Piracy

[Orogun01]

That's not quite true. Some people put down money for the game during the kickstarter period and that is to fund the creation of the game and then when the game is actually completed it will be available for everyone else to buy for a fixed price. So when the game is released it can still be pirated but the developer will have at least been paid for the development costs.

 

That was in reply to Rostere and I'm apparently quite slow at responding.

Just for my edification its there an organism dedicated to enforcing the interests of the investors, namely that the product gets done. Otherwise it seems like an honor system.

 

Edit: I was referring to Kickstarter

Edited May 6, 2012 by Orogun01

[greylord]

Because we are dealing with intellectual property, not actual physical goods, that line of thinking is obsolete. No longer valid. Now that your illegal = immoral theory has been refuted, I'd like to see something a bit more solid than "but it's still wrong!" before I take that to heart. "Because I say so" isn't usually accepted as an argument in morality discussions.

I wonder if you would take the same stance towards your employer the day he decides not to pay you, because he didn't really take any goods off your hands, only the time invested in performing your job?

 

Depends on whether I was working volunteer or not.

 

If I decided to work at a place that I knew they wouldn't pay me...well...that's pretty stupid of me (equivalent of them blaming the pirates...many who would never buy their stuff in the first place ANYWAYS) to expect to get paid, and even stupider to work for pay knowing that I won't get paid. (the pirates and what they do in relation to the industry)

 

On the otherhand they made an agreement to compensate me for my services and I got paid, but then said, screw you...you don't get anything unless you stab yourself in the eye and then cut off your arm and sign this contract in blood guaranteeing that I can spy on your for the rest of your life....then I state the reason I'm doing this is because at this other place where I knew I wasn't going to get paid...I blame YOU for their faults... expect that the govt. would try to bring me in for a crime. Ironically the software publishers do that all the time...and never get prosecuted.

 

So...which do you think is more moral? This isn't a black and white issue some are making it out to be, but more like shades of grey.

 

Are the publishers who punish the people who support them and make excuses that they are hurting those people because of others who would never buy their product, OR are never even OFFERED their product...and then don't deliver on said products which basically makes them thieves...the more wrong?

 

OR...people who may never have been offered the item in the first place, the publisher has no interest in whether they get their sales or not and don't even send copies their way...yet those people find a way to acquire it anyways and troubleshoot it to work for them...only to be blamed by publishers who don't really care except for a blind excuse that they cost the publisher money (AFTER the publisher didn't even account for that money in their earnings, profit, or anything else)...are more wrong?

 

On a side note, I like the kickstarter idea. Much better way to fight against percieved piracy then making up statistics out of the blue.

 

 

Edit: Here's ONE other item to ponder. How do they figure out who's downloading what? How do the even determine that a file with their game name is actually the game?

 

If they are completely making up stuff, that means they have to be hitting these pirate networks themselves. Anytime they download a file that isn't their game, they, themselves are pirating. I have a suspicion that the businesses accusing others of pirating and that it's costing them money are actually some of the BIGGEST pirates themselves...THAT'S WHY pirate sites don't really go down...because the publishers are the biggest offenders!!!

 

Yes...I think the big time publishers are THAT hypocritical.

[Hurlshort]

It is based on the honor system I believe. I'm guessing in a year or two we will see some fallout when a couple projects fail to deliver. Still, it seems like the majority of the investors are aware that there is some risk involved here, so hopefully the outcry will be minimal.

 

edit: referring to Kickstarter.

Edited May 6, 2012 by Hurlshot

[Gorth]

Yes...I think the big time publishers are THAT hypocritical.

I think people who download stuff without paying for it are THAT hypocritical. As I said before, no problem with people boycotting a publisher if they don't like their conduct. The very moment they pirate their products, they lose any moral high ground by proving themselves to be hypocrites. They want their products, just don't want to pay if they can weasel their way out of it somehow.

[greylord]

Yes...I think the big time publishers are THAT hypocritical.

I think people who download stuff without paying for it are THAT hypocritical. As I said before, no problem with people boycotting a publisher if they don't like their conduct. The very moment they pirate their products, they lose any moral high ground by proving themselves to be hypocrites. They want their products, just don't want to pay if they can weasel their way out of it somehow.

 

Hence the Game publshers WOULD fall into that definition of hypocritical since they didn't pay for the items that they downloaded!

 

It's been known that this was one way that the RIAA and MPAA were determining stats and other items in regards to piracy. It was considered flawed, but at least they probably had at least half of the stuff they d/l'd as something owned by someone who was a member of the MPAA or RIAA. After they found a file that was theirs, that's when they'd look at the stats stated, or other items to determine how much had been d/l'd and distributed. It was shown to be a BAD technique after they prosecuted old grannies who had nothing on their computers and other items, but that's the reveal about how they were doing it. Basically, they did the same thing they were accusing everyone else of doing, but trying to use it to extrapolate information. It also means that they pirated a HECK of a lot of stuff that wasn't their own also.

 

With Game publishers, if they aren't totally making it up, I'd reason that's the SAME way they are doing things...except one Game Publisher doesn't hold dominance like the MPAA or RIAA with how many members would be a part of that organization. That probably means the Game publishers have downloaded FAR more than just about any other being on the planet!!!!

 

They themselves are the biggest pirates of all...so yes...your statement aptly fits them as being hypocrites.

[Gorth]

They themselves are the biggest pirates of all...so yes...your statement aptly fits them as being hypocrites.

I somehow doubt they would sit around and play those games they downloaded

[Delfosse]

I didn't assume Dutch artists made more money because of piracy (re-read my post), only on a national level, some Dutch profit from it. I actually had various service providers in mind, which are quite numerous in Holland (torrent sites, file hosting services etc.) It's big business,

 

This is not what the study says, buddy. It says that since people spend the same amount of money monthly on entertainment whether they pirate things or not, it doesn't matter that they pirate, because if they didn't, they wouldn't be spending more money anyway, because money is limited. And since they sometimes pirate loud titles, they tend to buy them a bit less and buy small artists a bit more, which by the way helps them stay afloat and develops music, etc.

 

And since they pirate loud titles, they recommend them to their friends later who will now go and buy them.

 

This was the point, not your imaginary ISPs making tons of profit from hosting a torrent site. And you know why so many people host in Netherlands? Cause they allow freedom of speech as long as it's not child pornography, while others meddle in everyone affairs and shut sites down for somebody drawing mohammed.

[213374U]

I never mentioned a physical product for a reason. When the creator of something says, "Hey, don't take this without paying" why does it matter if it is digital or not? And how do you justify that? If you really see that as morally acceptable, I'd say this thread is a lost cause.

Oh, no you don't. You don't get to dismiss opinions and arguments with a wave of your hand and an insinuation that "it should be obvious". You are expected to articulate and explain your arguments, or at least reference them. And it doesn't matter whether you mentioned physical goods or not, because the debate about IP is an entirely different beast. No matter how much you repeat yourself, they aren't going to become one and the same any more than the earth is going to get flat.

 

 

I also don't remember throwing out some illegal = immoral theory, and I don't see where that was refuted. Finding a couple countries with lax intellectual property rights does not win you a moral argument. It is illegal in most civilized countries for a reason. When you create something, you want that to be safe from theft, whether it is physical or digital.

Nice. Which are these "most" countries you speak of? Downloading for non-profit purposes isn't illegal many countries, as far as I know. Of course, you can just dismiss those as "uncivilized", as you see fit, right? Hint: that's an informal fallacy.

 

 

At least I'm not referring to Somali pirates to make digital pirates look less bad

Yeah, I guess that was unwarranted. They must have software pirates also in Somalia. I was simply pointing to yet another appeal to emotion in Hurl's post, with his "pirate isn't something positive" comment as the connotation there clearly comes from high seas piracy. Again, equivocation. Or do we know of any (software) pirates that have hijacked a server room at gunpoint and held the sysops hostage for ransom? Didn't think so.

 

 

I still don't understand this notion that because something is intellectual property it's somehow not a real product and thus not subject to the idea of thievery. I've seen that mentioned in other threads here and other places quite a lot.

 

[...]

 

I'm not trying to be obtuse....I really don't get how one is a "real" product and the other is somehow not a "real" product and thus it's ok to freeload/not pay for.

Because making a copy of such goods costs exactly zero and doesn't deprive anyone of anything directly - and to prove that there is indirect damage you need to prove that the freeloader would have paid for it otherwise.

 

And at no point I've said it's "ok" to be a freeloader. But it is impossible to calculate the effect that freeloading has on a given system, be it positive as some folks claim or negative as the industry insists. And it most definitely is not comparable to theft.

[Hurlshort]

And at no point I've said it's "ok" to be a freeloader. But it is impossible to calculate the effect that freeloading has on a given system, be it positive as some folks claim or negative as the industry insists. And it most definitely is not comparable to theft.

 

Wait, so it's not ok to be a freeloader? I'll be honest, your argument seems geared towards to complete opposite. If it isn't ok to be a freeloader, what exactly is your point here?

 

My main point here is that piracy is morally wrong. Do you disagree with that?

[213374U]

Wait, so it's not ok to be a freeloader? I'll be honest, your argument seems geared towards to complete opposite. If it isn't ok to be a freeloader, what exactly is your point here?

 

My main point here is that piracy is morally wrong. Do you disagree with that?

I haven't made any arguments, only counter-arguments, so they don't represent a stance other than "it's not as clear-cut as you make it to be". I don't really have a -moral- stance on freeloading, I just accept it as a fact of life. On a personal level I think it's fair to reward effort and encourage further production. On the other hand, I don't really agree with the accumulation of money as an end in itself and the idea that it's a good thing to involve money in everything, under threat of prison or fines if need be.

 

I really wish I had a more manichaean answer for you, but alas, I don't.

[Delfosse]

The Swiss, well nobody really cares about the Swiss. They seem to have made it their national goal to profit from other peoples misery anyway for more than century, so whatever they do is always a bit suspect.

Do you really want this can opened?

 

Switzerland maintained neutrality to protect their own from the horrors of war.

 

Australians on the other hand never really cared for peace, they are all descendants of convicts (murderers, rapists and thieves), descendants of the worst human rejects from UK that were sent to Australia. When they came, they started by massacring the native population by millions and deliberately infecting them with smallpox. Having done that, they never really decided to stop. They continued their barbaric practices till the early 20th century, covering up and having each other's backs when it came to killing Aborigines. A true Nazi team play.

 

But when it came to fighting the Nazi during WW2, Aussies decided to give peace a try. They lost 40 thousand people in their "war" against Nazism. Were they not really into fighting Nazy Germany who was exterminating entire races and raping another ones, selling Polish women into forced prostitution, massacring Polish men and killing entire populations through labor?

 

You had legal obligations as part of the Commonwealth, which Swiss didn't. Australia never cared for peace. Australia had a decent army. Switzerland couldn't fight, not only because it was never intended to fight anything as a country, but also because it was surrounded by Germany and Italy from day 1. Australia on the other hand had no excuse. What right do you have to say anything against neutral Swiss?

 

I am not saying all this because I want to offend the Aussies. I'm saying this because you're dropping racist remarks against a country that has much more merit than your own and to show you that this kind of talk can be used against any country. But when your own country did more wrong, you've just no right to talk about these things.

 

And unlike you, I actually don't call any country or people as "people with a national goal to profit from other's people misery", I wouldn't allow myself anything like that. This is racist pure and simple.

 

but the Swiss state has had some rather dubious practices for a long time. From protecting organised crime and the being the piggy bank of the Nazis

Again, I can do this with any country. And if you're gonna do it, I'm gonna do it as well.

 

Did you know that USA kept selling oil to the Nazi Germany up until 1943? To the Japanese up until 42, who were massacring the Chinese by millions? Did you know that the British sponsored Hitler at the beginning of his political career (your Queen sponsored Hitler, yeah). Did you know that Hitler had only one friend and that were the Anglo-Saxons? He surrounded them at Dunkirk, but instead of crushing them, he just let them evacuate, cause that's the kind of relationship he had with the Anglo-Saxons.

And while the Soviets were shedding their blood to stop the Nazism in Europe, Americans held Nazi parades.

 

Do you understand what I'm telling you?

 

Do you want to say anything to the Swiss readers right now?

 

Edited May 6, 2012 by Delfosse

[greylord]

Uhhh....errr..this conversation has taken a slightly different turn than I think I want to pursue....

 

Is this thread Godwin'd?

[Orogun01]

Uhhh....errr..this conversation has taken a slightly different turn than I think I want to pursue....

 

Is this thread Godwin'd?

IDK but now we all really hate the Swiss.

[LadyCrimson]

@Delfosse - er....yeah, ok. That seemed really unnecessary.

 

 

@213374U - Hm. I can understand that argument perhaps, but I don't agree with it. Even if it doesn't cost anything to copy, what it does do is decrease the potential value for something. Like if someone "steals" my photograph and plasters it all over the web, the value that I might have been able to sell it for may become less because now the image is so common/well known. I will agree that hard value/harm is/would be incredibly hard to define or even prove, since who knows if I would have ever made money off that one photo in the 1st place.....and that in terms of big publishers it often seems unfair/pointless (no one likes over-inflated monopoly like prices), but in order to protect the "little man" the laws also (I think) have to protect the "big man" as well, or it's unfair. Anyway, agree to disagree. But thank you for explaining it a bit more clearly for me.

 

Sigh. The real issue (imo) is that humanity has yet to find a good economic model that works on a consistent, long-term level for "everyone". Maybe one day we'll be like Star Trek and work just because we all find it fun & rewarding to do so. "You don't get paid?"--ST:8

Edited May 6, 2012 by LadyCrimson

[Morgoth]

Sigh. The real issue (imo) is that humanity has yet to find a good economic model that works on a consistent, long-term level for "everyone".

There's no such a thing as consistent, long-term sustainability in economics. Everything changes, and with it, politicians have to adept. This is something they completely and utterly fail. They, and their cronies and masters, just want to uphold the status-quo, and that's exactly why we don't have nice things in this world.

 

Adapt, or be doomed to repeat history.

[LadyCrimson]

There's no such a thing as consistent, long-term sustainability in economics. Everything changes, and with it, politicians have to adept. This is something they completely and utterly fail. They, and their cronies and masters, just want to uphold the status-quo, and that's exactly why we don't have nice things in this world.

 

Adapt, or be doomed to repeat history.

Now there's something I can generally agree with.

Not completely related to that, but I read an interesting article from Stephen King (the author) re: the rich, taxes, and how the rich give to charity. He made some good points/comments about the distribution of wealth, imo (and it wasn't for the rich).

Edited May 6, 2012 by LadyCrimson

[Zoraptor]

Hm. I can understand that argument perhaps, but I don't agree with it. Even if it doesn't cost anything to copy, what it does do is decrease the potential value for something. Like if someone "steals" my photograph and plasters it all over the web, the value that I might have been able to sell it for may become less because now the image is so common/well known.

Does it though?

 

You've got free exposure, the photo is well known and you can still claim fees from anyone using it commercially- and even if that photo is lost to the great IP cloud in the sky you still have the publicity from it for any other photos you have taken, publicity you would have had to work hard to get for yourself. That is both the viral marketing model and the model a lot of up and coming music groups use- release stuff for free to get exposure and build up a following, at little effective cost relative to traditional methods. That may not be an ideal case for all situations, but neither is one where a cabal of large record companies decide what music should be produced in a vacuum and by themselves, which was effectively the case prior to the internet (and is still largely the case in gaming, for example).

[Humodour]

Sigh. The real issue (imo) is that humanity has yet to find a good economic model that works on a consistent, long-term level for "everyone".

There's no such a thing as consistent, long-term sustainability in economics. Everything changes, and with it, politicians have to adept. This is something they completely and utterly fail. They, and their cronies and masters, just want to uphold the status-quo, and that's exactly why we don't have nice things in this world.

 

Adapt, or be doomed to repeat history.

 

Ding ding, we have a winner!

[Orogun01]

Sigh. The real issue (imo) is that humanity has yet to find a good economic model that works on a consistent, long-term level for "everyone".

There's no such a thing as consistent, long-term sustainability in economics. Everything changes, and with it, politicians have to adept. This is something they completely and utterly fail. They, and their cronies and masters, just want to uphold the status-quo, and that's exactly why we don't have nice things in this world.

 

Adapt, or be doomed to repeat history.

Speak for yourself I have lots of nice things.

But then again i'm not in this world.

[Humodour]

Sooooooomewhere over the rainbow, skies are blue, and the dreams that you dare to dream really do come true.

[Orogun01]

Sooooooomewhere over the rainbow, skies are blue, and the dreams that you dare to dream really do come true.

Hey... they're tax free.

[Gorth]

Because making a copy of such goods costs exactly zero and doesn't deprive anyone of anything directly - and to prove that there is indirect damage you need to prove that the freeloader would have paid for it otherwise.

I don't think anyone (in their right mind anyway) really think every unauthorized sale of somebody's work equals a lost sale. Equally, I don't think anybody believes it comes at no impact whatsoever to those deprived of their payment. The "loss" is a group of potential customers that gets tempted by free alternatives with no discernible consequences and says what the heck, everybody else does it. The size of that group is what is relevant when trying to estimate losses. So far nobody has come up with a way of doing that, which makes the Dutch report utterly ridiculous (not that I would trust the selective quoting being in anyway objectively done on a site with 'torrent' as part its name).

 

As for my "funny" question about your employer paying you are not, I was genuinely interested in gauging your response, even if the questions sounds facetious. Of course people wants to get paid for their work (duh), but that applies to those who make a living of offering services that can be converted and distributed through channels they weren't intended for too. If we for arguments sake agree (whether we agree or not) that not paying for a service isn't the right thing to do, what are the alternatives to the current model? Do like the Swiss government and just tell the entertainment industry to roll over and die then get "real" jobs?

 

@Delfosse: Not sure what you are trying to say really. Aussies are good swimmers, but Europe is a long way from here. Not sure they would have left home anyway as they were busy fighting and dieing against the Japanese who were amassing troops across the Torres Strait for invasion of Australia. Mind you, the total Aussie population at the time was smaller than the Belgian. Go rant at them instead for not putting up a better fight... Is it a ridiculous statement? It is.

[Delfosse]

they were busy fighting and dieing against the Japanese who were amassing troops across the Torres Strait for invasion of Australia.Mind you

If the Japanese wanted to invade Australia, it would've been invaded the next day. Only they had no interest in invading it and this was known. They declared war on the US precisely because US threw an oil embargo at them. With the oil they were getting despite the embargo and with their reserves, they had only a few years before running out of it. So the idea was that they were gonna attack Siberia, because it's close and the Soviets are busy fighting on another front. Or they were gonna attack the US. This was known, too. The Enigma they were using to encode messages had been cracked for over 2 years. US ships were stationed near Australia to capture the transmissions and decode them. Those transmissions, even of highest importance, are now published. They talked about Australia once and dismissed the idea entirely. They kept preparing for a massive war effort against USSR or USA, never against Australia. US knew this, therefore Australian government knew this. Australian troops weren't busy.

 

the total Aussie population at the time was smaller than the Belgian. Go rant at them instead for not putting up a better fight... Is it a ridiculous statement? It is.

 

1) And I suppose Switzerland was a country of 100 millions? It had less than Australia and you started advancing some bull**** theories that they thrive on suffering and whatnot. Well in this case by your own logic, Australia must be throwing parties when they learn about somebody's suffering, correct?

 

2) Belgium is only 250 km across, it's not enough to defend against a blitzkrieg without perfectly functioning tanks (most engines weren't reliable at the time) and timing, which requires heavy training. Australia on the other hand wasn't anywhere near, so it could help and wasn't in danger as I have already explained, but while the Nazis advanced on Moscow for 2 years, Australia only looked at America with admiration, waiting for orders like an obedient pet.

 

@Delfosse: Not sure what you are trying to say really.

You're unable to understand, obviously. Some things aren't meant to be. Maybe register on a forum for teens, the communication shouldn't be as complicated there.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Delfosse

[Gorth]

You're unable to understand, obviously. Some things aren't meant to be. Maybe register on a forum for teens, the communication shouldn't be as complicated there.

Since this seems to be your level of debate, I can only conclude you have no interest in being serious, ranting and raging against the injustice of the universe being the extent of your attention span.

[Amentep]

Because you think I'm gonna try to convince an impregnable arrogant insulting fool that he's wrong? Are you serious? No, I'm gonna take offense in your gibberish, tell you who you are and be on my way to do actual interesting things instead of talking to a spastic. If you want to become someone better, drop everything you're doing right now, lock your doors, shut your phone and start reading philosophy/history/politics books for a year. I know you're not gonna do this, so even writing this was a waste of my time. By the way, soviet national is an oxymoron.

 

Rofl...I didnt even know you were trying to convince me of anything. See, your problem is that youre a weak minded fool who can only debate by being overly aggressive and trying to redirect to random points in history. Im not the only one youve taken this stance with so this isnt some one-off cause "you so angy". Rant on but you just look like a tool.

 

Im really surprise by the attitude of some of you whos opinions I respect take property rights. Its "not really stealing"? What? Whether its the stone tablets of yesteryear, the books / 1 & 0's of today, or the pulses of light tomorrow, property rights dont cease to exist because the medium of distribution changes. Also, you dont deserve something beacause you are a special unique snowflake.

 

Here's an easier take then the Bioware example I gave earlier on why MOST Americans (NOT Russians, not Indians....AMERICANS) have committed Piracy.

 

This is why you may say there is a difference between actually STEALING something and Piracy.

 

Piracy is taking the ideas of something that you didn't come up with and using them...in it's most basic form. AKA...piracy deals more with taking an idea or service rather than stealing a physical object.

 

So you can pirate software, you can pirate music, you can pirate movies (saying you didn't steal physical items of these).

 

So where is my example?

 

There's a popular song sung in the US and Canada on people's birthdays. It's basically the Happy Birthday song. I won't repeat it here or write it down, but the instant I said it, you probably recognize it. Have you ever sung that song?

 

Congratulations...you pirated it.

 

That's right...that song is still under copyright and unless you paid the studio for it's use...you pirated.

 

Actually its not a certainty that that the copyright would hold up; it was copywritten in 1935 but for one note, a note split to accomodate the two syllables in "Happy", the song is exactly the same as the public domain song GOOD MORNING TO ALL, written in the 1890s; also there's evidence that other people the songs author used the tune with the words "Happy Birthday to You" prior to the copyrighting of the song.

 

I think the issue is no one wants to challenge the rights in court with a risk of loss. 4 more years and the EU can sing it royalty free, though, IIRC.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Amentep