Piracy

[LadyCrimson]

I find the "1s & 0s" argument interesting. There's an area in art about taking something that exists (and which you may or may not own the rights too) and being transformative of it so that a new and unique item of the artist's making is created and I almost feel that this is where the argument is going except that when someone says something like "its just 1s & 0s that if decoded the right way would make a game" there's never an explanation of what other use there would be to downloading that particular set of 1s & 0s other than decoding the way to make a game.

 

I'm not sure that digital piracy really falls under property rights (since there isn't a physical entity to have a right to) and I think that's why there's such a struggle to understand what it means by many people. Instead of taking a physcial disc, some electrons are inconvenienced. Some intellectual rights, copyrights, distribution rights, maybe even patents might be violated though. In some ways the Internet has opened a number of issues that I think our society and our laws are struggling to conceptualize.

 

I recall a time a few years ago when a few companies got in trouble for appropriating art from people's deviant art accounts and using them for their own posters. The companies actually said "we found them online and assumed fair use". The end result of these were that the companies were in the wrong, but there was little the creators could do to prevent it from happening once they posted the work online other than close the barn doors after the horses were gone.

The issue/problem is that in terms of intellectual property rights, people never owned those things in the first place. We (usually) didn't own the music, or the TV show, or the game, regardless of whether we had a physical product. The "ownership" was/is an illusion. We owned the plastic the music was pressed into and we purchased the right to play it on a record player. We purchased the right to break the plastic disc in disgust if we hated the music or flush a book down a toilet if the words on the paper offended us. Taking away the physical doesn't alter the fact we (didn't always) own the rights to do whatever we pleased (copy/redistribute) with the conceptual product that was on that piece of plastic.

 

One could always pirate stuff, of course. On a street corner in certain parts of town for example. I don't view piracy on the internet as being any different...it's just a much grander/huger scale, and instead of having to walk around seedy parts of town trying to find an illegal seller, without getting arrested, and paying even $5 to the pirate per item, you sit in your living room and pay nothing but internet access fees. Easier and more tempting all the time, which breeds more and more emotional justifications for doing it.

 

Edit: please note I'm not arguing whether the legal notion of intellectual copyright is "right" or "wrong" in the first place....

Edited May 4, 2012 by LadyCrimson

[MacMichael]

If I go steal your car, you cannot use your car anymore. If I go steal your food, you don't have it anymore. If a piece of software wasn't even available in a location and someone pirated it, that company LOSES NOTHING in that transaction. They can't even say they lost a sale really, because that person had no real way to actually BUY the dang thing in the first place.

The problem with this argument is that you want to judge whether any value was lost.

Or to put it another way: If someone doesn't use their car is it okay to steal it?

Surly it was going to rust no value loss will occur.

 

Actually there are laws that allow that sort of thing. Here in the US. Adverse possession in the case of citizens taking something that isn't theirs and eminent domain for the government.

 

http://en.wikipedia..../Eminent_domain

http://en.wikipedia....erse_possession

http://boingboing.ne...case-in-bo.html

 

After all, the government has an interest in land, for instance, being used. A piece of land that sits unused doesn't have people living or working there paying or generating taxes, no businesses extracting minerals paying fees. Potentially creating an eyesore or place for people to gather for illegal activities. Etc. etc. etc. But copyright that sits abandoned and/or unused should be unviolatable?

 

I dislike piracy. I've traded games on 5 1/4" floppies. But I've also bought many of those same traded albums. I buy all my current games. I pick things up off GoG when they become available. I work in the photography industry. I talk to people all the time about how I can't make copies of their 30 year old photos because they don't own the rights to the image. They just own the print. I've noticed very few people care about copyright when it actually stops them from doing something they want to do. They may not download games, they may not download music, but that class photo of them from years ago, why should they have to track down some photographer that may not be alive that worked for some studio that may not even be open, they ask me. Because it's the law. Personally, I think copyright needs a major overhaul, though I don't trust that any overhaul that actually gets done would actually move things in a better direction. Too much money involved.

 

I don't like piracy, but I'm not going to look down on people that do it on occasion. I'll look down on people that do it a lot, especially when they have the funds and access that they really should have a reason to. This actually reminds me of some talk/conference that I heard about in Eastern Europe/Russia several years ago, where Microsoft talked about how happy they were that the software industry there had grown and the achievements they were making, while the developers talked about how it wouldn't have been possible without first pirating Microsoft products to get the point where they could compete and produce at a level to purchase Microsoft products. I think the issue to far too complex on the macro level to simply say "Piracy is freedom." or "Pirates are scummy scum scum!"

Edited May 4, 2012 by Tigranes

[LadyCrimson]

@MacMichael

Oh yeah, when I was a kid, we'd all (adults and kids alike) make copies of our records on audio tape and hand them out to friends. Or lend books. As tech advanced I'd scan yearbook photos to post on a blog about my highschool years or whatever without making an attempt to contact the photographer. Or other minor and/or youth related infractions. Interpretation of law is often a flexible thing, in the minds of us humans. Especially since laws are often rather arbitrary, since you have to pick a line in the sand to "enforce" and what gets picked at any given time...well, of course not everyone is going to agree/believe it's the correct line.

[pmp10]

If I go steal your car, you cannot use your car anymore. If I go steal your food, you don't have it anymore. If a piece of software wasn't even available in a location and someone pirated it, that company LOSES NOTHING in that transaction. They can't even say they lost a sale really, because that person had no real way to actually BUY the dang thing in the first place.

The problem with this argument is that you want to judge whether any value was lost.

Or to put it another way: If someone doesn't use their car is it okay to steal it?

Surly it was going to rust no value loss will occur.

 

Actually there are laws that allow that sort of thing. Here in the US. Adverse possession in the case of citizens taking something that isn't theirs and eminent domain for the government.

 

Except this regards land and is instituted by law.

I don't see why the same should apply to intellectual property.

We make exceptions to our laws in extraordinary situations but greater good will not be served by allowing people to torrent the latest video game.

[Mamoulian War]

If I go steal your car, you cannot use your car anymore. If I go steal your food, you don't have it anymore. If a piece of software wasn't even available in a location and someone pirated it, that company LOSES NOTHING in that transaction. They can't even say they lost a sale really, because that person had no real way to actually BUY the dang thing in the first place.

The problem with this argument is that you want to judge whether any value was lost.

Or to put it another way: If someone doesn't use their car is it okay to steal it?

Surly it was going to rust no value loss will occur.

 

Actually there are laws that allow that sort of thing. Here in the US. Adverse possession in the case of citizens taking something that isn't theirs and eminent domain for the government.

 

Except this regards land and is instituted by law.

I don't see why the same should apply to intellectual property.

We make exceptions to our laws in extraordinary situations but greater good will not be served by allowing people to torrent the latest video game.

 

As far I understand, he did not talk about newest games, he did talk about IPs which were abandoned long time ago and the owner is unknown...

 

...But copyright that sits abandoned and/or unused should be unviolatable?

[Mamoulian War]

An interesting article about open-science and the need of moving to the new era of "nextgen" business models for publishers of science works

 

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/05/uk-to-science-publishers-dont-follow-recording-industry-down-the-tubes.ars

 

Most interesting is the quote at the end of the article by David Willetts, the UK's Minister of State for Universities and Science.

 

...Willetts had a rather stark warning for them: adapt, or bad things will happen. "To try to preserve the old model is the wrong battle to fight," Willetts said. "Look at how the music industry lost out by trying to criminalize a generation of young people for file sharing. It was companies outside the music business such as Spotify and Apple, with iTunes, that worked out a viable business model for access to music over the web. None of us want to see that fate overtake the publishing industry."

[MacMichael]

If I go steal your car, you cannot use your car anymore. If I go steal your food, you don't have it anymore. If a piece of software wasn't even available in a location and someone pirated it, that company LOSES NOTHING in that transaction. They can't even say they lost a sale really, because that person had no real way to actually BUY the dang thing in the first place.

The problem with this argument is that you want to judge whether any value was lost.

Or to put it another way: If someone doesn't use their car is it okay to steal it?

Surly it was going to rust no value loss will occur.

 

Actually there are laws that allow that sort of thing. Here in the US. Adverse possession in the case of citizens taking something that isn't theirs and eminent domain for the government.

 

Except this regards land and is instituted by law.

I don't see why the same should apply to intellectual property.

We make exceptions to our laws in extraordinary situations but greater good will not be served by allowing people to torrent the latest video game.

 

Though if they download Windows and some programming tools in the former Soivet-bloc countries and build a thriving software industry that then starts buying things legitimately, doesn't that serve the greater good? Microsoft praised the rise of that area's software industry, though they did try to ignore the piracy that it was based on.

 

If say, people in Africa download games, tools, take other peoples stories and work to build up a creative core that then starts making new work, that fresh and new, that joins the larger world community, is this bad, because they stole something? Or is this overall good, because it provides a foothold to something greater? And can you tell the difference between the pirate that just pirates and the pirate that then goes on to make something greater from the piracy and treat them differently?

 

When you're talking about piracy, you're talking about copyright infringement. That applies to far more than just games. Maybe we should protect games different from other IPs? Otherwise focusing on just one small piece of the puzzle instead of the whole picture isn't going to work. As the law stands, it covers everything, so it needs to work for everything.

[Gfted1]

All you guys are doing is trying to whittle down the discussion until you produce some cant lose scenario. "We can cure cancer in tards", "What if that one book that 5 people want isnt for sale", "The villagers that live in cow dung huts deserve it", "So do I because those villagers have it". Its all BS to make yourselves feel better. Stealing is stealing. When we talk about piracy we all know exactly what were talking about, the stealing of luxury items that you dont want to pay for, not some pie-in-the-sky idea that by downloading the latest game/music/movie youre saving the world. Prison is full of people that are convinced they are innocent, but that doesnt make it true.

[pmp10]

Though if they download Windows and some programming tools in the former Soivet-bloc countries and build a thriving software industry that then starts buying things legitimately, doesn't that serve the greater good?

Sure it will - the greater good of people in that former-Soviet bloc country.

This however should not concern Microsoft and frankly if we were to be satisfied with such low likelihoods we can as well abolish private property altogether.

After all - you never know if the things you own can possibly result in greater good when put in other people hands.

[greylord]

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.

[Gfted1]

I see what youre saying but I dont understand your point. Are you trying to say that because injustices have occurred before thats its now ok?

[entrerix]

something tells me greylord is not actually an attorney

[greylord]

All you guys are doing is trying to whittle down the discussion until you produce some cant lose scenario. "We can cure cancer in tards", "What if that one book that 5 people want isnt for sale", "The villagers that live in cow dung huts deserve it", "So do I because those villagers have it". Its all BS to make yourselves feel better. Stealing is stealing. When we talk about piracy we all know exactly what were talking about, the stealing of luxury items that you dont want to pay for, not some pie-in-the-sky idea that by downloading the latest game/music/movie youre saving the world. Prison is full of people that are convinced they are innocent, but that doesnt make it true.

 

I think you are a fun gamer, and interesting, but when was the last time you sang happy birthday?

 

Do you go to church? Many of those songs (well in Protestant church's) are actually still under copyright. A LOT of people sing those songs (and that's actually a good thing, believe it or not...I think the songwriters wouldn't mind in MOST cases...that's what they want even) on their own without paying rights. In fact modern religious tunes are perhaps one of the most pirated...but not on software...in performances without the express approval of the songwriter and composers (performance being ANYTHING done where A SINGLE CREATURE could actually hear you...).

 

ever post pictures of your games? (those images are actually can be considered under copyright or trademark protection).

 

How about pictures of game characters, movie characters, tv characters, or artwork (crud...I think my avatar is of one from Assassin's creed, so in theory that makes ME guilty)?

 

Congratulations...you too are a pirate.

 

I own my games. I'm one of those wierd ones that prefer hardcopy to digital and legit to something that I burned (and probably has ten thousand trojans). In many cases I've bought several copies of the same game for different computers I have (how many actually go out and buy different copies of games for their computers...yes, I actually do that...I have probably around 6 different copies of Diablo 2, 3 copies of KoTOR 2, and 2 copies of KoTOR 1 (almost had a third, but didn't get it in the mail after ordering, still trying to get a new copy for my current computer).

 

I try to do the legit thing...but with copyright laws it is hard not to be one who breaks the copyrights and in turn who could theoretically be called a pirate.

 

THERE IS A HUGE gap between what the industry wants to call a pirate...and someone who is actually stealing physical items.

[Delfosse]

I see what youre saying but I dont understand your point. Are you trying to say that because injustices have occurred before thats its now ok?

It is when it is contended that "in a democracy right is what the majority makes it to be" that democracy degenerates into demagoguery.

 

Under the rule of one homogeneous and dogmatic majority, democracy can become more tyrannical than the worst of the dictatorships.

 

Friedrich von Hayek

[Hurlshort]

 

THERE IS A HUGE gap between what the industry wants to call a pirate...and someone who is actually stealing physical items.

 

There is also a huge gap between singing a song and downloading a game illegally.

[Delfosse]

 

Congratulations...you too are a pirate.

 

Ask him if he owns the rights to his avatar and then ask him to remove it if he's such a monorail copyright zealot. I'm done talking to him.

[greylord]

something tells me greylord is not actually an attorney

 

I don't think I'm taking anything from the viewpoint of an attorney here. Just the gamer viewpoint of being annoyed with game companies trying to punish me under the guise of an excuse of piracy.

 

The companies who are pushing against this entire piracy thing really are screwed up typically. In the past their actions have hurt the legitimate buyers more than anything else.

 

So, yes, I side with pirates not because I completely agree with what they are doing, but because the companies have lumped everyone, legitimate customers and everyone else...as pirates. This is why I must be punished for buying their game legitimately, because in their eyes, it doesn't matter if I buy it from them or not...they still consider me a pirate and that's why I have so many loopholes to jump through.

 

Hence, yeah, I'm against the entire argument they've come up with and the entire claims that they make.

 

I think the RIAA may finally be starting to get a clue however. The FIRST action that actually made sense occurred a few months ago when they went and closed down an actual site which had piracy completely linked to it, which was Megaupload. On the otherhand, I'm not certain how they pulled it off with international law, and I can see repercussions with them taking down ALL files, included those of legitimate users...but taking down a major site used for the actual distribution of piracy on that scale makes a LOT more sense then handicapping and punishing your legitimate buyers of your properties and games.

 

My angle isn't that of an attorney, but one of someone who is sick and tired of all the excuses they throw out in the "name" of fighting piracy.

[Hurlshort]

Greylord, I see what you are trying to do here, but a trademark violation really only becomes an issue when you are profiting from it. It really doesn't compare to downloading software and using it illegally.

[Zoraptor]

Don't like local laws? Vote some different politicians in. It's part of the game of democracy (conveniently forgotten by those who cry "censorship!" when a part of some imaginary wild west universe suddenly has to follow the same rules as those outside their protective bubble).

That's a touch, well, naive. Our 3 strikes internet law was initially shelved after massive opposition to it, democracy in action.

 

It then got passed without scrutiny, in about six hours- it was apparently a vital response to the Christchurch earthquake as they used the emergency provisions stemming from that to pass it. It is, as with all those sorts of things, a monumentally dumb law which establishes conviction by fiat/ accusation, those voting for it clearly had not a single iota of a clue as to how it would work and what it would do, and there is literally zero chance of it being repealed no matter how much it is despised and no matter how vile the circumstances under which they passed it.

 

If I sometimes seems like I have little sympathy for IP rights holders it's because of incidents like that. Politicians gonna politicise be vile gutter feeding pond scum with no integrity, honour or respect for a disaster in which nearly 200 of their countrymen died- it's what they do- but they only do it because MPAA/ RIAA(NZ) etc lobby them. Rights holders want to get rid of age old principles like presumption of innocence for their own gain and convenience? Goodbye sympathy, farewell goodwill, even vague consideration exits, stage left. Someone stealing a TV I'd stop. Someone copying an infinitely duplicatible movie or song? Much of the time it'sCry Me A River. I wouldn't cheer them on but if someone downloads Rihanna or something... quid pro quo, care level zero.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Zoraptor

[greylord]

Greylord, I see what you are trying to do here, but a trademark violation really only becomes an issue when you are profiting from it. It really doesn't compare to downloading software and using it illegally.

 

It's the same thing in the companies eyes. Actually for some companies it's worse. Games Workshop has occasionally gone after blood when looking at trademark violations...

 

Profit isn't even a factor in many of these cases. The same as with what people call piracy in nations where no one can even buy the product and hence download it...company loses nothing because they had nothing to gain in the first place...but they call it piracy regardless.

 

Reminds me sort of how I'd love to see a LOT of british TV and buy it on DVD in areas outside of the UK, but many times cannot. I could download it in theory, but I don't. I do without typically. Unfortunately that means I don't watch that much TV since I don't find many other nations have programs that are all that entertaining.

 

Actually...now going far off topic...some of the Japanese and Korean shows seem like they would be entertaining when I've seen them...but since I don't understand the language...that's about as far as it goes.

[Gfted1]

I think you are a fun gamer, and interesting, but when was the last time you sang happy birthday?

 

Do you go to church? Many of those songs (well in Protestant church's) are actually still under copyright. A LOT of people sing those songs (and that's actually a good thing, believe it or not...I think the songwriters wouldn't mind in MOST cases...that's what they want even) on their own without paying rights. In fact modern religious tunes are perhaps one of the most pirated...but not on software...in performances without the express approval of the songwriter and composers (performance being ANYTHING done where A SINGLE CREATURE could actually hear you...).

 

ever post pictures of your games? (those images are actually can be considered under copyright or trademark protection).

 

How about pictures of game characters, movie characters, tv characters, or artwork (crud...I think my avatar is of one from Assassin's creed, so in theory that makes ME guilty)?

 

Congratulations...you too are a pirate.

 

I own my games. I'm one of those wierd ones that prefer hardcopy to digital and legit to something that I burned (and probably has ten thousand trojans). In many cases I've bought several copies of the same game for different computers I have (how many actually go out and buy different copies of games for their computers...yes, I actually do that...I have probably around 6 different copies of Diablo 2, 3 copies of KoTOR 2, and 2 copies of KoTOR 1 (almost had a third, but didn't get it in the mail after ordering, still trying to get a new copy for my current computer).

 

I try to do the legit thing...but with copyright laws it is hard not to be one who breaks the copyrights and in turn who could theoretically be called a pirate.

 

THERE IS A HUGE gap between what the industry wants to call a pirate...and someone who is actually stealing physical items.

 

 

I want to be sure I understand your position and you didnt answer my previous question. Are you trying to say that because injustices have occurred before thats its now ok?

 

 

Ask him if he owns the rights to his avatar and then ask him to remove it if he's such a monorail copyright zealot. I'm done talking to him.

 

Yes, of course, except for the post just two previous.

[greylord]

Not certain if I understand your question Gfted1. I guess I can spell it out more clearly...

 

1. I veiw software producers as the biggest theives of them all these days. They are the con artists of yesteryear. In any other industry, if you sell a product that doesn't do what you say it does, you either have to make good on your promise, return the money, or go to jail. Software has it so that once you open the product you cannot return it. They never have to make good on their promises, and they won't go to jail. It's a problem with enforcement. It's gotten worse over the years because they are doing so called "anti-piracy" measures, which to me seems in reality more like...let's cheat the customer any way we can and say it's because we are fighting pirates...

 

For some reason I still cannot fathom, govts. look the other way when this occurs. I can only conclude that this holds true for MS in the US because they are one of the biggest businesses there...so to take them out because of things like this would cause financial impacts far more reaching than it does in Germany where they actually DO occasionally take action.

 

So, basically I think the game production companies like EA, Activision, and those in that same ilk (not the smaller fries and smaller guys typically) are all about how much they can cheat the customer and break laws (not just robbing people, but invasion of privacy and other laws) instead of anything good or productive, and in the process bring down a LOT of really good companies with them (companies that may normally or used to have the customer in mind, but do not any longer due to these giants of the industry influence).

 

2. Because I view the software giants as crooks and basically out to cheat the customer, I don't feel they deserve any legal support and defense anymore than what is given to common criminals who have committed a crime. Trying to have a thief accuse someone else of "singing a song" they composed when the thief has done physical robbery of millions of dollars is absolutely ridiculous. Address the more heinous crime first, and then once they've actually paid their debt to society...MAYBE...MAYBE then...you can consider their case.

 

3. AKA...the bigger crooks are those who are using piracy as an excuse right now. To show an example very disproportional and ridiculously out of scope...if I guy just committed mass murder in the first degree...do you arrest him and make him do time...or do you let him go free and furthermore chase down the pickpocket who just stole the change out of his pocket?

 

4. I think the items that they classify under piracy has grown FAR too expansive and too large. You can hardly turn around these days without being liable to be accused of piracy if they so desire. They've broadened the definition of stealing and piracy to FIT THEM instead of the traditional meanings. Hence why I can say about all the items I listed...you've been a pirate if you've done them...rather than sticking strictly to the traditional meaning of what stealing really is.

 

Keep stealing as stealing...and copyright infringment as copyright infringment. They are separate things...keep them separate. Stop listening to criminals that would rob you blind if they thought you would let them...and start listening to the people that want to support the legitimate guys that work for them (game companies such as what Blizzard North used to be, or the OLD bioware that put fans first for example, or old Snowblind that no longer exists...or other companies), but hate the practices that are being shoved down the throats of everyone these days instead of honesty, hard work, trust, loyalty, and something that's called...respecting your customers.

 

Don't lump your customers in with those who download your games for free and treat your customers like criminals...because frankly, eventually enough of them are going to say they've had enough and either walk away...or revolt and finally the companies are going to have to pay the piper.

[Tigranes]

Re. 3: the question is whether, by being the guy who steals change out of the murderer's pocket, you're doing anything to thwart the murderer or to stop him from doing his 'greater evil'. If you pirate games and refuse to pay publishers a cent, will that help bring them down and change the way the industry works? It might - and I'd be interested in seeing someone make the argument on how exactly piracy can actually effect a productive change, directly or indirectly. However, if the argument is simply "get the murderer first", that doesn't actually justify piracy at all, it just shows you have a pirate and you also have an evil publisher.

 

I'm more supportive of 4, and the problems with abandonware, modding, international (non)distribution, retarded DRM that makes pirated products work better than purchased ones (which really pisses me off when I pay good money in the belief that at the moment, it's still better to make that gesture of paying to support Obsidian and other developers even if they don't directly get the $), and so forth. Of course, the difficulty of tracking exactly who pirates what, how many copies of what are pirated, etc., makes turning piracy into an 'activist' gesture rather difficult - anyone arguing for that last point about DRM would have a hard time because of all the indie/DRM-free games that get pirated, and so forth. That's why something like Kickstarter, despite its risks and problems, presents a much stronger message to the industry.

 

Thought experiment: what would really decide once and for all whether piracy is an act of cowardliness or making a point against industry exploitation? Answer: if piracy had a non-monetary cost. E.g. if piracy really ran the risk of legal problems for you, or you being locked out of online game services, etc - and you still pirated games despite those kinds of risks. If you simply decided not to play games anymore or pay for them, it would imply that actually, your former pirating was more about wanting stuff you can't afford.

[entrerix]

greylord, a lot of your issues stem from fundamental misunderstandings of copyright law and its application. You obviously are passionate about the topic, have you considered law school? IP attorneys make big money in america (especially silicon valley). or you could work toward becoming a lobbyist and actually have a chance to change the laws you don't like.

 

i dont recommend law school to someone looking for an easy dollar, but if you truly care about a legal subject, then why not actually take the time to learn about it (for real)

 

also: so you have a little to chew on: consider the interplay between potential copyright infringement and "damages" (a very complex subject on its own) which are generally required to enforce your copyright claim in court.

 

 

edit also: your initial premise of software devs being crooks because you cant return the goods after opening it.... dude thats completely wrong and insane. you have no right to return anything you buy. some stores choose to let you return goods, but "buyer beware" is perfectly legal in almost every instance

 

 

edit 2: eh, i took the time to read more of what you're saying.... you have a lot of fundamental misunderstandings of a LOT of areas of the law and the american legal system, not just IP

Edited May 4, 2012 by entrerix

[Gfted1]

Not certain if I understand your question Gfted1. I guess I can spell it out more clearly...

 

1. I veiw software producers as the biggest theives of them all these days. They are the con artists of yesteryear. In any other industry, if you sell a product that doesn't do what you say it does, you either have to make good on your promise, return the money, or go to jail. Software has it so that once you open the product you cannot return it. They never have to make good on their promises, and they won't go to jail. It's a problem with enforcement. It's gotten worse over the years because they are doing so called "anti-piracy" measures, which to me seems in reality more like...let's cheat the customer any way we can and say it's because we are fighting pirates...

 

For some reason I still cannot fathom, govts. look the other way when this occurs. I can only conclude that this holds true for MS in the US because they are one of the biggest businesses there...so to take them out because of things like this would cause financial impacts far more reaching than it does in Germany where they actually DO occasionally take action.

 

So, basically I think the game production companies like EA, Activision, and those in that same ilk (not the smaller fries and smaller guys typically) are all about how much they can cheat the customer and break laws (not just robbing people, but invasion of privacy and other laws) instead of anything good or productive, and in the process bring down a LOT of really good companies with them (companies that may normally or used to have the customer in mind, but do not any longer due to these giants of the industry influence).

 

Okay, I can agree with a lot of your points, nobody hates it more than me when something I buy doesnt work as advertised but I do not agree that companies are actively plotting against me in a criminal manner. We will never know how much is really lost to piracy (I have no idea) but I cant fault a person/entity for trying to protect their interests be it through DRM/lawsuits/online requirement.

 

2. Because I view the software giants as crooks and basically out to cheat the customer, I don't feel they deserve any legal support and defense anymore than what is given to common criminals who have committed a crime. Trying to have a thief accuse someone else of "singing a song" they composed when the thief has done physical robbery of millions of dollars is absolutely ridiculous. Address the more heinous crime first, and then once they've actually paid their debt to society...MAYBE...MAYBE then...you can consider their case.

 

Cmon now, two wrongs dont make a right. They deserve to get ripped off because they tried to protect themselves? What?

 

3. AKA...the bigger crooks are those who are using piracy as an excuse right now. To show an example very disproportional and ridiculously out of scope...if I guy just committed mass murder in the first degree...do you arrest him and make him do time...or do you let him go free and furthermore chase down the pickpocket who just stole the change out of his pocket?

 

Im not sure whats disproportional? Them trying to protect their interests? They should just shrug, iyo?

 

4. I think the items that they classify under piracy has grown FAR too expansive and too large. You can hardly turn around these days without being liable to be accused of piracy if they so desire. They've broadened the definition of stealing and piracy to FIT THEM instead of the traditional meanings. Hence why I can say about all the items I listed...you've been a pirate if you've done them...rather than sticking strictly to the traditional meaning of what stealing really is.

 

You seem to be trying to obfuscate the point behind, "well look, you did it here so its should be a free-for-all"?

 

Keep stealing as stealing...and copyright infringment as copyright infringment. They are separate things...keep them separate. Stop listening to criminals that would rob you blind if they thought you would let them...and start listening to the people that want to support the legitimate guys that work for them (game companies such as what Blizzard North used to be, or the OLD bioware that put fans first for example, or old Snowblind that no longer exists...or other companies), but hate the practices that are being shoved down the throats of everyone these days instead of honesty, hard work, trust, loyalty, and something that's called...respecting your customers.

 

Heres where I disagree. Just because technology has changed doesnt mean ownership did. You wouldnt walk into a book store and slide a book into your pocket (well, some of you would) but beacuse that book also exists in digital form everyone should get it for free? Because they deserve it?

 

Don't lump your customers in with those who download your games for free and treat your customers like criminals...because frankly, eventually enough of them are going to say they've had enough and either walk away...or revolt and finally the companies are going to have to pay the piper.

 

Again, I dont feel like they are actively robbing me.