While certain specifics of the EULA/Terms of use may not hold, the condition that you must have legally acquired it should. Are we arguing what constitutes piracy here?

First, I'm not talking about the *watching* of ads; I'm talking about the *skipping* of ads. That's a big difference.

Second, according to your logic that there's only a moral issue involved when we're talking about not paying for products or services offered for sale, there would be no moral issue involved in me going into a movie theater and pointing a camera at the screen.

I fail to see how you got this conclusion from my posts. I specifically state that the movie industry with retail sale by ticket or DvD has the closest analogies to piracy in the gaming industry. At release, the movie industry generates their revenue by ticket sales, and prohibits the use of recording devices within the theater. Recording and releasing without their consent threatens their sales directly, just as releasing 'cracked' versions of software does for game companies.

That's where the moral issue comes in--a TiVo is not a TARDIS. In order to ad skip, you must first record a broadcast of a performance. The moral issue arises from going beyond just *viewing* a broadcast to *recording* a broadcast without getting the permission of the broadcaster to make that recording.

Recording of their broadcasts is not one of the issues mentioned in the suit you linked, and to my knowledge is covered under "fair use". What they did want to take legal action against was: "commercial advance" or "send show". I'm not sure what legal grounds they have for the former, but the latter would be covered under redistribution, and why they didn't press the even the latter one (redistribution of broadcasts is prohibited, last I remember) is odd.

That's not true--think about it:

--Murder is both illegal and immoral.

--Driving through a red light is always illegal, but if there's no one around, it's not immoral.

--Cheating on your boy/girl friend is immoral, but is not illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mala_in_se vs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_prohibitum

I'm not saying there's no difference. I'm just not sure why it's important whether we, as individuals, believe piracy is immoral at a point when it's illegal. Especially if those that believe it's not immoral aren't doing anything to make it legal. Except running red lights, to use your analogy.

Agreed, since the concept of morality is different for every individual, it is gray by definition. The law exists to impose black and white on it so everyone can understand it.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
First, I'm not talking about the *watching* of ads; I'm talking about the *skipping* of ads. That's a big difference.

Is it ? What's the difference between "not watching" and "skipping" ads?

/S

Sayvara:

Sensei Le Roof:
Not important to the original point, but here I must say you're wrong. Even the courts agree (at least here). If you trespass (and the person actually bothers to press charges), you may get a fine, whereas a theft conviction becomes jail time. So yes, trespassing actually is less wrong.

Black is black and white is white, but the law is full of nigh-infinite shades of gray.

What? No it's not. The law has to deal with situations that are not black & white, but in the end it comes to a very binary decision: guilty or not guilty.

/S

Nice of you to reduce the world to this narrow part that makes you look good. That "very binary decision" is NOT the end, because after guilt comes determination of punishment, QED. If there was only right and wrong, all crimes would have the same punishment.

mooma482:
And games keep getting shorter because designers have decided that we want 'episodic gameplay'

Not really, no. Designers are all about creating a full, robust gaming experience. Publishers are all about episodic gameplay.

paulgruberman:

Copyright law has provisions for legal precedent being set if you fail to act to defend your copyright. I can't say if it extends to other branches of the US Legal system, but they are obviously not ignorant of the feature, and I can't see how any case they might decide to bring forth is helped by delaying years.

Here's the story--the reason they didn't pursue the suit was that the manufacturers they were suing went bankrupt or gave into their demands:

The creators of the ReplayTV, SONICblue, Inc., and its subsidiary ReplayTV, Inc., were the first casualties of this copyright battle. After defending themselves through two years of expensive litigation, the ReplayTV creators filed for bankruptcy in March 2003 and sold off their assets. Fearing a similar fate, the purchaser of the ReplayTV technology, Digital Networks North America, announced in June 2003 that it was removing the contentious "commercial advance" and "send show" features in all future ReplayTV models, to "address concerns of content copyright holders."

That's not always true--if someone never would have bought the product, the piracy does not affect retail sales.

They are in use of a product they have not purchased. While certain specifics of the EULA/Terms of use may not hold, the condition that you must have legally acquired it should. Are we arguing what constitutes piracy here?

I think *I* might be confused as to whether we're arguing legality or morality here.

Second, according to your logic that there's only a moral issue involved when we're talking about not paying for products or services offered for sale, there would be no moral issue involved in me going into a movie theater and pointing a camera at the screen.

I fail to see how you got this conclusion from my posts. I specifically state that the movie industry with retail sale by ticket or DvD has the closest analogies to piracy in the gaming industry. At release, the movie industry generates their revenue by ticket sales, and prohibits the use of recording devices within the theater. Recording and releasing without their consent threatens their sales directly, just as releasing 'cracked' versions of software does for game companies.

Because a movie theater broadcasts a performance the same as a TV station. For the sake of argument, let's say you're right and there's no moral issue with OTA broadcasts. There's still a 'retail sale' involved in cable tv.

That's where the moral issue comes in--a TiVo is not a TARDIS. In order to ad skip, you must first record a broadcast of a performance. The moral issue arises from going beyond just *viewing* a broadcast to *recording* a broadcast without getting the permission of the broadcaster to make that recording.

Recording of their broadcasts is not one of the issues mentioned in the suit you linked, and to my knowledge is covered under "fair use".

At this point we were talking about moral and not legal issues. "Fair use" is established as a legal issue, not necessarily as a moral one.

I'm not saying there's no difference. I'm just not sure why it's important whether we, as individuals, believe piracy is immoral at a point when it's illegal. Especially if those that believe it's not immoral aren't doing anything to make it legal. Except running red lights, to use your analogy.

Lots of people have an opinion on the morality of piracy regardless of the legality of it, just as many people have an opinion on the morality of a person in a committed relationship getting a perfectly legal lap dance. If you don't, then that's cool; however, there are people to whom it is an important issue, and my question was directed at them.

Sensei Le Roof:

Sayvara:

Sensei Le Roof:
Not important to the original point, but here I must say you're wrong. Even the courts agree (at least here). If you trespass (and the person actually bothers to press charges), you may get a fine, whereas a theft conviction becomes jail time. So yes, trespassing actually is less wrong.

Black is black and white is white, but the law is full of nigh-infinite shades of gray.

What? No it's not. The law has to deal with situations that are not black & white, but in the end it comes to a very binary decision: guilty or not guilty.

/S

Nice of you to reduce the world to this narrow part that makes you look good. That "very binary decision" is NOT the end, because after guilt comes determination of punishment, QED. If there was only right and wrong, all crimes would have the same punishment.

Nor would some crimes be classed as misdemeanors and some as felonies.

Sayvara:

Cheeze_Pavilion:
First, I'm not talking about the *watching* of ads; I'm talking about the *skipping* of ads. That's a big difference.

Is it ? What's the difference between "not watching" and "skipping" ads?

Because a TiVo is not a TARDIS--you can "not watch" an ad by just looking away from the broadcast, changing the channel, etc. To actually "skip an ad" you must first make a *recording* of a broadcast and then play it back later.

NinjaDwarf:
I agree entirely OP. And as for Spore, there is no way anyone can say 'I pirated it because of DRM', DRM is only there because people pirated games in the first place. No-one pirated Spore to make a point against DRM, they pirated because they wanted to play it, and didn't want to pay.

EA not telling people about SecuROM , however, is entirely wrong, but that should be cleared up legally, so it shouldn't happen again.

Not true. I personally am using my pirated copy of Spore specifically so I don't install my legal copy and "use up" my installs. And that's Ridiculous!

I agree completely with the original poster in terms of right / wrong. Legality is another matter which I won't really get involved in. I agree that people should be allowed to make whatever decisions they want with their property (good or bad). However.. The question to me is one of perception.

Earlier the OP suggested that not being able to afford a Veyron means that he shouldn't be allowed to steal one, drive it, bring it back none the worse for wear. I completely agree, but I'm not sure it doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed to "copy" one, and use that one to his hearts content. Electronic commodities are tough to value, because they can be copied.

If you perceive them to be of value, and accept that you are buying the blessing of the original creator to use them as you see fit, then you are less likely to pirate them. Perhaps you choose to buy them instead because you want to support whichever developer or producer or publisher or designer made that property. If you perceive them to have no value because there are infinite amounts of them, you will likely steal all the ones you want to, that you don't have a reason to buy from other avenues.

I think the original poster is correct in that it becomes up to the designer now to deliver the "full package" and add value to the ownership of a product, because it is unlikely that code itself will retain it's value. The long term ramifications of such decisions would have to be thought out carefully however. (endless support for legacy products is just one potential issue I see) I also agree that it is completely up to the software creator to decide whether or not to adapt to the changing landscape of software development. So long as the creator doesn't expect other people to simply agree with him and pay him money because he's earned it, he has my full support.

as a software developer. (well not really cause I haven't finished my project yet but it's getting there) I believe in what's yours is mine, what's mine is yours. basically a little known thing called freeware w00t. I pirate games, of course they're games from the ninties that you can't get anymore anywhere but pirate sights, but that's not my point. I pirate games and if I like them I consider buying them as soon as I get some money. Games on the buy list right now are crimson land and soldat, but again i digress. I pirate games for two reasons, 1 out of nessecity because you can't get it anywhere else, and 2 because about half the games I own legally are shit. I can't return them because no one accepts software returns after it's opened so I end up with $100s of software that's total shit. so I pirate the games but if I like it I'll probably pay for it. in the rare instances where I don't buy a legal copy of a game I like, the game was published by one of those corporate giants and I just don't feel like giving them money.

I never knew everyone on our forums was a paralegal...

Jhereg42:
In my opinion the solution to the "piracy issue" is far more simple: Follow the Stardock/CDProjeckt formula. It's subtle, and it is very effective in preventing the worst aspects of Piracy.

Step 1: Accept that you cannot prevent Piracy. Make a protection, it will be cracked.
Step 2: Having accepted that, treat everyone, including the pirates, with respect. Gonna pirate, fine. Here, have at it. We would rather you buy it, though, and we will give you a reason.
Step 3: Create additional contect with extended value that is available to those who register their copy. Stardock did an awsome job with this in GalCiv 2, and CDP just revamped the Witcher and created two new stories for their new edition. . . and then made it all open to anyone that purchased the original. If you didn't buy the original at the $50 price point, well here is the super duper version at $40. Oh, and we've included the editor, so mod away.

As I am sure many people will agree, PC gamers are a big fan of Step 3. I've already made the call that regardless of what happens, these two companies (And Good Old Games through CDP) will have my loyalty for as long as they remain true to these principles.

Do the above, create consumer loyalty, keep your game in circulation, make money. What floors me is Spore could have been a huge example in this vein. It's perfect for this kind of system. EA just chose to be too restrictive.

The same arguement could be made for keeping your console games in the hands of consumers and out of the used market. Make a good game, then keep producing for it through quality DLC and make me WANT to keep it and play it again.

Quote for Truth. Catch more flies with honey. If people love your company they're less likly to cheat you.

TsunamiWombat:

Quote for Truth. Catch more flies with honey. If people love your company they're less likly to cheat you.

That pretty much sums up my stance on the issue. People feel they need to pirate, the law can't stop them effectively, so companies have to gain their respect again if they want people to stop doing it.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Because a movie theater broadcasts a performance the same as a TV station. For the sake of argument, let's say you're right and there's no moral issue with OTA broadcasts. There's still a 'retail sale' involved in cable tv.

Movies in the theater aren't broadcast same as TV. Movies are released to theaters who control access via ticket sales.

Cable providers charge viewers for their service, so viewer = customer. Television networks whose broadcasts are carried by cable providers still operate separately, even if they end up both owned under the same giant media conglomerate. Their ad-based revenue business model only involves the viewers in that they are the product being sold to advertising agencies; in this case, viewers != customers. There's no significant moral point for the product to hold in that business model.

Lots of people have an opinion on the morality of piracy regardless of the legality of it, just as many people have an opinion on the morality of a person in a committed relationship getting a perfectly legal lap dance. If you don't, then that's cool; however, there are people to whom it is an important issue, and my question was directed at them.

Ah, well, I guess I stand on that odd "because it's illegal, it's immoral" line, though that's still a personal moral code. I don't expect others to follow, except so far as I'd expect them to accept the consequences of their illegal action should they be caught. If they had a good position from which to attempt to change the industry, it'd be nice, but there seems to be a tad too much of a sense of self-entitlement in the ranks.

I think *I* might be confused as to whether we're arguing legality or morality here.

In fact, I think half my end of the conversation can be attributed to getting the moral/legal arguments all mixed up. It's been a long day, and it's hard to follow a good discussion and try to get work done, and sadly both probably suffered.

On that note, have a good evening (or morning, day, etc.) everyone, and remember to keep it civil. Good food for thought in this thread, and it'd be a shame to get it locked and lost in flames.

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.

And when you only do minor cropping and cloning, there's free software like GIMP that will do that.

Sorry, you don't get to say "But I only use photoshop for minor things, and I'm poor!" to justify it.

Laziness is not an excuse.

KaiserWarrior:

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.

And when you only do minor cropping and cloning, there's free software like GIMP that will do that.

Sorry, you don't get to say "But I only use photoshop for minor things, and I'm poor!" to justify it.

Laziness is not an excuse.

GIMP > photoshop. it's free, does more things than photoshop, and isn't a god damn resource hog.

After reading all these postings, I have to put my two cents forth...

Either way, I believe everyone has a share of fault in this mess... but...

The main issue I have with the developers and publishers is the way they present their product. They present their product as if you are actually buying a product. Technically, by their terms you are renting. But, no developer or publisher has gotten the guts to clearly say that you are not buying a game, but purchasing a long-term rental license attached to a physical manifestation of the concept of the product. Because that is all that software is... a concept. It's a design or a blueprint of sorts. You never purchase the game, you get a physical copy of the mechanism that brings the game concept into creation when used with the appropriate device. The game is off-limits, the physical disc and license attached is yours.

This isn't that much different than when you buy a chair, car, or any other "typical" physical item. When you buy a chair, you get a physical copy of the mechanism that brings the chair concept into creation. The chair you bought has a design and blueprint somewhere. You can do whatever you want to your physical rendition of that concept. But the second you attempt to make your copies of that chair and do it enough to get noticed, the owner of the concept and design of that chair... will come after you, since you are stealing their idea and taking money that would have normally gone to them.

If I live long enough, it might be interesting the day they create Dues Ex-ish Universal Constructors... Because many companies would finally feel what the software companies have been dealing with for years. Because the differences between software products and typical products when it comes to the issue of piracy is only the cost of duplication of the item to a useful level. Because software is relatively inexpensive to duplicate to a useful level... piracy is big deal. Since it takes a manufacturing plant to produce most other products... piracy isn't a big issue, usually. (Take a look at the knock off brands in China and you start to wonder if it couldn't be a bigger issue.) But, I'm fairly certain that if Universal Constructors or Matter Replicators were as common as computers... I bet people would be debating the anti-piracy system placed into chairs to prevent them from being duplicated in the Universal Constructor. And many of the same debates now, would be happening then. ;)

I respect your opinion, but this isn't a new phenomenon, and in any case it depends on your stance whether your left wing or right wing.

Normally I only come to the site to watch ZP, but this thread caught my attention and I just finished reading all the posts and created an account so that I could put in my opinion.

First of all, I agree with Jhereg42 that game companies need to show some faith in the customers if they want us to buy their games (those 3 steps were good ideas). On the occasions when they don't (Spore) it comes down to personal feelings. I was going to download a copy of Spore because the of the DRM (so NinjaDwarf is wrong) but I did not for one reason.

The game had a designer who was involved in the publicity so it was not like I was ripping of big evil EA, I was ripping of Will Wright. That is why I won't be downloading any games by Lionhead Studios, they have a person I feel like I would be stealing from. Furthermore, I like Maxis games and want them to continue making games. If there was a way for the money I spent on the game to go to Maxis and not EA, I would have done that. While EA does not do a good job of being nice to its customers, Will Wright did in the presentations where he previewed the game.

There have been a lot of analogies about the theft of software; cars, Tivo, hookers, music, yada yada. What I am surprised no one mentioned was comics and webcomics. Garfield is a comic that appears in many newspapers so to read it you need to buy a newspaper or one of the books. Compare that to PvP, Penny Arcade, Questionable Content, ect. Those comics are not only available for free over the internet, but you can go back through the archives whenever you want. What is more, Scott Kurtz, Jerry Holkins and Mike Krahulik, and Jeph Jacques source of income is those comics. Comics that are available to anyone with an internet connection. Garfield is on the internet (do a Google image search for Garfield comic and you will find plenty) but that is not Jim Davis's business model (I doubt most of those are even up there doing anything more for him then exposure), he makes his money through the print version. Game publishers need to find a new business model and become the Rich Burlew, Illiad or Randall Munroe of video games.

I have an idea of a business model (which I stole from bullfrog) episodic gaming where the first episode is free.

Please spare me for I have not read all 6 pages of the thread.

...but...didn't the people you let play the game, upload it onto file sharing sites?

d'oh!

paulgruberman:

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Because a movie theater broadcasts a performance the same as a TV station. For the sake of argument, let's say you're right and there's no moral issue with OTA broadcasts. There's still a 'retail sale' involved in cable tv.

Movies in the theater aren't broadcast same as TV. Movies are released to theaters who control access via ticket sales.

Cable providers charge viewers for their service, so viewer = customer. Television networks whose broadcasts are carried by cable providers still operate separately, even if they end up both owned under the same giant media conglomerate. Their ad-based revenue business model only involves the viewers in that they are the product being sold to advertising agencies; in this case, viewers != customers. There's no significant moral point for the product to hold in that business model.

So you're saying that a "significant moral point" only enters into the picture when there's a direct exchange of money involved for a product or service? According to that logic, if I opened a pool and let people swim free but asked them not to dump sewage in the pool, it wouldn't be immoral for people to use that access I gave them to the pool not just to swim but to dump sewage.

Also, why are you saying that movies "aren't broadcast same as TV" just because they "control access via ticket sales"? Don't cable companies control access to broadcasts via subscription sales in a comparable way to movies controlling access to movies? Don't cable companies often broadcast movies that were in theaters with commercials added in?

I think the issue is that you still think I'm talking about the morality of ad skipping. I'm not--what I'm talking about is the morality of the necessary step of *copying* a broadcast to make ad skipping possible.

Ah, well, I guess I stand on that odd "because it's illegal, it's immoral" line

So you consider jaywalking immoral?

*Looks around the devastated landscape and the remaining survivors*

Shall we sum this up then? Do we have consensus that:

- Property rights are to be respected. If you don't, you're doing something bad?
- Consumer rights are to be respected. If you don't, you're doing something bad?
- Producers need to make people want to purchase their products rather than trying to bully people into not pirating them?
- The amount of pirating taking place needs to be reduced since that makes the producers take drastic and sometimes damaging measures?
- A consumer that takes measures to enforce his/her rights and fair use of a purchased product shall not be held accountable for that?

Anyone opposed?

/S

Cheeze_Pavilion:

So you're saying that a "significant moral point" only enters into the picture when there's a direct exchange of money involved for a product or service? According to that logic, if I opened a pool and let people swim free but asked them not to dump sewage in the pool, it wouldn't be immoral for people to use that access I gave them to the pool not just to swim but to dump sewage.

Yes, I said there's no significant moral point. Around what concept of right or wrong are we to make a moral judgement on here?

Also, why are you saying that movies "aren't broadcast same as TV" just because they "control access via ticket sales"? Don't cable companies control access to broadcasts via subscription sales in a comparable way to movies controlling access to movies? Don't cable companies often broadcast movies that were in theaters with commercials added in?

I think the issue is that you still think I'm talking about the morality of ad skipping. I'm not--what I'm talking about is the morality of the necessary step of *copying* a broadcast to make ad skipping possible.

Yes, cable companies control access to content through subscription sales. They also are not the ones making that content. If ad-skipping isn't the issue, and copying is, then the cable or satellite provider giving you a tool to copy what they broadcast signifies what exactly on this moral scale? Again, where's the right or wrong we're supposed to take a moral compass reading on?

So you consider jaywalking immoral?

I suppose I should have specified "on the issue of piracy", lest it be interpreted as a blanket statement like it was.

Yes, actually it is human nature. That's how all animals survive - and how we survived when we crawled around on all fours. It IS in our nature and unfortunately there's nothing we can do about it.

It wont stop. It wont end. Oh god, someone else is posting another opinion that's already been stated several times. Get out of the way! Now! Run! Ruuuuun!

Some games and software just aren't worthy of being purchased.

I'll "pirate" whatever I can. If Photoshop CS3 is going to cost me £600 to buy lol then fuck that. I "pirate" movies(when I have the time and can be assed), programs, books, music(mostly music), I don't pirate games for the simple fact that I don't have the know how to open up my xbox and make it play them, and when I build my computer I'm going to buy the PC games, they're cheaper plus I won't have to waste time finding loopholes to play it cause it's a cracked version or something.

I'll buy movies I've seen that I like(my next purchase will be Iron Man, last purchase was Transformers, ages ago)because then I'll have the pleasure of seeing them in HD with surround sound, a pirate copy just can't compare, that, and the fact that I wouldn't be able to wait for a DVDRip of it lol.

Music is fair game, especially at the rate most bands are churning out rubbish or albums that aren't to my liking(boy was I glad I didn't buy "Minutes to Midnight")I wouldn't spend money on them, most of the time anyway I end up not liking the music it gets deleted, saves space on my harddrive:D

When I become a 3D Animator too I'm not really going to be fussed if someone pirates my models or the game that they're used in, as long as I get my paycheck at the end of the week/month/year I'm happy, god help you if I don't get my paycheck though lol.
I'm not too bothered tbh, it's not a problem that will go away over night, and it's not one that can be outright stopped either so I'm going to enjoy it for the time being while I don't have any money. Will I stop pirating once I have money coming in? Don't count on it, but I may consider it.