~Di

More proof for my contention that no matter what the initial topic of any thread might be, it always ends up as a Bush-bash. (Not that I particularly mind, since I dispise Bush myself. I'd just like to see other topics once in a while that don't get predictably sidetracked.)

Eh, I've been known to reload after having accidentally killing a hapless squirrel that darted in front of my bow at an inopportune moment. I just play "good" folks; can't help it. Every time I've tried to role-play "evil", I've eventually deleted the entire game and run screaming into a hot shower. I know. I'm a wuss. *sigh*

Oh, those whacky French.

Heya, Fio! If you are female, no worries. For you I could go gay. My husby would be perturbed by that... or maybe not. Anyway I guess I didn't read this thread very carefully, because I didn't notice the speculation that Fio and Missy were the same person. I absolutely know that isn't true. But I still say that dragons of either gender are just plain sexy. So there.

ROFL! I've "known" Fionavar for literally years, and frankly never thought about gender much. I guess I presumed Fio was male, but it neither shocks nor appalls me to find out otherwise. I love him/her anyway. Dragons are just... sexy.

That was not what I wrote, and that was not what I said. You may want to reread my post without trying to spin the words into an ulterior meaning. I shall repeat the crux of my post: Point Number One: "... it is totally disingenuous to try to brush off the deliberate targeting of civilians, including children, in markets, schools, hospitals, etc., for mass murder simply to instill terror in the population, or compare it with civilians who die in legitimate (although I know the word "legitimate" can be beaten to death in any context) military targets during the course of war. " This means exactly what it says. I cannot state it more simplistically. Point Number Two: " ...anyone who pretends that civilian deaths caused by the destruction of legitimate military targets is on a par with the terrorist who targets and deliberately dismembers several dozen school children seriously needs a reality check." This basically means that anyone who justifies a group of terrorists, insurgents, freedom fighters or whatever you want to call them, who deliberately murder en mass non-combatant civilians in non-military arenas like schools, hospitals, markets, or on city streets, or who video themselves sawing the living heads off of screaming civilian aid workers simply to cause panic, terror and chaos and who pretends that deliberate civilian slaughter is on a par with collateral damage done when legitimate military targets are attacked during wartime has a freaking screw loose. Is my position more clear now?

Big difference between bombing a munitions factory during war time, and deliberately blowing up a marketplace or a school. Civilians always have and always will die during a war. Not nice, not pretty, but neither is war itself. In Iraq, as in VietNam, the enemy doesn't wear uniforms announcing which side they are on. Then and now they wear civilian clothess, enscounce themselves in the civilian population, and hide weapons in civilian homes. This makes uniformed soldiers paranoid and nuts, of course. Hard to stay sane and focused when survival mode requires one to maintain distance and/or skepticism of just about every human being in the country. At one point, "civilized" nations agreed that combatants out of uniform could be considered spies, and executed on the spot. Well, that only works when both sides agree to the same rules, which certainly wasn't the case in VietNam, or the Gulf, or in Afghanistan, or in Iraq. Somewhere along the line, the world began to realize that calling un-uniformed combatants spies and allowing wholesale execution of 'em flat wasn't going to work in conflicts where one side refused to wear a uniform. The reasons are obvious. At any rate we should never have gone into Iraq in the first place. You'd think VietNam would have taught us a lesson (not the least of which is beware of Frenchmen offering quid-pro-quo!). But no. We've got to charge in to occupy, or attempt to occupy, yet another country of civilian-clothed fighters, and this time we don't even have the excuse of having promised to extricate an ally from a bad situation, and in turn making the entire situation a million times worse. That said, it is totally disingenuous to try to brush off the deliberate targeting of civilians, including children, in markets, schools, hospitals, etc., for mass murder simply to instill terror in the population, or compare it with civilians who die in legitimate (although I know the word "legitimate" can be beaten to death in any context) military targets during the course of war. War is unfair, and contrary to those who pretend otherwise, war has no rules. We may pretend that war has rules, but the truth is that each side does whatever it wishes... or can stomach... in order to destroy the other side or achieve whatever victory it can achieve. We've seen that in every war in the history of the planet, and certain we've seen it in every war of this century. However, anyone who pretends that civilian deaths caused by the destruction of legitimate military targets is on a par with the terrorist who targets and deliberately dismembers several dozen school children seriously needs a reality check. Hmm. Guess I'm bored tonight. To anyone who actually managed to plow through this one-sided little rant, thanks for your time! I'll be quiet now.

Eh, there's little on this earth I wouldn't believe Bush capable of, but even I am not buying this particular piece of tabloid rumor-mongering. I mean, even Bush could not be that stupid. Because I am evil, however, part of me hopes it is true, 'cause then we might... might ... have a legal reason to impeach his ass. Lying about a sex act was obviously an impeachable offense, but lying about WMD whilst pre-emptively invading a country for the first time in our history so far has not been. Maybe planning to blow up a newspaper would do it! Not that Cheney would be any better, but if we can prove he was involved... I mean, show of hands from those who believe Cheney hasn't been up to his eyeballs in every warmongering thing this administration has done... then we could impeach two for the price of one! Fingers crossed. (No, I'm not a democrat. I am just a very disgruntled and disappointed moderate who dislikes the current administration immensely.)

Wow. I don't know what is more repulsive, the act itself or some of the comments in this thread. Y'know, actually admitting that blowing up a few dozen kids is a vicious act doesn't automatically make you an nasty, rotten and thoroughly dispicable "America lover." It's okay to stand up and say that deliberately murdering children is a bad thing to do.

Anachronox. Funnier than heck. Edit: I'm also a Gothic fan. Once you get used to the control system, I found Gothic's magnificent, seamless world and better than average story to be a real joy. Do Gothic first, then the sequel.

I am awareof that. I personally own more than 30 copyrights myself, so I have a fair idea of what infringement is. However, taking a book and/or game out of a store without paying for it is stealing; downloading a book and/or a game from an illegal web site without paying for it is also stealing, not copyright infringement. The copyright laws themselves may be a jumble of complexity, but theft itself is rather simple. Something has a price tag; someone ignores that price tag and takes it for personal use without paying. That is theft.

Actually, I don't believe that piracy IS copyright infringement. Now if one plagiarizes a game, removing huge hunks of dialogue and plot details and markets them as one's own, then that is copyright infringement (presuming that games are covered by the same basic copyright as are novels... ). However, if you actually steal the completed game, whether you shove the box under your shirt and walk out without paying or download an illegal copy of the game from the internet, you have stolen the completed work of the game developer. That is theft, not copyright infringement.

That game scared the pee-wadden outta me. *shudder* It's been years and years since I played it and I still get the heebie-jeebies thinking about it. Ordinarily I'm not a real puzzle-nut when it comes to video games. I don't like to break down in tears, and try to chew off my own fingers in frustration. I do, however, love squad-based tactical and turn-based strategy, games that can be played over and over with different methods that yield different results. I used to play a lot of puzzle-based adventure games, but kinda burnt out on them after the second or third Myst and the 11th Guest things...

kirottu, your precious cat avatar already makes me love you! Cats rule.

I think I love you. You get it. You really get it.

True. There didn't seem to be much communication between Strategy First and Mistland about the upcoming JA titles. Mistland wanted real-time combat, whereas SF had promised to stick with JA's turn-based roots. Actually, we fans scratched our heads more than once wondering who was really in charge there. I hear there's a SF game out in Europe now called BrigadeE5: New Jagged Union, which is supposed to be in the Jagged Alliance mode. Rumor has it that an English-speaking version may be released next year. I haven't found too much detail about it, though. But I check into Bearpit and the SF forums every few weeks, hoping for good news. We can only hope.

I'm not going to issue a dull reply to each of your dull replies to my even duller statements. I believe, and in most cases the law is on my side, that pirating is the illegal taking of the work product of another without permission and without paying for it . I consider that to be theft. Simply pointing out that Joe Blow allows his stuff to be taken by anyone who wishes it does not negate that definition, since one cannot steal that which one has been freely given. I must, however, comment upon this: I do not know where you are from, so perhaps laws are different there. Here in the USA copyright laws, while complex and cumbersome, were not created to "exploit" the author. They were created to protect the author's work, and for the most part they assist in doing that. Some publishers (God knows there are thousands upon thousands of publishers of various forms of written work out there) may require authors to relinquish their copyrights, but I personally have never heard of that happening here with the major print publishers of the western world. I do have a bit of experience in this, since I have many novels in print worldwide, and have dealt with publishers in several western countries. None of them have requested my copyright, and I would not allow it if they had. What they have requested, however, is the right to distribute my work for a certain period of time in certain genres, after which those rights I temporarily sold to them will revert back to me. Do not confuse the purchase of certain rights for first American printing, first hard copy printing, first worldwide release, etc., to be the same as the relinquishment of copyright. It is not the same thing at all. I have sold many rights to my work to many publishers, but ALL of my copyrights are now and always have been in my name alone. Copyright law does indeed protect the authors. If it didn't you can be certain that the Authors Guild, of which I've been a member for nearly two decades, would be camped on congress's doorstep. If some authors have been coerced into signing their copyrights over to shady publishers, I am heartsick to hear about it. That is not, however, the fault of the copyright laws; rather it is the result of a deceitful company taking advantage of a naive and uninformed writer. Just didn't want any confusion with the copyright laws as they pertain to novelists and authors with the piracy of work product from gaming companies, movie studios and recording artists. As for the rest of your post, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

If The Grateful Dead or any other artist gives permission for his/her work to be freely downloaded, then it isn't piracy or theft to take advantage of the invitation. But just because one group wants to give freebies doesn't mean that the public has license to take the music of other groups without permission. In this country, at least, it is quite provable. If you take the work product of another without permission and without paying for it, you have stolen it. I've already commented upon the "poverty-stricken" excuse. It's not like folks require Max Paine to live, after all. Video games are not food, they are luxuries... luxuries that require a rather pricy piece of equipment even to use. Sorry, I don't buy the "I'm too poor, so I should be entitled to take what I want without paying excuse." Others may accept that. I personally do not. And although there may be some exceptions to the rule, I suspect few game developers would accept it either, since including a link to a warez-type site is a banning offense on many game developer boards. I'm impressed, and a little surprised, that Obsidian is allowing discussions which of course will include defense of piracy here on their boards. @Spider: As I've cheerfully noted, I'm too lazy to look up all the legal precedents set in the RIAA matters, but the fact remains that the biggest, baddest illegal music download sites were brought to their knees, and the bargaining table, by legal action. Many lawsuits were brought; the music industry won every single one of them. Most of the originally-targeted sites now offer music downloads at a minimum cost, and a percentage of that goes back into the music industry. I have no doubt that illegal download sites continue to spring up. Thing is, they are also being prosecuted, and they should be. Crack cocaine continues to flood into the USA too; we still prosecute drug dealers, and users too, rather than throw up our hands and give up because there will always be law breakers. The basic arguments in this kind of discussion usually centers around a few main points, some of which include: (A) People who cannot afford what they want should have a right to take it anyway; (B) Game/Music/Movie companies charge too much for their product, so it's their own fault if people steal it; © People who steal downloads for games/music/movies wouldn't have bought them in the first place, so nobody really loses any money; and (D) There's no way to stop mass piracy/theft so it's foolish even to try. I understand those viewpoints. I simply disagree with them.

Eh, this topic has been debated for years and I doubt anyone's mind has ever been changed by something said during these discussions. I still think that eventually the video game industry will have to go the route of the music industry, and prosecute large sites that offer illegal games for download. The music industry actually made some headway in getting paid for music downloads by slapping injunctions on various sites, issuing subpoenas for customer data such as their servers, etc, and randoming going after some of those customers to prove that they could. I'm too lazy to look up legal analysis of all those cases, but it seems to me that they threatened to report customers of illegal download sites to their servers. In a nutshell, it became too costly and too dangerous to continue to host illegal music downloads for most folks, so they all went to the bargaining table. Fair enough, not every country on the planet is on board. Some countries don't even offer video games for sale; others, like China, have never really respected the copyright laws of other countries (although they sure as heck respect their own copyright on new Olympic stuff! lol... but that's another topic!) Still the music/movie industries efforts are a start, and the web is still in its infancy. Eventually there will be ways to control illegal web activity worldwide, but right now those who are being hurt the most must suck it in and pay for the legal costs that will pave the way for future controls. I think once the video industry can get itself together with enough power and money to follow suit on its own behalf, we'll see similar prosecutions for illegal gaming download sites. Meanwhile, those who want to steal the product of others will continue to do so, and will continue to mock anyone who calls a thief a thief. P. S. Once you've paid for a game (or a book or any other product), you are entitled by law to give it away, loan it repeatedly, or use it as a coaster. You cannot, however, make illegal copies of it for loan or sale, nor can you put it on your website and allow it to be downloaded.

I've been following the various incarnations of JA3, JA3D, etc. I'm also pessimistic. Still, hope springs eternal. Maybe we'll all be pleasantly surprised. Maybe.

Jagged Alliance 2 is my favorite game on earth. I've found nothing that comes even close to it. God, I miss Sir Tech.

LOL, yes my little heart just bleeds for those downtrodden, poverty-stricken folks who must rely on cheap, bootlegged copies of games to play on their Pent4, GeForce 6600, 70gigHD computers. :D

No, I don't think so. Thieves don't normally go on a buying spree of "sale" items. They steal what they want whether it's being offered at a discount or full retail, because stealing is what thieves do. Free is the ultimate discount, after all.

Again, we're putting the onus of stopping piracy on the victims. Shipping out a big box of tangible goodies that cost mucho bucks in the hope that a few folks will decide to pay the over-inflated cost of those goodies rather than stealing the game is probably not financially feasible. I doubt it would have much fiscal impact overall, except that it would increase the cost of the "special edition" type product and make it even more difficult to cover the expense of creating those goodies in the first place. Bottom line, I think piracy should be stopped (or at least fought) the same way other crime is... by vigorously prosecuting the thieves. That means going after not only the owners of websites offering pirated downloads, but also the "customers" of these websites. Nothing like being arrested and fined to make someone think twice about stealing that next game. Eventually I suspect that game download sites, like music download sites, will have charges tacked on that will go back to development companies, and as new illegal sites pop up the "web cops" will hit them fast and hard where it hurts... in the pocketbook. If there is no price to pay for crime, then crime runs rampant. Wanna stop piracy? Prosecute the pirates. Make it hurt.

So in order to stop thieves, the goods should be made even more appealing? That makes no sense to me. I've yet to see the enhancement of a product's value turn would-be thieves into moral, upstanding citizens who say, in effect, "Gee, this XXXX is now so wonderful that I will no longer steal it, I will pay for it instead." Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your meaning, but I don't believe that the victims should be held responsible for the behavior of those who steal from them. Piracy is not an overblown problem to those who depend upon revenues from pirated products in order to pay their own bills. I think if you ask anyone in the video game industry how serious piracy is to their financial stability, you'll find they consider it close to if not the Number One problem in the industry.