Piracy

[Gorth]

In Switzerland it is legally allowed to download copyrighted material for personal use. A study done by the Danish government shows that piracy doesn't decrease anyone's profits and instead has a positive effect on the economy.

Dutch government, not Danish. It doesn't say it doesn't decrease anyone's profit (in fact it confirms that those who gets pirated suffers losses), it just concludes that it is a net profit for Holland on a macro economy level. Probably because a lot of those who make a profit of piracy resides there, where as those who gets "robbed' reside outside Holland.

[Delfosse]

Dutch almost don't make any movies/music themselves, they all speak perfectly English. Your assumption that Netherlands make profit because people steal big international movies/music and buy local instead is incorrect. So again you're wrong. And it's legally allowed, which means the idea of intellectual property isn't universal, but mostly local in many places due to lobbying. It isn't illegal everywhere, and some people were completely stuck in their thinking process, since in their brain, "immoral <=> illegal". Well it's not immoral, there you go.

Edited May 6, 2012 by Delfosse

[Gorth]

Dutch almost don't make any movies/music themselves, they all speak perfectly English. Your assumption that Netherlands make profit because people steal big international movies/music and buy local instead is incorrect. So again you're wrong. And it's legally allowed, which means the idea of intellectual property isn't universal, but mostly local in many places due to lobbying. It isn't illegal everywhere, and some people were completely stuck in their thinking process, since in their brain, "immoral illegal". Well it's not immoral, there you go.

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.

 

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.

[WorstUsernameEver]

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.

 

Why is a moderator on this forum openly racist? Is Obsidian aware of who they are using to represent their products?

[Gorgon]

What do they call a Swiss hater anyway.

 

It's a well known fact that the Swiss banking system owes much of its success to offering money that doesn't want to be found a place to hide.

[WorstUsernameEver]

It's a well known fact that the Swiss banking system owes much of its success to offering money that doesn't want to be found a place to hide.

 

And this makes a sweeping, evidently racist comment okay? No, tell you what, it doesn't. It's an insult to my family in the first place, so, yeah, I'll take it personally.

[Hurlshort]

It isn't illegal everywhere, and some people were completely stuck in their thinking process, since in their brain, "immoral <=> illegal". Well it's not immoral, there you go.

 

But it is immoral. I'm not sure how you get around that, legality withheld. Someone creates something, they ask for compensation in exchange for that creation, and piracy means you take it without compensation. Pretty simple. The word pirate is used for a reason, it is not a positive term.

[Gorth]

It's a well known fact that the Swiss banking system owes much of its success to offering money that doesn't want to be found a place to hide.

 

And this makes a sweeping, evidently racist comment okay? No, tell you what, it doesn't. It's an insult to my family in the first place, so, yeah, I'll take it personally.

Well, I hope you'll bring your family my apology if they feel offended then, 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 to being one of the more overtly xenophobic (sounds nicer than racist) countries in Europe. Whatever the Swiss government says regarding ethics is going to met with a raised eyebrow and an 'uh-huh?'

[Gorth]

Now I'm curious... is there even such a thing as 'A Swiss'? I thought they were ethnic Germans, Italians and French living together.

[Oner]

And making racist comments against the swiss is the moral thing to do, instead of convincing them to change their ways?

[Gorth]

And making racist comments against the swiss is the moral thing to do, instead of convincing them to change their ways?

Of course. If they check the Internet, how can they possibly not change their wicked ways?

[LadyCrimson]

I'm not sure that someone lacking respect for the some of the governmental or banking polices/habits of a country necessarily = racist. If that's the case, everyone in every political thread I've ever read has been a racist at some point.

 

Unrelated to that...this thread has certainly been an interesting read over the past couple days. It's done nothing to change my mind or personal opinions(or anyone else's, from what I gather) - if anything it's just strengthened what I believe about certain things , but it has been interesting.

[213374U]

It isn't illegal everywhere, and some people were completely stuck in their thinking process, since in their brain, "immoral <=> illegal". Well it's not immoral, there you go.

 

But it is immoral. I'm not sure how you get around that, legality withheld. Someone creates something, they ask for compensation in exchange for that creation, and piracy means you take it without compensation. Pretty simple. The word pirate is used for a reason, it is not a positive term.

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.

 

And frankly, I'm really thankful to pirates for providing cleaner, easier to use versions of software I've paid for. I have a few unopened game boxes lying around which I probably wouldn't have bought if I hadn't known I could turn to the scene to find a workaround for obtrusive DRM, or forced digital distribution/authorization schemes. So, for me, pirate does not have any negative connotations, per se. Unless we are referring to the Somali kind.

Edited May 6, 2012 by 213374U

[Gorth]

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?

[WorstUsernameEver]

I'm not sure that someone lacking respect for the some of the governmental or banking polices/habits of a country necessarily = racist. If that's the case, everyone in every political thread I've ever read has been a racist at some point.

 

That's not what Gorth had said though. Regardless, I accept the apology, thread can move on talking about piracy.

[213374U]

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?

Seriously, I know you are smarter than this. In a transaction between two individuals, where tangible goods -or services- are being exchanged it makes sense to talk of thievery. Do not equivocate the issue. This is not thievery, it's freeloading. It's just a tad more complicated.

 

So can we just call things by their names and leave corny appeals to emotion out of it, pretty please?

[Gorth]

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?

Seriously, I know you are smarter than this. In a transaction between two individuals, where tangible goods -or services- are being exchanged it makes sense to talk of thievery. Do not equivocate the issue. This is not thievery, it's freeloading. It's just a tad more complicated.

 

So can we just call things by their names and leave corny appeals to emotion out of it, pretty please?

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

[LadyCrimson]

That's not what Gorth had said though. Regardless, I accept the apology, thread can move on talking about piracy.

I think that's subject to interpretation and how one perceives the meaning behind words. I saw what he said in a different light (and he then emphasized it in his later post). But that's another topic like you said, so moving on...

 

Seriously, I know you are smarter than this. In a transaction between two individuals, where tangible goods -or services- are being exchanged it makes sense to talk of thievery. Do not equivocate the issue. This is not thievery, it's freeloading. It's just a tad more complicated.

 

So can we just call things by their names and leave corny appeals to emotion out of it, pretty please?

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.

 

Money itself could be seen as an intellectual concept - it's just a substitute for bartering actual things, because carrying around 3 chickens just in case you want to trade them for 1 pig isn't very convenient. And now many of us don't even carry around real money anymore, it's all digital on our debit and credit cards, because it's easier than carrying around coins and fat wads of paper. Is digital money not real money because there's no tangible thing to hold? I know that's not a direct analogy....but if someone takes the time to compose a unique song, then records it onto/as some media that can be played by another, and asks for compensation, how is that different than someone designing a unique chair, building a roomful of copies of that chair, then asking for compensation for each chair? (edit: they both took some time/effort to do, to create the finished "thing" that someone wants - music that plays in a player or a chair to sit on)

 

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.

 

Edit: afterthought - and I don't mean the issue of whether or not you think a company is horrible/a rip off....and, perhaps, I might think it's at least kind of ok/understandable if one did buy the actual product (support the company) but then used a pirated copy to bypass DRM. I just mean...this definition thing.

Edited May 6, 2012 by LadyCrimson

[Hurlshort]

It isn't illegal everywhere, and some people were completely stuck in their thinking process, since in their brain, "immoral <=> illegal". Well it's not immoral, there you go.

 

But it is immoral. I'm not sure how you get around that, legality withheld. Someone creates something, they ask for compensation in exchange for that creation, and piracy means you take it without compensation. Pretty simple. The word pirate is used for a reason, it is not a positive term.

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 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.

 

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.

[Rostere]

Did any of you think about the fact that Kickstarter is piracy-safe? I mean, in the sense that you pay for the product before it even exists.

[Hurlshort]

Did any of you think about the fact that Kickstarter is piracy-safe? I mean, in the sense that you pay for the product before it even exists.

 

Yes, I mentioned it as a good alternative for those upset at publishers and DRM practices.

 

It still runs the same risk of piracy, but the creator has a much clearer financial window to work under, and they don't have a publisher breathing down their necks for a return on the investment (just a bunch of super fans )

[Malcador]

Well those fans aren't getting any return, just a product paid for in advance. Not seeing that as pirate safe, although if the games are mostly DRM free, no cracking required.

[Serrano]

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.

Edited May 6, 2012 by Serrano

[Rostere]

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.

 

Yes, piracy- safe as I see it. Any money in excess of development costs is essentially just a bonus.

[Malcador]

Can still lose their 'profits', but I suppose that's not a killer. Still not seeing is as safe, but I get your point. Better not hear any moaning about it from any KS'd devs