Witcher 2 Torrents Could Net You a Fine

An anonymous reader writes with this quote from Eurogamer: "Gamers who download upcoming PC exclusive The Witcher 2 illegally could receive a letter demanding they pay a fine or face legal action. If gamers refuse to pay the fine, which will be more than the cost of the game, they could end up in court, developer CD Projekt told Eurogamer. 'Of course we're not happy when people are pirating our games, so we are signing with legal firms and torrent sneaking companies,' CD Projekt co-founder Marcin Iwiski said. 'In quite a few big countries, when people are downloading it illegally they can expect a letter from a legal firm saying, "Hey, you downloaded it illegally and right now you have to pay a fine." We are totally fair, but if you decide you will not buy it legally there is a chance you'll get a letter. We are talking about it right now.' Interestingly, The Witcher 2 will be released free of digital rights management – but only through the CD Projekt-owned digital download shop GOG.com. That means owners will be able to install it as many times as they like on any number of computers – and it will not requite an internet connection to run."

Comments

Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

A DRM-free game released by a publisher that intends to hunt down pirates. Am I supposed to cheer them on or cry foul? I'm so confused :(

Re:Intended Reaction?

[black6host]

Games should be released DRM free, publishers should be free to utilize what means have been approved to protect their work. At least that's how it would work in my perfect world....

Re:Intended Reaction?

[LordLimecat]

Honest question: why would you cry foul? I would be interested in knowing precisely the rationale behind condemning their plans.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[RsG]

I'm cheering, tentatively.

My "Ideal Future" is no DRM whatsoever, with the game companies selling their product through digital downloads, and possibly brick-and-mortar/snail-mail retailers for those who want physical media.

I want this future specifically so that I can be sure the games I buy today are still good to go fifteen years from now. Not as unreasonable as it sounds, when you consider that my own collection includes titles like X-Com (1993), Fallout 1&2 (97/98) and the Infinity engine series (late 90's), all of which work, or can be made to work, on a modern PC.

The biggest resistance to the "DRM free" approach comes from the fear of piracy. I don't think this is a particularly rational response to the problem on the part of the devs, as only a single game copy needs to be cracked and torrented to make the DRM irrelevant - you can't reasonably stop that without complete control of the box that runs the game, something you can only partially achieve with consoles, and arguably not even then.

Is suing the pirates in lieu of DRM any more rational? Debatable. But I've no doubt it's an improvement. After all, DRMing the games causes problems for me, the legit user, while anti-piracy suits do not.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[hughperkins]

I think it sounds reasonable, given the laws today.

I think better would be if pirating games would be prosecuted like speeding, and you paid a small, but not outlandish, fine.

However, the games companies don't have this option today, and they have to live in the real world today, and try to make money somehow.

DRM-free, and if the fines^h^h^h^h^h^h settlements are reasonable - let's say 100-200 dollars I guess, 4-5 times the cost of the game? Then I think that sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

They're going after people who in no way, shape, or form inflicted any damages on them or even interacted with them. They merely copied their product. Instead of acknowledging the fact that the system is broken due to its insistence on utilizing artificial scarcity, they blame people who have nothing to do with said systems shortcomings.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound like you have at least some ideas on how it can be fixed. Got them explained somewhere?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The problem isn't the 'reasonableness' of the penalty; but the dubiousness of the process. A private party pulling a standard of evidence and a due process of proof out of their ass and then sending monetary demands to those they deem guilty is vigilantism at best and shades pretty quickly into extortion. The size of the amount being extorted isn't the issue, the extortion is....

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Cinder6]

Even if you assume 100% of pirates wouldn't have bought the game if they couldn't get it for free, what gives them the right to play the game without paying for it? I used to think as you did, but now I'm not so sure. I don't think exorbitant fines (such as the *AA enjoy) are the answer (in fact, I find them reprehensible), but neither can I condone piracy.

Or how about a different example. Are you in favor of people sneaking in to movie theaters? Assuming a non-full showing, it doesn't "hurt" the theater one bit, but it's obviously the wrong thing to do.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[MoonBuggy]

Two major reasons: firstly, IP addresses don't map directly to people and (depending on the gathering method used by the companies) can be trivial to spoof, secondly (and more importantly) defending a civil suit can easily bankrupt even an innocent person - offering a pre-set 'settlement' in this situation is very close to blackmail.

As I mentioned further down, though, I'm withholding judgement here until I see a bit more information. I still feel it to be a poor choice, mainly for the reasons above, but I can see why they're doing it and I don't feel any real sympathy for a person getting something akin to a parking ticket if they have in fact been illegally downloading games.

This sympathy for the copyright holder is normally somewhat tempered by the fact that I would like to see the bunch of mindless jerks in charge of the companies under the *AA umbrella first against the wall when the revolution comes[1] as penance for the harm they've done us all in infinitely extending copyright, attacking net neutrality, pushing fines and penalties far beyond the reasonable, attacking fair use, attempting to mandate pervasive network surveillance, and kicking puppies[2].

In this case, though, the copyright holder seems to be more or less reasonable, so I'll be interested to see how it plays out.

[1]This is exaggeration for humorous effect, alluding to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Sometimes also known as a joke. Not to be construed as a threat under the Communications Act.

[2]See above disclaimer.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

I do? I never claimed that I did. It is no easy task to come up with such a thing, but my inability to think of a viable alternative does not change the fact that the current system is terrible and some effort should at least be going into coming up with another way (some people already have suggested alternatives, but the people in power would never accept them). Even if there were no viable alternatives, it's illogical to blame people who do something that harms no one for the shortcomings of a broken system.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

doing something that hurts no one

It does hurt someone. It hurts the creators, who would otherwise get some of the money. I know, I know--I'm well aware of the MAFIAA and believe me, I don't support them either. The fact of the matter is, however, that the creators nevertheless do gain revenue from their works (even though the MAFIAA does divest them of a large slice of the aforesaid monies), and illegally obtaining said works deprives them of money.

I'm not saying the system isn't broken--it is. Its brokenness, however, should not predicate the suffering of content creators from revenue lost due to illegal copying/downloading.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

Even if you assume 100% of pirates wouldn't have bought the game if they couldn't get it for free

I don't assume that. I don't even care if 100% of the pirates would have bought the media. That's like saying that it should be illegal to tell your friends who were originally going to buy a product not to buy it because that could 'hurt' sales.

what gives them the right to play the game without paying for it?

Answer this: if it doesn't hurt anyone, then why does it matter? You know that no one is being deprived of anything that they previously owned.

You can say that they're 'stealing' potential profit, but not only is it impossible to steal objects that don't even exist, but you'd be blaming just about everyone in existence by doing so. You 'steal' potential profit merely by choosing not to give someone money or by interfering with their flow of profit. That effectively means that not buying a product from a store would mean that you have 'stole' potential profit from the store (and have therefore 'harmed' them because they would have been better off if you had given them your money).

Are you in favor of people sneaking in to movie theaters? Assuming a non-full showing, it doesn't "hurt" the theater one bit, but it's obviously the wrong thing to do.

If you admit that it doesn't hurt them, then why is it the 'wrong' (subjective) thing to do? I think it's fine if it's not inflicting any harm upon them.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[interkin3tic]

A DRM-free game released by a publisher that intends to hunt down pirates. Am I supposed to cheer them on or cry foul? I'm so confused :(

Cheer. DRM punishes non-pirates more than it prevents piracy. The pirates are in some ways on our side with the DRM vs no DRM argument, but that doesn't mean pirates have a peg-leg to stand on with all arguments.

I don't expect someone to make a good game and then be happy people are playing it without paying them, no developer is claiming to be a charity, and good revenue for good games means more good games. If devs want to specifically punish pirates, that's a good thing in my book.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[MoonBuggy]

I more or less agree with you, but I'll add that calling something "wrong" without further qualification severely undermines your argument.

A more convincing point to make would be that the ability to enter a movie for free works to degrade the perceived value of the paid tickets. Basically, consider all the customers who did pay turning around and questioning why they parted with $x while those guys in the front didn't, and subsequently concluding that they shouldn't have to pay either next time. Perception of value drops like a stone.

Sure, it's all based on a more or less imaginary value to start with, but that's how a lot of our economy works - those who want to argue about the validity of that have a much longer debate on their hands.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Score Whore]

Free riders are a problem. Learn some economics before you start with the "hurts no one" crap.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

It does hurt someone. It hurts the creators, who would otherwise get some of the money.

"Potential profit," then? For one thing, in order for it to explicitly hurt them, something that they previously owned must be taken from them.

Suppose someone decides not to buy a product from a store. Would the store have had more money if they did? Yes. Using the logic of those who utilize the potential profit argument, this would mean that they have 'stolen' potential profit from the store, and have therefore 'harmed' a legitimate business.

Suppose that someone tells all of their friends who were originally going to buy a product not to buy it. They ultimately decide not to buy it. Would the store have had more money if the person hadn't told their friends not to buy the product (or if the friends had given them their money anyway)? Yes. Using the same logic above, it can be concluded, then, that the business was 'hurt'. This is an example similar to piracy because many argue that piracy affects sales, but so does this.

Whether the pirate has the product or not is irrelevant. Merely obtaining the product deprived no one of anything (because they copied the data and didn't take anything from anyone).

Its brokenness, however, should not predicate the suffering of content creators from revenue lost due to illegal copying/downloading.

Likewise, the blame also shouldn't be put on people who do things that harm no one (as explained above).

Re:Intended Reaction?

[sammyF70]

Isn't releasing the game DRM free already an effort in the right made by CD Projekt? They make sure that paying customers are not suffering from any piracy/overzealous protection schemes related problems. The people who wants to play the game should do the logical thing and make a step in the right way too, namely buy the game instead of using the "free unlimited evaluation versions" available through torrents (can't call it cracked without DRM, can you?)

Re:Intended Reaction?

[oliverthered]

why?

property is thief.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[seibai]

Answer this: if it doesn't hurt anyone, then why does it matter? You know that no one is being deprived of anything that they previously owned.

You can say that they're 'stealing' potential profit, but not only is it impossible to steal objects that don't even exist, but you'd be blaming just about everyone in existence by doing so. You 'steal' potential profit merely by choosing not to give someone money or by interfering with their flow of profit. That effectively means that not buying a product from a store would mean that you have 'stole' potential profit from the store (and have therefore 'harmed' them because they would have been better off if you had given them your money).

Rather than hurting "anyone" is actually hurts "everyone". This is just another case of what's called the "tragedy of the commons". Each person who pirates a game benefits himself or herself, but if enough people do this it's no longer tenable to make games and no one has a game to play, for free or otherwise.

You can talk about people making things "for art's sake", and some people will, but a lot of them won't who would. I used to make games, and I still do in my spare time, but I work for Microsoft as my day job, so my productivity in making games isn't nearly as high as it would be if I could do it full time. Other people, people who might be fantastic artists but have a family to feed are going to be in similar spots because people pirate games. Piracy has a direct impact in reducing the profitability of the art, meaning there are fewer people who can practice it.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[lymond01]

You're really overthinking this. I pay $60,000/year for 50 developers/artists/writers for 3 years to create a game. That's $9,000,000 out of my pocket to put out a piece of entertainment for others to enjoy. Let's say I need to pay that big loan back at some point and it would just take too long waiting tables. So I sell my game at $60 per copy. I need to sell 150,000 copies of that game to break even. I'm not Electronic Arts or Blizzard so I'm not famous nor do I have a large marketing budget. The only thing I have going for me is that the first game I put out got noticed because a lot of long hours put in by talented people was noticed.

Now I have people playing the game, but not giving me any credit in a form that allows me to pay my debtors: money. Sure people love the game and I'm proud of that. But I also have about $10,000 in loan payments every month. It's never hopeless -- I wouldn't have attempted this whole project if I thought it was sink or swim. But I put a lot of money into this and I'm selling it for a financial return. It's fair. It's how it works. Food and rent cost money. I don't have to make this game. But I do, and if you like it, pay me for it. Pay the developers and the artists.

If you don't, then they are out of their homes because I didn't really have $9,000,000. I had $6,000,000. This was their big break. I made the promise. But really, I'd rather that you throw bricks at plate glass windows than use my software without paying. Those windows don't have DRM and I bet it would be entertaining as well.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Derosian]

In the market of competitive monopoly, which is what sale of games is. A competitive monopoly being, in this case, a firm that produces a differentiated good with legal barrier to entry(copyright). This makes the creators price makers, which means there is a large amount of sales that never happen, because there are people who won't buy at the demand price because their utility from a game is not as great as their utility from their next two weeks worth of food. Now if they implemented price discrimination via a student discount for say, poor college students, it would likely encourage me to buy a copy of your game instead of pirating it. Also it would help if you released a finished product, that wasn't broken.

TL;DR Every pirated copy is not a lost sale. Wish for student discount. Don't release buggy games.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

Learn some economics before you start with the "hurts no one" crap.

Since pirates aren't actually taking the product itself and are merely copying data, how are the artists being hurt, exactly? They (or anyone else) aren't being deprived of the product itself.

Is it "potential profit" that you think the pirates are depriving the artists of? If so, not only is it logically impossible to deprive someone of objects that do not exist (potential profit doesn't exist), but by claiming that pirates 'steal' potential profit, you are also either directly or indirectly blaming nearly everyone in existence for this as well.

You 'steal' potential profit by not giving someone money or by interfering with their flow of profit. That means that if you decide not to buy a product from a store, for example, you'd be 'stealing' potential profit (you've 'harmed' the store because the store would have had more money if you would have given it to them). That means that you're 'stealing' potential profit whenever you decide to tell people who are about to buy a product not to buy it (and they decide not to) as the artists would have had more money if you hadn't done that.

Don't you think the system is broken when people who logically do no harm to anyone are blamed simply because they decided not to give someone their money (an action which doesn't really harm anyone)? Don't you think the system is broken when artists are encouraged to introduce artificial scarcity on products that would otherwise be in an unlimited quantity just to make a profit so that they can continue participating in said system? That's what needs to be fixed, not piracy.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[MoonBuggy]

One could argue that they are increasing the supply, and thus for a more or less fixed demand they are reducing the market value. The reasoning behind copyright law in general runs along the same lines: supply of digital 'items' is essentially infinite, meaning that cost will drop to more or less zero. Since artistic works are considered a benefit to society, the artist is granted a period in which they can artificially limit the supply in order to keep the value up, thus giving them a chance to recoup their expenses and potentially make a profit. It's based not only on the tangible value but the perception of value, as I mentioned in my post just below. Whether you consider that reasonable is another matter, I admit, but I'd say denying the effect is illogical.

At this point, however, I'm still not taking sides. I agree with copyright in principle, but not its current insane implementation. I'm of the general opinion that suing for minor infringements is a bad idea, but that's within the framework of life-altering fines and court cases, rather than a more reasonable (IMO) parking ticket style system. I despise the things that the *AA have forced through the courts in the name of copyright protection, but I see no evidence linking this company to them. Basically, I think this is an unusual case but we (quite rightly) can't help seeing it through the filter of those we've read about previously.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry for the AC post, but I don't have a slashdot account. I just wanted to let you know that I'm a game developer (a programmer, to be precise), and to thank you profusely for doing your part to support us in making awesome games for you to play.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

Yes, it is. I applaud them for doing that, but that doesn't mean that pirates are doing any harm in the first place. I don't blame them for trying to make more money, however. This is mainly a problem with how the system is designed.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

Each person who pirates a game benefits himself or herself, but if enough people do this it's no longer tenable to make games and no one has a game to play, for free or otherwise.

Don't you think that it's a shortcoming of a broken system if people can no longer do what they enjoy without attempting to harm people who have done nothing to them or harmed them in any way? Piracy isn't what needs to be fixed. The current system, however, does.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anachragnome]

"Honest question: why would you cry foul?"

I cry foul as well and I am perfectly willing to tell you why.

Remember when game releases were preceded by a demo release? What ever happened to that? I'll tell you. People didn't buy games that were obvious pieces of shit, but SOME would if you didn't give them a chance to test it first. So, gone are the demos of yore.

Unless there is a playable demo available to test the game, I have zero way of knowing if the game is actually finished (in terms of development), has more then a few hours of gameplay, has replay value and, most importantly, actually runs on my system. I have a dozen or so games in my garage that never ran on my machine (although my machine was well within specs) but could not be returned for a refund.

In short, I want to know what I am paying for before I do so. Reviews are all manipulated to one extent or another and I quite simply do not trust them anymore nor do I expect anyone but me to know what runs on my machine, or not.

I suspect that the producers of The Witcher 2 are more afraid of people finding out the game wasn't ready for release BEFORE they pay for it.

 

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

Now I have people playing the game, but not giving me any credit in a form that allows me to pay my debtors: money.

But, see, this is where it gets interesting. You're mainly upset with these people because they haven't given you money, not because they're playing your game (as copying data doesn't hurt anyone as no one is deprived of anything). This is a category that also includes everyone who merely didn't buy the product. Not to mention that not giving someone money doesn't harm them (as that is an action that deprives them of nothing).

If artists need to introduce artificial scarcity to continue doing what they love and participating in society, then that is a fault of a broken system, not people who do no harm to others.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

I'm not voicing my disapproval of rewarding game developers who have done a good job with money, but what I am voicing my disapproval of is the notion that by not giving someone money, you are harming them. I actually think that in the current system, it is a nice thing to give someone money for a product that is in an infinite supply.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

One could argue that they are increasing the supply, and thus for a more or less fixed demand they are reducing the market value.

Not really. Digital media has always been in infinite supply. Merely making more copies does no damage to anyone.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Don't you think the system is broken when people who logically do no harm to anyone are blamed simply because they decided not to give someone their money (an action which doesn't really harm anyone)? Don't you think the system is broken when artists are encouraged to introduce artificial scarcity on products that would otherwise be in an unlimited quantity just to make a profit so that they can continue participating in said system? That's what needs to be fixed, not piracy."

I get the argument that artists could make sales from live concerts, hell even movies could make money from box office (Getting a bunch of friends to go hang out and watch a movie on a big screen is worth something). But seriously. I dare you to justify downloading games, how would the developers get paid? Those games WOULD NOT get produced if no one bought them, now if *some* people pirated and enough bought they'd still get made, but why should some people have to pay while others get it free? The entire medium would end up having to be some fantastical "pre-pay 5 years early to make development happen" system which is not likely to work, and even more likely to produce endless sequels than the current system. I pay for some movies, I pay for some games, I pay for netflix/rhapsody, and I still pirate a good deal of stuffs. But unlike you I don't lie to myself when I download a movie, I know what I'm doing, I'm letting millions of other people pay $10-30 so I can get some free entertainment. It may not be "stealing" per se, but it's definitely selfish.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Sancho]

You 'steal' potential profit by not giving someone money or by interfering with their flow of profit. That means that if you decide not to buy a product from a store, for example, you'd be 'stealing' potential profit (you've 'harmed' the store because the store would have had more money if you would have given it to them). That means that you're 'stealing' potential profit whenever you decide to tell people who are about to buy a product not to buy it (and they decide not to) as the artists would have had more money if you hadn't done that.

The government doesn't guarantee artists money. They guarantee them a chance by allowing the artist control over distribution of their work.

Perhaps the harm is to society as a whole, for if artists weren't given this control, a fairly large portion of our culture likely wouldn't exist.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Pax681]

property is theft was first coined by a french dude called Proudhon in the 1800's.

even Marx criticised it as bollocks.... ok he never actually said "bollocks" but that's what he meant..LOL

here is a quote from the wiki

Karl Marx, although initially favourable to Proudhon's work, later criticised, among other things, the expression "property is theft" as self-refuting and unnecessarily confusing, writing that "... 'theft' as a forcible violation of property presupposes the existence of property..." and condemning Proudhon for entangling himself in "all sorts of fantasies, obscure even to himself, about true bourgeois property."

Re:Intended Reaction?

[seibai]

Friend, if you're going to call the system broken, it seems like you should propose an alternative.

I've not myself encountered another way for artists to be sufficiently supported to continue in their art. I've certainly seen single case examples (Cory Doctorow and his one book, Stephen King and his one book), but these things don't work at scale and it's notable that neither of them did that twice.

What would you suggest?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Sancho]

Can you explain which gathering method makes it trivial to spoof IP addresses?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Sancho]

It is in no way vigilantism. Or would you say that a person filing any other civil suit was vigilantism?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perception of value does NOT drop like a stone. How many game have not been easy to pirate? 1 out of 50? The industry is doing just fine in spite of that...

I think the only reasonable answer is that most people pay the artists and creators of a game because they do want to pay. Don't ask for too much for the value you're offering, produce a good game, don't mess the overall impression up by making the game an annoyance with DRM or such, and you'll find computer games are good business...

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

They guarantee them a chance by allowing the artist control over distribution of their work.

How does disobeying this harm anyone?

Perhaps the harm is to society as a whole, for if artists weren't given this control, a fairly large portion of our culture likely wouldn't exist.

The thing is, that is a problem with the poorly made system, not people who merely copied data and deprived no one of anything that they previously owned.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

But seriously. I dare you to justify downloading games, how would the developers get paid?

How would developers get paid if people decided not to give them their money? How would developers get paid if people were allowed to warn others of potentially bad products (they might decide not to)?

Not giving someone your money doesn't harm them. Taking something from them does, but that's not what pirates do.

As I said above, this entire situation is a shortcoming of a broken system. The fact that artists supposedly (I'm still not convinced) need to introduce artificial scarcity and harm innocents who did nothing wrong in order to product more content means that the system is broken in the first place. You might as well force everyone to buy the product.

but it's definitely selfish.

It's also selfish to artificially limit the supply of a good that would otherwise be in an infinite supply only to people who have the object known as "money." Fix the system, not piracy.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

why do they need a right to play it? Just because the government of your country gives the *developers* the right to ask money for something, does not mean automatically that some other person in another country is bound by that agreement. I, for one, did not vote for that right given to those people.

You got the meaning of copyright backwards. Perhaps the "pirates" feel that it is possible to conceive a working society without this right. Obviously it may be illegal to do what they do in many countries, but that does not make it "wrong".

Go think about this thing some more.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[hedwards]

Neither, the whole premise is a false dilemma. Failing to pay for DRM does not waive a person's right to protect their property in court. I'd really have to wait and see how exactly they intend on doing it before I have much of an opinion, the reality is that this could be done legitimately and in a fair minded way or it could end up being a witch hunt.

I suspect more fair, but things can get biased accidentally with bad methodology or third party intervention.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

Friend, if you're going to call the system broken, it seems like you should propose an alternative.

My inability to think of an alternative system does not change the fact that the current system is, in fact, broken.

I've not myself encountered another way for artists to be sufficiently supported to continue in their art.

But, that still doesn't change the fact that pirates aren't actually harming anyone anymore than someone who simply decides not to give them your money. The system is illogical, and even if there is no other viable solution, that will always remain so.

I'd honestly rather not suggest alternative systems because the debate isn't about what system that we should use, the debate is about how piracy doesn't actually hurt anyone.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[FlyHelicopters]

No, making copies doesn't... But if only one person buys the game and makes 10 million free copies, there won't be any more games to play, now will there?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[MoonBuggy]

Here's the paper that I'm basing that part of my argument on.

It's well worth a read in its entirety, but to quote some of the relevant segments:

By default, BitTorrent trackers record the source IP address from the request as the actual address of the peer to be delivered to others. But, some BitTorrent tracker implementations support an optional extension to the peer request message that allows requesting clients to specify a different IP address that the tracker should record in its list of peers instead. This is intended to provide support for proxy servers and peers/trackers behind the same NAT. But, when combined with the lack of verification of tracker responses by monitoring agents, this extension also allows malicious clients to frame arbitrary IPs for infringement via a simple HTTP request.

The current monitoring approach for BitTorrent, simply issuing a tracker request, requires only a single HTTP request and response, generating at most a few kilobytes of network traffic, a single connection, and minimal processing.

Because BitTorrent tracker responses are not encrypted, man-in-the-middle attacks at the network level are straightforward. Anyone on the path between tracker and a monitoring agent can alter the tracker’s response, implicating arbitrary IPs.

A tracker need not be malicious to falsely implicate users. Consider the following scenario. Bob participates in an infringing BitTorrent swarm from a laptop via WiFi with an IP address assigned via DHCP, e.g., at a university or coffee shop. Bob then closes his laptop to leave, suspending his BitTorrent client without an orderly notification to the tracker that he has left. Some time later, Alice joins the same WiFi network and, due to the DHCP timeout of Bob’s IP, Alice receives Bob’s former address. Simultaneously, a monitoring agent queries the tracker for the swarm Bob was downloading and the tracker reports Bob’s former IP. The monitoring agent then dispatches a DMCA notice to the ISP running the WiFi network naming Bob’s IP but with a timestamp that would attribute that IP to Alice, a false positive. Whether this is a problem in practice depends on the relative timeouts of BitTorrent trackers and DHCP leases, neither of which is fixed.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[hedwards]

Indeed, the humble indie bundle pretty well proved that there will always be some piracy and that it's not just people that are trying to get around DRM either.

A lot of that is people that can't pay for one reason or another are not able to actually take their money and give it to the developers, but a lot more of it is people that are cheap or are all about the developer lulz of pirating it even if they don't actually ever play it.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Kjella]

Yep, now I just hope the game is any good too... if so it's a must buy, if the game isn't then well nothing can save it, DRM-free or not.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[FlyHelicopters]

You're not harming the game developer, you're harming all of us, by removing future game developement efforts. If you like a game, pay for it, it is really that simple.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[hedwards]

It's still copyright infringement. I doubt very much that the folks around here would be so outraged if the methodology for identifying pirates were sound and the requested settlement bore some resemblance to the damages.

I doubt that they'd end up losing many customers from here if they charged say $200 or so to the people identified as having pirated it. It's a slap on the wrist, much more than actually buying the game, but few people aren't going to be able to afford to pay that either.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

I still don't understand what you're trying to say. The pirate doesn't interact with the market or the artist in any way. The copy merely existing doesn't affect anything.

Oh, and:

Don't you think the system is broken when people who logically do no harm to anyone are blamed simply because they decided not to give someone their money (an action which doesn't really harm anyone)? Don't you think the system is broken when artists are encouraged to introduce artificial scarcity on products that would otherwise be in an unlimited quantity just to make a profit so that they can continue participating in said system? That's what needs to be fixed, not piracy.

A system which forces artists to introduce artificial scarcity and go after those who oppose it merely so they can continue doing what they love is a broken system.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[hedwards]

Actually that's the natural extension to your argument. In order for there to be no damages to the developer, 100% of those pirates must have been completely unwilling to buy the software, if even one of the individuals would have paid but ends up not paying because of the pirated version then the pirates have harmed the developer.

It's not him being silly, it's you making an argument you weren't prepared to stick up for and expected folks not to notice.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[kiddygrinder]

they are proposing a parking ticket style system, they're going to fine you (from the wording it looks like it will be a reasonable amount, there's no real indication but it *feels* like $150-$200) and threaten legal action if you don't pay. combined with the lack of DRM it really does seem quite fair.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

You're not harming the game developer, you're harming all of us, by removing future game developement efforts.

So, if someone decides not to buy a product, and them not buying it makes the game developer go out of business, they are harming everyone?

Or how about people who tell others not to buy a product because they believe it is of poor quality (and in this example, they ultimately decide not to)? Have they harmed everyone as well? Should we rid ourselves of certain speech and consumer choice because it might make someone go out of business even though they aren't hurting anyone?

As I said before:

Don't you think the system is broken when people who logically do no harm to anyone are blamed simply because they decided not to give someone their money (an action which doesn't really harm anyone)? Don't you think the system is broken when artists are encouraged to introduce artificial scarcity on products that would otherwise be in an unlimited quantity just to make a profit so that they can continue participating in said system? That's what needs to be fixed, not piracy.

If artists have to intentionally harm people who do no harm to them or go out of business for not doing so, that is a flaw in a broken system.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[FlyHelicopters]

Maybe it is broken, but unless you have a bright idea to change it, then it is the system we have to live with.

The question becomes, do you want to play a new game next year? In 5 years? Someone has to pay for them, they won't make themselves.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

It's still copyright infringement.

Currently, yes. But merely infringing on copyright doesn't hurt anyone due to the fact that it doesn't deprive anyone of anything.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Sancho]

It's the best system anyone has been able to implement.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

Actually that's the natural extension to your argument. In order for there to be no damages to the developer, 100% of those pirates must have been completely unwilling to buy the software, if even one of the individuals would have paid but ends up not paying because of the pirated version then the pirates have harmed the developer.

No, it's really not. Not giving someone your money doesn't hurt them because that doesn't deprive anyone of anything that they previously owned. They never had the money in the first place.

I'm going to quote my previous examples:

Suppose someone decides not to buy a product from a store. Would the store have had more money if they did? Yes. Using the logic of those who utilize the potential profit argument, this would mean that they have 'stolen' potential profit from the store, and have therefore 'harmed' a legitimate business.

Suppose that someone tells all of their friends who were originally going to buy a product not to buy it. They ultimately decide not to buy it. Would the store have had more money if the person hadn't told their friends not to buy the product (or if the friends had given them their money anyway)? Yes. Using the same logic above, it can be concluded, then, that the business was 'hurt'. This is an example similar to piracy because many argue that piracy affects sales, but so does this.

As I said, if artists who live in a certain system are forced to harm innocents in order to make a profit off of them so that they can continue doing what they love, the blame should not be put on the innocents (as they aren't doing any harm), but the system itself.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[headLITE]

Since pirates aren't actually taking the product itself and are merely copying data, how are the artists being hurt, exactly?

Since perverts aren't actually screwing you yourself and are merely distributing photographs that show you naked, how are you being hurt, exactly?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[kiddygrinder]

saying that the artists are not hurt by people illegally copying their work is just wrong, i know people who both buy and pirate games who will pirate a game if it's available and just buy it if it's not (too annoying to pirate, such as WoW or SC2)

the only scenario where it doesn't hurt them is when you would absolutely not buy something but copy it instead. there is no way that %100 of the people who copy the game are in this category.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Kireas]

Well technically this isn't true. Digital media has VERY LITTLE reproduction cost, insofar that it's negligible on a small scale, but I wouldn't say it has infinite supply. Take Steam, for example. They have a pay a LOT of money for hosting servers and bandwidth (and boy do they use a lot of bandwidth). Not to mention the power costs.
And I've been whizzing through all of your comments, and I can sum them up thus:

• The current 'system' (which you haven't defined), is somehow broken, causing the need for piracy.
• The act of piracy doesn't directly hurt anyone.
• A pirate is the same as someone who doesn't give a developer money anyway.
• Digital media is comparatively cheap to reproduce, so why limit it?

So, in order. To which system are you referring, copyright, or as you seem to be, basic capitalism? The act of paying money for a good or service may have it's flaws, but it's sure as hell the best we have right now. There have been some alternatives tried, they didn't go too well.

Interesting that piracy doesn't apparently hurt anyone. I've long viewed piracy as a sort of trial run - you download a game, then if you decide you like it, you pay up. If not, you probably weren't going to buy it anyway, so nothing lost from either party. This is true that nothing is lost.
Now here's the kicker. What if that pirate then gives his friends free copies, saying "I know you were going to go buy it, but save your money". Now the business HAS lost revenue, there's no question about it - people who were going to buy the game now no longer have to. If you can debate out of that one without using flawed logic you can have an internet cookie.
The idea that 'piracy hurts noone' is flawed, it's only blameless on the very upper tiers of who does it and who it affects. If you start following the chain of events from piracy as a whole, it does do damage. Nowhere near as much as companies would have you believe it does on their own products, but on an INDUSTRY.

A pirate is most certainly not the same as someone who just doesn't buy it in a shop and deprives a shop of a sale. The key difference is the pirate now has no technical reason to even spend the money, as he now has a copy of something he didn't pay for. The non-buyer may still spend the money at a later date, as he doesn't have a copy. The pirate is no longer even a potential customer, and therefore does not deserve to be treated as such.

As best I can tell, your morals regarding people getting something for nothing vary slightly from a large number of people here. You replied to an example of people sneaking into a cinema being okay, provided it wasn't a full house. I'd say that purely from a moral standpoint, that's wrong. It's your opinion however.

I covered digital media up top there, but artificially limiting supply of things is actually a long standing business tactic. Messing with this limiting will reduce market value. It's only possible to mess with the system with digital products, but another real world example is diamonds - they have controlled distribution, thus keeping the prices high.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

Maybe it is broken, but unless you have a bright idea to change it, then it is the system we have to live with.

I didn't say otherwise. However, that does not make the act of blaming innocents for the shortcomings of said system any less illogical or 'wrong'.

The question becomes, do you want to play a new game next year? In 5 years? Someone has to pay for them, they won't make themselves.

This is a more appropriate question. Yes, if pirates want to play future games, they should pay for the product. I do not disagree with that statement. If they don't, they're only harming themselves.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

I don't know, how are they hurting you? I'm not sure how that hurts a person, but if it doesn't, then I don't see the harm.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Sancho]

Ah, I guess I was hung up on the traditional meaning of the term (spoofing at the network layer) rather than essentially poisoning the tracker with a bad proxy address.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

saying that the artists are not hurt by people illegally copying their work is just wrong

So, I suppose you didn't read my comment? At all? Why is it wrong? How does it hurt them? In order for it to hurt them, they must be deprived of something. If you say that they're being 'hurt' because they aren't being given money, well, that was money that they never had. Not to mention that you should read my above examples.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

GGP: Make sympathy your weapon. Most people don't worry about pirating shit because they assume that the game companies profit in the hundreds of millions for their games. Since this is not true in your case, if you try and reach out to the fans, I'm sure that they will want to support you.

Albeit, this isn't perfect, but many services run off of donations on the web. They solicit support in the same way that you can, but you have a high quality product. So, done well, you can get a good reaction.

Think, for example, why the world of goo was able to obtain some success. It's not just the novelty of their model, but because they were able to reach out to the community and make people care. People could care less if Jake Smith suffers. However, they'll start singing a different tune if they see Jake Smith as their friend/ally/mentor/idol/etc.

If your situation allows, publishing your balance sheets with a detailed outline of your expenses would go a long way, coupled with a good reputation amongst the players of your game and awareness of the issue.

GP: The GGP is upset that people are BOTH playing the game AND not paying for it. Sure, there is no direct harm, but the greedy consumer IS causing harm.

P: This is true. We will have to move to a publically funded development model (it's been tried, but what were the results again?).

Either that, or we properly enforce copyright. This is, after all, the EXACT REASON that copyright exists.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Mrdzone]

You keep saying it does no damage to anyone when it's proven that is does do damage to them.

If I wanted to play a game, and that game is selling for $60 but instead I pirate that game, I have DEPRIVED (HARMED) the developer of that game.

What about that don't you understand?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Freyar]

"Potential profit," then? For one thing, in order for it to explicitly hurt them, something that they previously owned must be taken from them.

Is time and research not valuable commodities? That is effectively what a lot of development is, time and research. They owned their time with the intent to sell off the fruits of their labor (say for example working in a field) for the price that would be set. Instead, people that pirate the game steal the time and effort put into the development as well as the publisher's return on investment and distribution costs.

You used the generalization that making a physical good is the same as making a piece of IP. Not the case. Physical goods require materials to be handed over to someone at the time of sale, while for IP it's handing over the representation of all that time and effort put into the creation of that work.

A lot of people that say "it doesn't hurt anyone" seem to firmly believe that the "P" word is completely evil. Profit is not evil, profit is what encourages further investments into future projects. Profit is what makes the next game of the series. Profit is what keeps people interested in development, just like profit keeps people interested in making cars, computers and aircraft.

Sure not every stolen copy (yes, I said stolen) is a lost sale, but the representation of the work is now effectively inside the pirate's head and cannot be removed. Simply put, games are a part of media. Publishers don't care if you steal the DVD, they care if you experience the game, movie, e-book, etc. without paying the fee asked to experience the medium.

Why should you get to experience a movie if you don't pay for it? Because you don't take away physical materials from someone by effectively copying that piece of intellectual property? The cost of development is front-loaded on the hopes that there are sales expected to be made.

Various piracy justifications keep falling flat on their face. Do every gamer a favor, buy your games or go do something else, something a little less expensive.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Mrdzone]

It deprives them of the right to control the distribution of their intellectual property no?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Freyar]

Learn some economics before you start with the "hurts no one" crap.

Since pirates aren't actually taking the product itself and are merely copying data, how are the artists being hurt, exactly? They (or anyone else) aren't being deprived of the product itself.

Put simply, it devalues the work that they put in to the game. Less money coming in per man-hour means the value of those man-hours drop. They are being deprived of their time and effort because those that would prefer to steal copies of the game continue to think that because there is no physical good being moved that there is no loss.

Don't you think the system is broken when people who logically do no harm to anyone are blamed simply because they decided not to give someone their money (an action which doesn't really harm anyone)?

Strawman. People do harm when they steal a good or service yes? Is development not a good or service? Even then your question is completely loaded in order to ignore what is actually being sold as part of a software license.

Don't you think the system is broken when artists are encouraged to introduce artificial scarcity on products that would otherwise be in an unlimited quantity just to make a profit so that they can continue participating in said system? That's what needs to be fixed, not piracy.

Artificial Scarcity? You're talking about region locking? Well good news, boys and girls. GOG's version of The Witcher is supposedly not region locked. It's open world-wide. Outside of that, could you be more specific maybe?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[sammyF70]

Do you work? If so, do you produce anything tangible? If you are not producing anything tangible, why should your boss pay you?
If you're not working and are still going to school, college, university or whatever your local equivalent is, then think about it in terms of whoever pays for all your nifty toys.

I am all against the *AA's and major studios business practices, which involves treating even honest customers as if they were criminals and creating some mindboggingly stupid virtual scarcity (seen as late as yesterday on a Walt Disney DVD : "Pinochio - The DVD/BR Edition. Only available for a short time" ... WTF? Do the trees on which the DVD grows die out?), but refuting that there is actual WORK involved in creating any form of art or entertainment and that it should be rewarded is just as mindboggingly stupid and dishonest.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[lexidation]

cheekyjohnson, are you crazy? Christ man, you're not just "copying data". That's just an inane rationalization. The data you're copying IS the game. It's simple economics. If enough people get it for free, the game maker makes no money. That's all people are trying to point out to you here.

Yes, the system is broken. On slashdot, you're not going to find many people arguing against you on that front. But until the system is fixed, the fact is that the game maker will be out of business if everyone copies his "data". Even an idealist occasionally needs to get a grip on reality.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[sammyF70]

the problem here is :

Don't ask for too much for the value you're offering, produce a good game

.

This is so incredibly subjective that even games with generally good ratings, sold for .99c on mobile markets receive comments about being "just 2 hours long! Too short" and "too expensive!".

On the PC market, people won't generally finish a game, but complain when they don't get 100+ hours of gameplay, even when the game is sold at a competitive price (let's say 30 US$ or less).

And whether a game is good or not (whatever defines THAT) is somehow rarely a measure about how well it will do. Timing and marketing are what matters (yes, I honestly believe that people, as a mass, are sheeps ... blame the years I spent in marketing for it)

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cheer. It sounds fair.
DRM = bad for us.
Pirating = bad for them.
No DRM, no pirating.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

I really agree with you that the system is broken, but I think there is another issue with downloading: Incentive.

When it comes to physical products, like a TV, you either pay for it and own it or you don't pay and you do not have it. There is an incentive to pay, because that's the only way to acquire the product (assuming you are not a thief and won't steal it).

With games, music and movies, if people could download for free then there is no incentive to buy the product. It has nothing to do with limited or unlimited supply, it's just that whoever worked to make the product needs money (otherwise they stop making games/music/movies) and if the only way to acquire the product is to pay for it then they have an incentive.

It's easy to say "I would not have bought it anyway" but 1) That's not always the case, 2) Sometimes there are games you think you'll never buy and one day you suddenly change your mind (happens to me sometimes) and 3) If people bother to download, crack and play a game, it's actually likely they would have paid for it.

I just don't understand this attitude of entitlement some pirates have. Artists make games, music and movies and somehow just because it costs nothing to copy some people believe they are entitled to these works. I don't get that.

Now, I have to agree that the system is broken for many reasons, such as:
- Digital products don't obey the law of supply and demand, therefore they're not entirely compatible with our economic system
- Digital products don't base their price on production cost. When a computer becomes cheaper to manufacture, prices drop. When it became possible to sell media through the web (download) instead of recording it on CDs that you need to ship to stores (cost of gas), prices did not change accordingly.
- Companies should go against uploaders, not downloaders.

The solution?
Either a mass boycott of games until companies really make good games that are worth the money instead of copying Call of Duty Modern Warfare and calling it "Modern Warfare 2" or "Medal of Honor". Or, media should be free but artists should be rewarded with donations.
In any case, things would change faster if people stopped acquiring music/movies/games instead of pirating. Pirating allows the companies to use the "They want it for free" excuse. If there was a boycott, companies would not have that argument and would be forced to fix the issues raised by people who don't buy their stuff.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

...and illegally obtaining said works deprives them of money.

Complete breakdown of logic. Your argument makes a blatant and completely false assumption that those downloading would otherwise purchase the digital content in question. You cannot argue lost revenue by content creators without evidence each downloader would have purchased the item if it was not available for free. It has been shown time and time again that this is a straw man argument yet you folks can't seem to help beating that so mutilated of dead horses.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[sonicmerlin]

The few studies that have been done on pirating have found little to no negative effect on game sales. There's a reason the most popular games also happen to be the most pirated ones. A lot of people don't have thousands of dollars to divert solely to games, and by keeping up on the games they *want* to play they remain engaged in the industry and encouraged to buy games later on, when they *do* have capital to spend. Otherwise they'll simply resort to cheaper alternatives, and the games industry will get nothing.

I think the perfect example of this phenomenon is the PS3 vs. Xbox 360, Wii, and NDS. The latter two have been pirated for years while the PS3 was foolproof, but the sales of the 360 have trumped the PS3, while the DS has swamped the other two combined. The DS is on its way to break the record for hardware and software units sold *ever* for a standalone gaming unit (maybe it has already?). The Wii has demolished its competition. Arguing that pirates have harmed Nintendo's sales is just greedy, myopic, and ridiculously short-sighted.

tl;dr: Piracy doesn't hurt anyone. Nintendo's whalloping its competition. Not everyone's super rich.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[DurendalMac]

So it's perfectly okay to take, take, take, and give nothing in return? If you want to justify this, then make something worthwhile yourself and give it away instead of pirating what other people have done and justifying your own selfishness by whining that the system is broken.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[sonicmerlin]

The few studies that have been done on pirating have found little to no negative effect on game sales. There's a reason the most popular games also happen to be the most pirated ones. A lot of people don't have thousands of dollars to divert solely to games, and by keeping up on the games they *want* to play they remain engaged in the industry and encouraged to buy games later on, when they *do* have capital to spend. Otherwise they'll simply resort to cheaper alternatives, and the games industry will get nothing.

I think the perfect example of this phenomenon is the PS3 vs. Xbox 360, Wii, and NDS. The latter two have been pirated for years while the PS3 was foolproof, but the sales of the 360 have trumped the PS3, while the DS has swamped the other two combined. The DS is on its way to break the record for hardware and software units sold *ever* for a standalone gaming unit (maybe it has already?). The Wii has demolished its competition. Arguing that pirates have harmed Nintendo's sales is just greedy, myopic, and ridiculously short-sighted.

tl;dr: Piracy doesn't hurt anyone. Nintendo's whalloping its competition. Not everyone's super rich.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Score Whore]

I'd just recommend -- before you make another dozen posts setting forth the same arguments and putting words in my mouth -- that you do research on the free rider problem. There is copious amounts of scholarly material on the topic. Once you understand why it's a "problem", then you'll understand my point clearly. However the issue here seems to be that you have no interest in seeing any viewpoint that results in you not getting free shit.

Even if you choose to skip over free riders, there is still a strong case that a pirate getting the benefit of other people's labor without paying is a bad thing. Whether you agree or not, the developed world does have a concept of copyright and it is intended to allow those who can create works to be able to receive a compensation that is acceptable to both the creator and the consumer. If you believe in the rule of law instead of the rule of you having a higher standard of living than you've earned, then piracy is a problem.

Additionally, the scarcity of software isn't artificial. In order for it to be artificial there would need to be a naturally occurring source of software. We'd be able to go out into our back yard and sift through the piles of thumb drives that fell from the trees during the night and find ourselves awash in word processors, spreadsheets, flight simulators, shooters, puzzle games, blockbuster movies, porn, popular music, symphonies, etc. Alas we don't have such luck, we got stuck in a world where it really does take a significant amount of labor and expense to create and support a piece of software. The marginal cost of the n+1th copy of the program is irrelevant. Which actually brings us right back around to the free rider issue. There's always some twat who figures that the other five hundred thousand people who use the software will pay so their one act of piracy doesn't matter. The problem is that a non-trivial number of that five hundred thousand thinks the same thing.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[quadrox]

While I agree with the sentiment of your statements, your arguments seem to be self contradictory and bogus. First you yourself state that IP != physical goods, then you proceed to use the word "stolen".

For me, the only relevant and correct part of your argument is this:

A lot of people that say "it doesn't hurt anyone" seem to firmly believe that the "P" word is completely evil. Profit is not evil, profit is what encourages further investments into future projects. Profit is what makes the next game of the series. Profit is what keeps people interested in development, just like profit keeps people interested in making cars, computers and aircraft.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, DRMing the games causes problems for me, the legit user, while anti-piracy suits do not.

Yes, because if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about. Legal threats are never made toward innocents - didn't we just see a story about that yesterday?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[SilentSandman]

I try to avoid this subject, and unfortunately, I'm not always successful in that goal.

I'd like to offer you my perspective as an actual, real, game developer. Not some imagined or particularly convenient for your opinion one, a real one.

I disagree.

Some of what you say is correct, but just because those things are correct, does not mean you can make some wild leap into entirely unrelated contexts and base your reasoning on the previous thing.

Piracy is not theft.
WHEN someone downloads a copy of the games I create, it costs me absolutely nothing. -NOT ONE CENT-. I don't care if they enjoy the game, or thing it's the worst thing to have been created since the wheel. Those people are completely, and utterly irrelevant. The ONLY people who matter, are my customers. I create a product that they enjoy, and they pay me for that service.

I will not spend money paying tha 'mafiaa' thugs to bankrupt some sap because he didn't have the cash to pay me. I won't waste my time, money and effort trying to 'punish' or 'disrupt' the imagined boogey-man. I put every cent I have, and every moment of my development time -exactly where it's needed-, improving the product, and making the next product FOR MY CUSTOMERS.

If people don't want to pay me, that's their business. They haven't 'stolen' from me. "Potential profit" IS NOT PROFIT.

Because I spend my time and effort on making products that people want, they buy them. Occasionally I even get the "big bad evil pirates" buy my products. Not because I punished them (and my customers with them) but because they liked what I had to sell, and knew that paying me for it means I can make more.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Games should be released DRM free, publishers should be free to utilize what means have been approved to protect their work. At least that's how it would work in my perfect world....

While I agree with the sentiment, are these guys magically better at correctly suing actual pirates than the RIAA and MPAA or are we expecting the same shit all over again?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Rallion]

Does this mean that you would be okay with somebody spreading lies about you that prevent you from ever getting hired again? After all, they would only be depriving you of "potential profit," which, according to your argument, does not hurt you.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[quadrox]

At first I was very annoyed with your statements. While I could see the logic in them, it seemed you were being completely unreasonable about it. I can see here that you are actually not unreasonable, but only because you finally filled in the missing pieces.

In the future, if you want to shorten the discussion, I would recommend that you show all of your thoughts on the matter, instead of focusing on the specific bit you think is wrong.

I hoope you understand what I'm trying to say.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[redherring728]

Whether you agree with cheekyjohnson's post or not (I agree with part of it, but not all), I fail to see why this has been marked as Troll. Disagreeing with a moderator is not the same thing as trolling. Not even if you're a Neo-Nazi.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[badboy_tw2002]

I've seen about 8 posts from you in this discussion talking about fixing the system. What system are you talking about? Distribution system? Capitalism? The system where devs get paid by some altruistic fairy godmother to make the games you want to play? I am a game dev and I don't particularly think the system is broken, per se. What I do see is a lot of missed opportunities in the way things are priced and distributed, especially online. When you're talking physical goods you're talking about a minimum price to put something in a box and ship it all over the place, and then there's the first party cuts if its a console product. Digital goods have lower and lower margins all the time (the gigabytes and servers add up after a while, but the margins are smaller). It seems like there needs to be a much bigger variation in pricing. I tend to get a lot of free copies of games so I play a lot without paying in a lot, but there's a lot of times I've got a game where I'm think to myself "no way would I pay $60 for this, but $20 would be a no brainer impulse buy". The other thing is that I can pretty much get any book instantly from Amazon the second its released by paying 10 bucks and putting it on an ereader, yet to get a downloadable copy of a new AAA title on my 360 I have to have it shipped to my house. I can get old titles in an arguably superior and more convenient format by downloading them from Xbox live, but I can't get the new ones. Stupid.

So yeah, I think there needs to be a much better model for distribution and pricing, that "system" seem broken. But if you're suggesting that some how myself and my other deluded brethren in the game industry somehow support ourselves and have families based on magic fairy dust and good will from our fans, then you're just deluding yourself. I don't particularly care that you pirate a game, as more and more titles are just going to shift to online and it won't be possible to do much without some serious effort by cracker teams to reengineer backend online services. I think the guys in this article are deluding themselves in that they're going to feed anyone else but the lawyers involved in the case with the money they recoup from piraters. DRM will continue, pirating will continue, and games will continue to be made, don't listen to any naysayers. But think about throwing us guys in the coal mine a bone every once in a while. Otherwise you're just a selfish prick, no matter how you justify it.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Rallion]

Your claim is that any system built on artificial scarcity is inherently broken (although this only because you are following your own moral code, which nobody else seems to agree with).

There IS no alternative, logically, unless you consider something along the lines of selling merchandise. Your argument considers any system that sells an unlimited-supply item to be broken, all data is unlimited, so any system that sells data is broken. This includes video games, all written language, music, movies, and to an extent all visual art.

So, even though there is no alternative possible, you somehow cling to a sense of moral superiority while you claim, in essence, that a creator is not entitled to be rewarded for their work if it has no physical form. Certainly, you don't use those words, but that is the logical conclusion to your reasoning.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[gregrah]

I think that by framing the argument in the context of a single person pirating a single work, you are taking too narrow a viewpoint. Copyright laws were created by society to stimulate innovation. What would be the overall effect if copyright laws did not exist - if *everyone* were able copy and resell any book, newspaper, song, movie, TV show, or software title that they wanted? Would we see a decline in the number and quality of "artists" producing new works?

By disobeying copyright law, you are contributing to the destruction of that system, which is the moral equivalent of saying "I would prefer to live in a world without copyright law". However, by downloading and consuming copyrighted works, you are also implicitly acknowledging that the copyright system produces something of value to you. How do you personally resolve these conflicting viewpoints when illegally downloading copyrighted material?

You said:

Whether the pirate has the product or not is irrelevant.

But I disagree. The person who says "I don't see sufficient value in that product", and doesn't buy it, has taken a very clear moral stance. On the other hand, the person who says "I don't see sufficient value in that product" - and steals it - that person has some explaining to do.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[hairyfeet]

Actually I'd say it WAS the best system anyone could come up with, now it is shit. Case in point: Abandonware. There should be NO REASON why I can't take games that are no longer being sold, no longer run on modern systems, and package them into a "DOSBox...in a box" style app that lets you run them from a CD. But thanks to the legal minefield we have now you would be lucky if the first PDP apps are now public domain, and by the time anything of the past 30 years enters PD it will be soooo damned old nobody will be able to even find a copy or the machine that can run it.

And THAT to me gets to the heart of the problem. Copyrights are a contract between We, The People, and the copyright holders. In return for a LIMITED monopoly We, The People are supposed to get a richer PD. Instead we have them stealing things OUT of PD, and by the time anything ends up in PD it has been out of circulation so long good luck finding a copy or the machine to run it. Look at how many films have been lost because some short sighted studio couldn't think of a way to "Monitize" it, or how many games from the 80s are most likely gone for good.

To me THAT is what the real problem is. For every "I have a dream" you have a thousand other broadcasts that people might enjoy that will simply be lost forever, for every DOOM the same. I would argue that if we want a functional system than 10 years for copyrights, with one year extensions after that with a raising price upon each extension. If you don't pay you get 90 days notice then it is PD for good. That way if you are still able to make money on it fine, pay for the extensions. But at the same time it would keep the Disneys of the world from hitting the snooze alarm on copyright time limits by treasonous bribery while raising revenue and keeping so much of our history locked behind paywalls. This to me would be a fair and equitable trade and much better than out current system.

Slashdot wants an alternative? Hairyfeet just gave ya one.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[bumby]

Perhaps it is a good thing that the game makers whos business model is based on a pre-digital/pre-internet era goes out of business. Obviously people doesn't value them very highly if they need to legislate their rights for sales.

Perhaps the problem lies in charging $50-$100 for a game full of artificial restrictions. I personaly haven't bought games in years, until i found gog.com who sells drm free games for $6 and $10 and no more (some they even give away for free). I've happily payed for a couple of games there, not so much to play the game as to support a company which I believe is doing a good thing - selling drm free games to a reasonable price.

If it's simple economics that if enough people get something for free, someone has to be hurt, then perhaps it is time to overlook the values of these economics.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[GauteL]

"Don't you think that it's a shortcoming of a broken system if people can no longer do what they enjoy without attempting to harm people who have done nothing to them or harmed them in any way?"

What?? "Do what they enjoy". Is that what you think is what drives the big game releases?

As a software developer, I can say I enjoy some parts of the development process, but I would never, ever spend 8 hours per day on it if I didn't get paid for it. Since even us developer geeks tend to have families and responsibilities, I believe I can say with pretty good certainty that this attitude is matched by most software developers. A couple of hours a week on hobby projects is the most you'd get out of the bulk of developers without payment.

I used to think a bit like you (although not as extremely) but I've come to realise that proposing to tear down a system for which you have no alternative is both immature and irresponsible.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[badboy_tw2002]

They haven't announced a demo yet, but that doesn't mean there won't be one (first one had one). Lots of games have demos, and I can tell you probably one of the main reasons the demo's aren't produced is the cost and time taken to produce them. Putting out a demo is a good deal of work, and often has to occur well before the game is polished and ready to go, meaning that you have to prematurely crunch to get the demo out prior to even getting close to ship. That said, many many many games still have demos. I can browse xbox live right now and download a hundred of them if I want.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[giuseppemag]

You don't read too, apparently. IT DEPRIVES THEM OF THE VALUE OF THEIR TIME.

When I play a game, read a book or watch a movie, my existence gets a tad richer. I experience alternate worlds and interesting personal tales (to a degree) and this is something very valuable. Producing a coherent world is a very costly enterprise, one that requires lots of time and effort and talent. Generalize your dumb argument and imagine that nobody pays for ANY of these goods. Then NOBODY will produce them anymore because their value goes to zero, apart from amateur productions with unbalanced storylines and awful art and effects. Really, is this so hard to understand?

On a side note, your dumb argument implies that doctors should work for free (well, if you don't pay the doctor you aren't really stealing from you, are you?), architects too, engineers, software developers, teachers, etc. Really?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnsun]

I think that by framing the argument in the context of a single person pirating a single work, you are taking too narrow a viewpoint.

Uh, no, I didn't. If a bunch of people who do something that in reality deprives no one of anything are looked upon as criminals simply because an artist might not receive enough money (and therefore not be able to do what they love any longer), then that sounds like the failing of a broken system, not of random people who are doing something that hurts no one.

Copyright laws were created by society to stimulate innovation.

They were created to be used in a system which was broken to begin with.

Would we see a decline in the number and quality of "artists" producing new works?

If everyone stopped buying products (or even a majority of people, leaving the minority 'damaged'), would we see a decline in those types of products? Again, this seems to be a failing of the current system.

The person who says "I don't see sufficient value in that product", and doesn't buy it, has taken a very clear moral stance.

Upon taking that stance, according to the potential profit argument, they have 'hurt' the artist because if they would have bought the product, the artist would have been better off, and therefore would likely have been able to produce more content.

and steals it

You and others keep saying this, and it's wearing thin. You have never once explained what exactly is being stolen. Not the media itself, as they merely copied that. They never had the money in the first place, so it's obviously not that. What is being stolen?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have a job? How happy would you be if your company decided at the end of the month it wasn't going to give you your "potential pay"?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnsun]

They have a pay a LOT of money for hosting servers and bandwidth (and boy do they use a lot of bandwidth). Not to mention the power costs.

Obviously I was saying that as long as you had enough space and power, digital media is in infinite supply. It can be copied infinitely.

So, in order. To which system are you referring, copyright, or as you seem to be, basic capitalism?

Capitalism is what is failing us (not just in this way either, many others). It is not sustainable.

but it's sure as hell the best we have right now.

Even as that may be, that doesn't mean it's logical to say that pirates are hurting anyone just because we're currently stuck in this system.

Now the business HAS lost revenue, there's no question about it - people who were going to buy the game now no longer have to.

They haven't lost anything. How could they lose money that they didn't originally have? Example: someone tells all of their friends who were originally going to buy a product not to buy it, and they ultimately decide not to. If they hadn't told their friends not to buy the product, they would have bought it. Therefore, according to your logic, the business has lost revenue that it would have had otherwise. A legitimate business has been 'harmed'.

A pirate is most certainly not the same as someone who just doesn't buy it in a shop and deprives a shop of a sale.

No, not exactly. They're more like someone who tells others not to buy a product for whatever reason.

The pirate is no longer even a potential customer, and therefore does not deserve to be treated as such.

So, the business has lost potential profit (which doesn't exist)? Even so, this argument assumes that potential profit can be stolen, but it really can't.

As best I can tell, your morals regarding people getting something for nothing vary slightly from a large number of people here.

Too many people. I can barely keep track of all the replies.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[91degrees]

Depends on the level of fine. If they charge retail cost of game + 50% or so then - well that's the risk you take when pirating. I'll have a hard time feeling sympathy.

I do have issues with it being called a "fine" though. Private companies do not have the right to levy a fine.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnsun]

I have DEPRIVED (HARMED) the developer of that game.

Uh, no, you didn't. You copied the game (as in, you created an extra copy of the game that didn't exist before whilst depriving the developer of nothing). The developer wasn't deprived of the game, he was deprived of nothing.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[gregrah]

I wonder what percentage of your customers who are paying for your games are doing so because they actually want to support you. And what percentage are paying for your games because copyright laws and enforcement thereof, though badly broken, are still effective enough to make buying a legal copy of the game worth their while.

For example, let's say that copyright laws didn't exist. And whenever you release a new game, I make an exact copy of your game including all of the CD art, instruction manuals, and other packaging, and sell it to retail stores for a fraction of the price that you are charging. Since copyright laws don't exist, the stores are free to sell my version of the game without fear of legal punishment, and buyers are free to buy it. For customers who don't care to own the CD or the box, I'll throw it up on my website, guaranteed to install without a hitch and virus free, for 99 cents a download.

Do you think that in a world like this you would still have a job writing videogames? Could such a world produce big name titles like Halo, Grand Theft Auto, etc.?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anarchduke]

Well how about you don't expect to be able to get stuff when you don't have the money. I would love to have a copy of Call of Duty: Black Ops right now. But I can't afford it. So, should I whine about how I should be allowed to pirate the game just because I want it?

Hell no. What I am going to do is save up my money until I have enough extra to buy a copy for myself. The problem with people nowdays is that they are whiny little bitches who cry, "I want, I want, I want."

I get tired of their shit.

GO EARN IT

Sincerely,
Get the hell off my lawn...

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnsun]

I ask again, how does that hurt them? If I wished to control all of the money in the world, does it hurt me if I can't (well, it might hurt my ego, but that's it). Merely losing the right to distribute your digital media does not alone financially harm you.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnsun]

Less money coming in per man-hour means the value of those man-hours drop.

So, people shouldn't be allowed to choose whether to buy the game or not because if they don't it would deprive the game developers of money? Or to inform people of bad products because it might deprive the developer of money?

Strawman. People do harm when they steal a good or service yes? Is development not a good or service?

That isn't a straw man. I was pointing out how illogical a certain argument is and how other arguments indirectly point to that illogical argument. Development is a service, but not one that the pirates asked the developers to employ. If you, for instance, ask someone to build a house and then don't pay them, you have wasted their time. Pirates use their own time and resources to copy the data. Time was used to make the original, yes, but again, if you expect them to be compensated for something that the pirate didn't even ask for, and since merely copying data doesn't deprive anyone of anything, you're basically saying that everyone should buy the product because the developers put time into it.

Outside of that, could you be more specific maybe?

I'm referring to the act of trying to limit the amount of copies of digital media that exist to only those who pay for it, even though it can be copied infinitely as long as you have the space to do it. Hence, artificial scarcity.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm currently in university and I'll likely be making more than enough money in a few years to buy up all the stuff I've pirated - and I will. I *do* want to support content creators, but I also can't afford to pay X amount of money for a game or movie that turns out to be shit. Demos aren't enough for me, either. I usually determine the true value of a game by how much it engages me over how long. If I bought a single-player only game that was only worth about 10 hours, that's not worth my money. (If it were an indie, that would be a different case.) If I bought a single player game that engaged me for hundreds of hours, I would probably buy it as well as a few copies for my friends.

When I have the money, that is.

(Posting AC for obvious reasons.)

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Richard_at_work]

Likewise, the blame also shouldn't be put on people who do things that harm no one (as explained above).

The problem with your premise is that this action can certainly do harm if it is not prevented.

If this game were to be pirated 5% of the time (random figure pulled out of my arse, but I really think its on the low side), and no action were taken against that act, what proportion of the 95% who spent $45 on the game would think 'hey, those guys are getting the same game as me but for free, and theres nothing being done about it - why am I spending my money?'

When the next game is released under the same conditions (no DRM, packaged as a downloadable purchase that has no restrictions), how many of that 95% are going to remember that there were no consequences for those choosing not to pay for the game, and instead torrent it themselves this time round?

This isn't friends telling friends not to purchase, this is about the wrong actions having no consequence and the public seeing that. That is where the harm comes in.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[SilentSandman]

Curious. There is a significant difference between someone who downloads my products to play them, and someone who copies my product in order to make a profit off my work.

The first makes no appreciable difference to me, with the -possible- gain that I might one day get customers from within that group of people.
The second directly challenges what little money I -do- make, by allowing a third party who has done and added nothing of value, to take a share of the profits from -my- work.

Honestly, no I don't think that big business products would be created in such a situation, but it's a false comparison.

For the record, I would consider the second of those options to be theft.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnsun]

Do you work? If so, do you produce anything tangible? If you are not producing anything tangible, why should your boss pay you?

My boss should pay me because he specifically requested that I employ my services, thereby directly wasting my time. Pirates use their own time and resources to copy the data.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about:

Stop making non-commercial piracy have such goddamned huge fines..

Millions saved every year in court costs, the dockets are freed up, and some of the people doing the real harm (people selling pirated media for profit) are still against the law. Best of all, all of the lawyers who make a shit-ton of money on these dirty letters lose a massive stream of revenue.

7-14 years for copyright might have been fine when the laws were written originally but nowadays at the pace media comes out that's practically forever. At that rate, the first Harry Potter book would be available for free June 30th of 2011.

1-2 years of protection on the original item (in regards to personal use, and the original 7-14 years for commercial use) and a 3x the lowest retail price (in brand new condition) fixed fine per infringement. (Lowest retail price to keep the companies from making online stores that sell books for $50,000 each or something.) Standardize a system by which notices are given out and have a way to contest it (much like traffic court).

Piracy is going to happen anyway; it can't be stopped. It can't be legislated away nor can it be fully curbed without massively infringing on the rights of the people. The best thing to do is to come up with a reasonable compromise.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

I really agree with you that the system is broken, but I think there is another issue with downloading: Incentive.

Incentive is irrelevant when you consider the fact that pirates aren't actually taking anything. This is akin to extorting innocent people in order to turn a profit.

Pirating allows the companies to use the "They want it for free" excuse. If there was a boycott, companies would not have that argument and would be forced to fix the issues raised by people who don't buy their stuff.

I do agree with the boycott of the system, but really, there is almost no way to tell who is a pirate and who is not. I mean, sure, you'll be able to look at the amount of seeds that a torrent has, but that's about it. There are far too many websites and places on the internet to tell how many people pirate.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

So it's perfectly okay to take, take, take, and give nothing in return?

I said nothing about taking, just copying.

justifying your own selfishness

Selfish how? Selfish because I didn't reward someone with my money? Is it selfish to not buy a product? Is it selfish to tell others not to buy a product because of poor quality? In both those examples, the artists lose out on profit that they could, potentially, have had.

whining that the system is broken.

You don't agree that the need to extort innocents in order to turn a profit is broken?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[sammyF70]

yeah, but I'm guessing you did apply for the job, so you actually WANTED to work. And it's your decision to keep on working. Similarly, your boss is using his own time and resources to make money off the work you did ... so why should he pay you?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Gordonjcp]

Yes. Using the logic of those who utilize the potential profit argument, this would mean that they have 'stolen' potential profit from the store

Using your logic, you should do all your work for free. Nothing has been taken from you, so why do you expect to be paid?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

I'd just recommend -- before you make another dozen posts setting forth the same arguments

I'm sorry, but I can't exactly avoid using the same arguments if everyone else is using the same arguments.

and putting words in my mouth

Where did I do that?

that you do research on the free rider problem.

I did, and it seems to be more of a problem with how the system was designed than a problem with pirates who deprive no one of anything.

If you believe in the rule of law instead of the rule of you having a higher standard of living than you've earned, then piracy is a problem.

Laws should only be followed if they make sense, not just because they are laws.

Additionally, the scarcity of software isn't artificial.

Individual software is. Once a software is made, it can be endlessly copied over and over. The scarcity you're referencing is that of people who make software, not software itself.

The fact that they put effort into the software doesn't mean that the pirate is harming them. Again, in order for them to be harmed, the pirate would need to take something from them. Nothing has been taken, and potential profit doesn't exist. If you think it does, then you're indirectly including people who either choose not to buy the software or people who tell others not to buy a product. Both of those people can affect how many copies of the product are purchased, similar to a pirate.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[delinear]

And looking at it from the other perspective, how happy would your employer be if you did one piece of work and told him you wanted to be paid for that same piece of work over and over again for your lifetime plus 70 years? The point is a lot of these file sharers wouldn't buy the product if they couldn't get it free. A good number might, a good number probably already do (apparently music filesharers actually buy more music than anyone else already, for instance), but lots wouldn't - therefore it's not hurting sales, which is where the "potential" part comes from. Going after those people for lost sales is pointless and self-defeating, it's like a restaurant suing the homeless for stealing food from their rubbish bins, claiming that if they're taking it for free, they could be buying it, therefore each one is a lost sale.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

Does this mean that you would be okay with somebody spreading lies about you that prevent you from ever getting hired again?

I would be somewhat disappointed at how stupid a majority of employers would have to be to believe mere gossip.

After all, they would only be depriving you of "potential profit," which, according to your argument, does not hurt you.

You're right. I never had the money to begin with, so they didn't directly hurt me. They might have hurt my reputation, but I'm sure I could just tell people they were lying.

I believe in freedom of speech, too.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[DarkIye]

On the other hand, the person who says "I don't see sufficient value in that product" - and steals it - that person has some explaining to do.

He already did:

"I don't see sufficient value in that product"

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Aceticon]

The government doesn't guarantee artists money. They guarantee them a chance by allowing the artist control over distribution of their work.

Perhaps the harm is to society as a whole, for if artists weren't given this control, a fairly large portion of our culture likely wouldn't exist.

Art existed long before copyright and continues to exist in places where copyright isn't really enforced: plenty of people have a compulsion to create, at the very least to scract their itch (look at open source).

Commercial distribution of art on the other hand is a product of copyright. When art and culture have to be recorded on a material media and physically distributed, it makes sense to provide a monetary incentive for those who would do the recording and distribution.

That said, physical distribution is not necessary anymore: nowadays it's all bits and bytes flowing through the intertubes and having a physical media item (like a CD) with a work of art is not the only option anymore - nowadays having the physical item is a luxury, not the rule.

While one could argue that Copyright might have given a boost to art production, one could also argue that:

• Said boost might have just brought more borderline quality works into the mainstream which would not otherwise have come out
• Much of our art and culture is based on that which came before. Copyright might very well have scuppered countless works of art from coming to be by disallowing "derivative works"

No study has proven that more works of art have been created thanks to Copyright: all that can be shown is that Copyright has boosted the distribution of art by creating an industry around it.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not everyone earns the money for the game they want the same month. And next month, a new game will be the one they want.

So, what happens next time they see a game from the same development studio?

If they respected the copyright previously, they'll think "Hmm, I wonder if this one is any good".

However, if they played a pirated copy, they'll think "I just looooved the last one, definitely going to get this one too".

Now, in one case, they didn't buy two games. Nothing was pirated, so no money was lost, right? In the other case, they pirated one game and bought the other. One pirated, one sale. How much money was lost?

Not trying to defend piracy here, I am a developer myself (though not a game developer, but I would like to be able to argue that I would be one if not for those pesky pirates - if I believed it, that is).

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnsun]

I wanted to not only work, but get paid. My boss specifically hired me not only so that I could work, but so that I could get paid. He and I both entered into an agreement that I would eventually be paid, and if he doesn't, then he has wasted my time with lies.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised Marx of all people couldn't see the flaw in his argument. Proudhon was saying individual ownership of property was theft from the communal pot - that anyone who takes something for his own personal use reduces a communal resource that formerly was available to all. Copyright is the very definition of this - society has agreed that some of what it owns should be relinquished in favour of the creator to enable them to earn a living, but companies that lobby for extended copyright are stealing that which used to belong to everyone (and unlike their arguments that filesharing is theft, this is demonstrably true).

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Rennt]

If you believe in the rule of law instead of the rule of you having a higher standard of living than you've earned, then piracy is a problem.

Piracy aside, would you mind expanding on that duality?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

What system are you talking about?

Capitalism. Sorry.

I am a game dev and I don't particularly think the system is broken, per se.

I just find it ridiculous how people are equating piracy to theft, when they really aren't the same.

Otherwise you're just a selfish prick, no matter how you justify it.

I'm sorry if I've come off as someone who thinks that it's a bad thing to buy media. That is simply not the case. I think it's a good thing to buy media and reward artists for their efforts, but I also think that equating piracy to the act of theft is just insane.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[mcvos]

I'd say it's fair. They release it without DRM, so presumably legitimate customers won't have to download any cracks in order to get it working on their system.

I'll probably reward this by buying it, although I still haven't finished the original Witcher yet. But by pure coincidence yesterday I decided to continue playing it again.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[gregrah]

I think that by framing the argument in the context of a single person pirating a single work, you are taking too narrow a viewpoint.

Uh, no, I didn't. If a bunch of people who do something that in reality deprives no one of anything are looked upon as criminals simply because an artist might not receive enough money (and therefore not be able to do what they love any longer), then that sounds like the failing of a broken system, not of random people who are doing something that hurts no one.

Umm, yeah you did, and you still are. I'm not talking about stealing or trying to defend the poor starving artists. I don't think that illegally downloading a song is "stealing" any more then failing to pay your taxes is "stealing". But there's a *reason* we have laws that force people to pay taxes, and I'm trying to get you to think about the *reason* society has created laws to that allow artists to charge money when people want to consume their creations.

Copyright laws were created by society to stimulate innovation.

They were created to be used in a system which was broken to begin with.

I don't really understand what you're getting at here. Care to elaborate why you think that your statement follows from mine?

The person who says "I don't see sufficient value in that product", and doesn't buy it, has taken a very clear moral stance.

Upon taking that stance, according to the potential profit argument, they have 'hurt' the artist because if they would have bought the product, the artist would have been better off, and therefore would likely have been able to produce more content.

First - I wasn't arguing the "potential profit" argument. Second - if an artist is producing shit content, then I am perfectly happy to let him go unrewarded.

and steals it

You and others keep saying this, and it's wearing thin. You have never once explained what exactly is being stolen. Not the media itself, as they merely copied that. They never had the money in the first place, so it's obviously not that. What is being stolen?

"and illegally downloads it". Does that wording make you happier?

So now I've responded to all of your points. But I see that you conveniently ignored my main point:

By disobeying copyright law, you are contributing to the destruction of that system, which is the moral equivalent of saying "I would prefer to live in a world without copyright law". However, by downloading and consuming copyrighted works, you are also implicitly acknowledging that the copyright system produces something of value to you. How do you personally resolve these conflicting viewpoints when illegally downloading copyrighted material?

To rephrase - if all of the content that you are illegally downloading today were to disappear from the world tomorrow, would you miss it? If yes, then how would you propose that society creates incentive for artists to create such content *without* copyright laws? If no, then why are you illegally downloading that content in the first place?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

(although this only because you are following your own moral code, which nobody else seems to agree with).

The fact that they don't agree with me is irrelevant. The entire world could believe in something that is false, but that would not make it true (note that I'm not claiming that I'm right, I'm just claiming that the majority believing something doesn't make it right or wrong).

There IS no alternative, logically, unless you consider something along the lines of selling merchandise.

Wait, really? Did you just say that there is no alternative? Never? There can't ever be an alternative?

Uh, you do know that there is practically an infinite amount of systems that haven't even been thought of yet, right? It's a bit hasty to declare that there will never be another viable system.

However, even if there isn't an alternative, that doesn't make my claim that this system isn't working any less true.

that a creator is not entitled to be rewarded for their work if it has no physical form

I see where a lot of people are getting this idea, but know that I'm not really against the idea of rewarding someone for their effort. I'm just against the notion that piracy is somehow theft.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Once you get into stores selling copies, you'll have people who are willing to PAY for a game buying a copy instead. Either because they can't tell the difference, because it's the only one available, or even because it's cheaper and they don't care, they just don't want the downloading hassle.

These are not potential profits, these are *actual* profits, going into the wrong pockets. I.e. the pockets of the person doing the copying, rather than the developers.

Taking away actual profits *is* considered stealing even by most (I'd claim) people on Slashdot. Where as not getting profits you probably wouldn't have gotten anyway isn't.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[mcvos]

A student discount would be cool, but probably hard to enforce. On the other hand, there are cheaper games available. Not Witcher 2, obviously. The publisher has a monopoly on the distribution of Witcher 2, but not a monopoly on games in general. There's plenty of competition out there, and you can always give your limited money to those competitors. And the cheaper games are often from indie developers, so you're really helping someone there.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[makomk]

A lot of people that say "it doesn't hurt anyone" seem to firmly believe that the "P" word is completely evil. Profit is not evil, profit is what encourages further investments into future projects.

On the other hand, feeling so entitled to maximum profits that you attack anyone who doesn't directly make you money that second is evil - and stupid too if doing so harms your profits in the long term.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

Is that what you think is what drives the big game releases?

If you think that all game developers that work in large companies do not enjoy developing games, then I believe that you are wrong. Sure, some of them are doing it for the money, but I suspect that that number if not very large. From what I hear, working in a large game developing studio is very hectic, to say the least. These are the types of developers that we can stand to lose.

As a software developer, I can say I enjoy some parts of the development process, but I would never, ever spend 8 hours per day on it if I didn't get paid for it.

Why is that? Is it because you need to have money to live in the current system? There are actually plenty of developers who work on software in their spare time. Very talented ones.

Would you still be a software developer if you lived in a system where money was not required?

I used to think a bit like you (although not as extremely) but I've come to realise that proposing to tear down a system for which you have no alternative is both immature and irresponsible.

It's not immature or irresponsible to make people aware of the flaws in something without providing an alternative. Admitting the problem is just a first step, and once enough people are aware, then a solution can be worked out. I may not have an alternate solution myself, but that does not mean that I'm immature or irresponsible for merely pointing out the flaws in our current system.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[delinear]

There has effectively never been a way to prevent copying and distribution of games. When I was at school some 25-30 years ago people used to copy 5.25" floppy disks or tape-to-tape and share them with their friends. Then people started getting modems and BBSs were full of people sharing copied games. Then the internet arrived and suddenly it was trivial to find pretty much any game ever made, and all the DRM schemes so far have been massive failures, hurting only legitimate customers by making them jump through hoops to get things to work. So now, almost twenty years later - if your argument is sound - there should be no games being made, the entire market should have collapsed under the weight of mass copying. And yet the gaming market is bigger than ever, it dwarfs the other entertainment sectors, people are willing to pay four or five times as much for a game as they are for a movie or CD, even knowing that others are getting it free.

On a side note, I often hear the argument that the only way games would get made is if the developers got people to pre-pay in advance. I hate to break it to you but that's the way it already works, it's the way it has always worked. Of course, it's not individual customers that are paying, it's venture capital and investment, or the developer bankrolling it off previous profits, or even the publisher paying up front for the rights to distribute, etc. Filesharing is here, it's done nothing to stop the growth of the market and it will change nothing in the way that game development is funded. The best thing at this point would be to stop wasting resources trying to stop it and focus those resources on making the sector of people that are

paying happier, instead of burdening them with nonsense like DRM (and on that point, kudos in this instance for the lack of DRM, although saying you can only buy it from one source has much the same restricting effect on competition/resale/etc).

Re:Intended Reaction?

[sammyF70]

So your argument is that digital (non-tangible) content creators should only create stuff if someone ask them specifically to make it?

If they create something in the belief/hope that it might be of interest to someone they shouldn't expect to be rewarded by anybody who actually uses/consumes said product (keeping the "pirating for pirating's sake" folks out of the equation, as those obviously wouldn't pay no matter how much or why), except perhaps in the pure cost of the physical media if it even exists?

oh .. and believe me : employers very rarely hire anybody with the aim of paying them. They pay them because they are legally obligated to.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[shutdown -p now]

You have never once explained what exactly is being stolen. Not the media itself, as they merely copied that. They never had the money in the first place, so it's obviously not that. What is being stolen?

The time and effort it went into making a game that the thief enjoyed enough to bother downloading.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[BenoitRen]

I think the perfect example of this phenomenon is the PS3 vs. Xbox 360, Wii, and NDS. The latter two have been pirated for years while the PS3 was foolproof, but the sales of the 360 have trumped the PS3, while the DS has swamped the other two combined. The DS is on its way to break the record for hardware and software units sold *ever* for a standalone gaming unit (maybe it has already?). The Wii has demolished its competition. Arguing that pirates have harmed Nintendo's sales is just greedy, myopic, and ridiculously short-sighted.

One phenomenon you have ignored is that a lot of third-party games don't sell well on the Wii, especially those that aren't targeted at the casual gamer. You know why? Those non-casual games get pirated by the more savvy gamers (a lot of them own a Wii next to their PS3/Xbox 360, make no mistake) who know how to pirate. Then they got on message boards and complain about the lack of Wii games that interest them.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

IT DEPRIVES THEM OF THE VALUE OF THEIR TIME.

But, pirates aren't using any of their time. They use their own time and resources to copy the data that the artist originally created.

If you argue that the artist should be paid for the time that they originally put into the product, then you should blame everyone who merely decided not to buy the product, not just pirates. Neither groups granted the author money.

Generalize your dumb argument and imagine that nobody pays for ANY of these goods.

Yes, what would happen? There wouldn't be anymore of those goods. Whose fault would that be? The people who didn't pay for those goods. Who did they hurt? Only themselves. The act of not paying someone money whilst also not using up any of their time or resources does no damage to them.

On a side note, your dumb argument implies that doctors should work for free (well, if you don't pay the doctor you aren't really stealing from you, are you?), architects too, engineers, software developers, teachers, etc. Really?

As I have already pointed out, you used up their time with promises of payment, but then didn't pay them. Pirates use their own time and resources to copy data.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that whether the producers make money and are encouraged to develop it depends on how much money they get.
The critical question for them is whether someone buys the product or not, not whether they download it illegally or not (and as others have pointed out, it actually is "how much money do they spend on all my products together).
So the only relevant case is when someone pays less or not at all because they can download it, which is only a subgroup of all that download it. By forbidding the download to everyone else in addition, you are depriving them of something without any good reason, at an overall cost to society.
If you claim downloading is theft, then let me say that enforcing copyright on those who cannot afford to buy it is just as much "stealing" from society, copyright was granted to to increase the cultural wealth, hindering access to beyond the "necessary" is in conflict with that and exploiting a bad implementation just to hurt others.
And now before I am declared a troll: I can accept that those who really cannot afford the products are just "collateral damage" that we currently have no good way of avoiding, but I can't imagine that someone who really understands that would label everyone a "thief" and use similarly strong language since they would realize they really are not in a position to feel particularly superior since they are willing to hurt others as well to get what _they_ want.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

I wouldn't be happy because they've wasted my time. Time is not in an infinite quantity, and pirates do not use up the time of the original artists because they use their own time and resources to copy data.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[delinear]

Indeed, and to further drive the point home, it's been incredibly trivial to bypass copy protection on the NDS since almost day one, while the others enjoyed at least a little protection. In fact, there are even more reasons to do so on the NDS than for a home console - not having to carry around a case full of cartridges and instead having it all on one SD card, for instance. And yet, in the face of all this, sales have still been phenomenal. It's time we got away from this whole "piracy costs sales" argument and instead started thinking about the real reason people want to lock things down. The most obvious reason (when you "follow the money") is that they want to control where you buy from so that they have tighter control over prices, and if they can also do away with that pesky used game market at the same time, so much the better. I can't believe the industry would waste millions chasing the myth of "copying costs sales" when this is patently untrue, but I can believe they would invest millions in developing a system which gives them greater control over distribution channels and removes the possibility of resales.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[makomk]

Not Witcher 2, obviously. The publisher has a monopoly on the distribution of Witcher 2, but not a monopoly on games in general.

Except that some other random game is not a suitable substitute for The Witcher 2, and CD Projekt rely on this in order to price the game much higher than they would be if people actually were willing to substitute in this fashion - just like all computer game publishers do.

There's plenty of competition out there

The pricing says otherwise.

And the cheaper games are often from indie developers

The cheaper games are generally much smaller - i.e. you get a lot less game for a bit less money.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Ash-Fox]

No, it's really not. Not giving someone your money doesn't hurt them because that doesn't deprive anyone of anything that they previously owned. They never had the money in the first place.

I'm going to quote my previous examples:

I'm going to quote some of my previous responses to this sort of argument:

I have been in one of the more interesting unique positions where I have actually seen DRM increase sales due to it actually preventing casual copying, since I take this into account when people are pirating content, it's very obvious people are depriving the copyright holder(s) of rightly earned money. Since they could obviously afford it and considered it worthy of being bought when they were put into the position of buy it or don't have it.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Wildclaw]

Would we see a decline in the number and quality of "artists" producing new works?

Probably. Would having the whole population having free access to all the art ever produced be worth it?

But I disagree. The person who says "I don't see sufficient value in that product", and doesn't buy it, has taken a very clear moral stance. On the other hand, the person who says "I don't see sufficient value in that product" - and steals it - that person has some explaining to do.

What is the moral difference between buying a new game for $60 and pirating two other new games, or waiting three years and buying them all for $20 each? Most people have a relatively fixed budget for entertainment, and the only things that changes that budget is their economic wellbeing. Trying to make it into a moral debate only succeeds if you assume that pirates don't buy any entertainment. And while you can find pirates who don't buy anything, they aren't the majority. Statistics shows that the average pirate buys more of the entertainment that he pirates than the average person does. Not completely surprising, as fixed entertainment budgets is funneled into things of interest.

But then again. Your whole "value" argument is based on economic pseudo theory. A theory where everyone makes profits on arbitrage and value enhancing, and no other motivations or actions exist. The amusing thing is that the theory requires you to have endpoints (consumers) that you can sell the final goods to, but doesn't actually allow for the behavior of those consumers. That is why it sounds so twisted and wrong when you try to apply it to people instead of businesses.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me show you a different point of view.

I have bought games. Some of them turned out to be crap. Others turned out to be not in my taste. From this alone, the conclusion would be that buying games is too risky.

I have also pirated games. Some of them turned out to be crap. Others turned out to be not in my taste. However, some of them I ended up playing so much that I went out to buy the game.

If you were a game developer, what would you prefer? That I don't buy your game, because it's too risky? Or that I play a pirated copy, find out that the game is great, and end up buying it?

As for demos, yes, they are an alternative. However, often it is easier to get hold of a pirated copy. And very often, the demo will be limited in some ways that doesn't show the potential of the full game. Like LAN play. If the demo allows LAN play at all, it won't play with those who have the full version. (Note: I mostly play "big" games a LAN parties. At home it's puzzle games, and those I can get plenty of for free legally). While I do understand limiting the game to get people to buy the full version, the developers need to understand that they are limiting what I get to base my buying decision on. "No" is the default answer, and if your demo can't convince me otherwise, I'm not going to buy it. And if the demo doesn't do LAN play with my friends (who have the full version), it's not going to convince me.

With Playstation games, demos have generally been a success. But with PC-games, not so. Even Star Craft, which did have the "spawn" mode, which did only LAN play, I only played a pirated copy, until buying the game (twice even). I doubt that those who had the game even knew that the spawn option existed.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[delinear]

I think this sounds like a great system. Unfortunately, I don't think copyright will ever return to anything close to sensible. There are too many companies/artists who already have IP rights on properties that are way beyond what would be a sensible period. Disney alone would probably lose revenue streams worth millions if copyright was reduced even by a few years, let alone to get it to a low enough point that the proposed system would work. If they have so many millions at stake, they would sooner pour ALL of that money into defending the status quo than see it vanish overnight. That's just one company, anyone else who is currently in the same position could afford to pretty much give away that money today to prevent future earnings being lost tomorrow, and that's without counting all the others who would see supporting the existing system as an investment because they have properties that they believe will be popular for many years to come. Money talks, and unfortunately it talks a lot louder than the guy in the street to the people who make the laws, which is why I think what you're proposing is a great system that will never transpire.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

If this game were to be pirated 5% of the time (random figure pulled out of my arse, but I really think its on the low side), and no action were taken against that act, what proportion of the 95% who spent $45 on the game would think 'hey, those guys are getting the same game as me but for free, and theres nothing being done about it - why am I spending my money?'

Again, please understand my argument. Whether the pirates would have bought the product or not is irrelevant. The amount of people who pirate something is also irrelevant.

My argument revolves around the idea that claiming that you can harm someone by stealing something that doesn't exist (potential profit) doesn't make sense. Not to mention that you're also including everyone who merely decided not to buy the product.

This isn't friends telling friends not to purchase, this is about the wrong actions having no consequence and the public seeing that.

But the thing is that both practices can negatively harm sales, and that merely not paying someone whilst not using up any of their time or resources doesn't hurt them. It must be a combination of those three conditions, which piracy is.

The problem of people not working because of a lack of money lies in the system itself, because logically pirates aren't doing any harm. Pirates are only harming themselves if they continue to pirate media that they enjoy and the artists no longer have the funds to continue producing any more.

Also, note that I think it's a good thing if someone decides to reward an artist for their effort. I just believe that equating piracy to theft or harm is ridiculous.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Ash-Fox]

I didn't say otherwise. However, that does not make the act of blaming innocents for the shortcomings of said system any less illogical or 'wrong'.

Am I the only one who doesn't buy the claim of "innocent" pirates?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[makomk]

Each person who pirates a game benefits himself or herself, but if enough people do this it's no longer tenable to make games and no one has a game to play, for free or otherwise.

Except that in practice this doesn't happen. There are enough people who don't consider the amount of money a big deal, feel there's some kind of intangible benefit in buying a legit copy, or are just plain lazy that plenty of people buy games. The only time I can see this not happening is if publishers raised prices to a truely unwise level.

Now, there will always be people who pirate, but for the most part they're people who wouldn't have bought it anyway. As someone upthread hints, there's a reason why there are so many such people - it makes the game publishers more money than if everyone who was interested in the game was willing and able to buy it. They're actually making money from creating this vast swathe of people who pirate rather than buy!

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're going for a job interview. One of your references, unhappy with you leaving, lies and tells the company you were a terrible employee. You don't get the job. Is it wrong? How so? You never had the job so you didn't lose anything, right?

So maybe the interviewer ignores that refernce and hires you anyway. You work for months and never see a single paycheck. But you haven't lost anything, right? It wasn't your money, only your "potential" money.

tl;dr: just because you're too stupid to work out how piracy hurts people, doesn't make it a good thing.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is also the alternative of selling the thing that actually costs: the development of the game for example.
Yes, there are a lot of issues with that approach, but there are also advantages: _all_ of society gets to profit.
For that reason you can also argue for government-sponsoring (which btw. in a way copyright is).
Certainly all systems I can come up with in any reasonable time will be full of flaws, but copyright certainly is, too.
As long as there is no serious discussion and long-term strategy to make society profit more and improve the flaws of copyright, I do not think _anyone_ has a right to call people who download illegaly "thiefs". Unless you at the very least also call everyone doing legal tax evasion or lobbies for tax breaks that mostly affect themselves and many more people "thiefs" as well (which would make the word very much meaningless).

Re:Intended Reaction?

[MareLooke]

I think this is a good thing (tm), they have to protect their investment and if they actually deliver a quality game I have no problems paying for it. And in my book the first installment was a quality title, so I'll probably be buying this one although I'm not too happy about having to use a spcific store to be able to get it DRM free (if I read this and the mail I got from cdproject correctly)

However lately I've been feeling like a citron being squeezed by game devs/publishers by getting incomplete and sometimes downright alpha/beta quality software (Fallout New Vegas for a recent example) or just leaving out features/content just to be able to sell them later. DLCs have gone from a way to make some extra on a released game to a business model of selling cars without seats and selling the seats afterwards for a small fee (Mafia 2 is a prime example and apologies for the car analogy ;) ). This, of course, leads to more pirating as buying a game lately you have no guarantee at all of any form of quality (reviewers often seem to not play the games or just get "bought" by publishers and have turned out to be entirely unreliable) and getting a refund, while legally possible, if far from easy for something like a game.

Also something important to note; and that might have resulted in this DRM-free decision is that The Witcher 1 had serious peformance problems because of its copy protection, making the legally bought game perform much worse than illegal copies.

Props to cdproject for fixing these issues (although much later than most of us would have liked) and adding a slew of extra content as well though instead of the current general policy of ignoring issues after the sale because they have your money anyway and, as they reason, people will have forgotten by the release of the next title anyway (unfortunately, they seem to generally be right about this)

Re:Intended Reaction?

[makomk]

Let's say I need to pay that big loan back at some point and it would just take too long waiting tables. So I sell my game at $60 per copy. I need to sell 150,000 copies of that game to break even.

Which is a sensible decision - it maximises the amount of money you're likely to get - but it means that there's a whole swathe of people out there who are interested in your game but couldn't justify paying the $60 because they need the money for something else, like food. Your profits as a hypothethical game publisher are maximised by pricing the game such that there's a vast swathe of unsatisfied demand. The huge piracy numbers are a side-effect of publishers making maximum profit rather than selling the game to everyone willing to buy it. They're not actually as much of a warning sign as you might think.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[IronSight]

What I think is messed up is the console games don't get any DRM, and they are pirated just as much. Pirates will pirate DRM or not, they will just remove it. I give it up to CD Project and GOG for this setup. If you can't afford the game, don't buy it, don't steal it, play something you can afford or play something free. There's tons of free games.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[delinear]

You don't read too, apparently. IT DEPRIVES THEM OF THE VALUE OF THEIR TIME.

Nonsense. Unless they went into the industry with no prior knowledge that such a thing as piracy existed, then we have to accept that they are developing games in spite of this knowledge. That means that they have made a determination that, even in a world where piracy exists, it is still worth their time to develop games. Maybe you could argue that their time would be a little more valuable if there was zero piracy, maybe I could argue that schemes like DRM or forcing customers to purchase from one source to allow more control over prices drives away customers and without these their time would be a little more valuable. Nevertheless the developers have made a decision that, in the current climate, it's still a valuable use of their time to write games.

As to "dumb arguments", if I teach myself some rudimentary medicine, am I depriving doctors of sales? If I build an exact replica of a Ferrari, am I depriving them of a sale? If I self-tutor, am I putting a teacher out of a job? Have you ever photocopied or printed something? Then by your argument you're guilty of stealing from scribes. Did you type up your own comment? How dare you steal work from qualified secretaries? See, we can all make up strawmen to support our arguments, but that gets us nowhere when the facts speak for themselves, the games industry is huge despite years of it being trivial to pirate.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[gregrah]

Interesting. So if we were to strip away the profit element on my side - maybe only accept donations from customers which would go directly to hosting costs - and offer your game for free downloads on my website, would that be ok? If my site received a lot of traffic - equivalent to SourceForge for example - that could make an appreciable impact on your profits.

If you're not comfortable with that setup, then I would ask where do you draw the line between a site like I just mentioned and P2P sharing - where each individual downloader is also acting as a host and making your game available to download from others.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Wildclaw]

Free riders are a problem. Learn some economics before you start with the "hurts no one" crap.

It simply doesn't coincide with the incredible amounts of historical evidence to the contrary. Free riding has been vital to the progress of human kind. In fact, each and every generation is free riding on the last.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[giuseppemag]

Coding your own game might be a good analogy: I don't like the game made or the conditions associated with playing it so I rolled out my own, but obtaining it illegally is not related to "learning some medicine" or "building your own ferrari".

Also keep in mind that no matter what, gaming is something you do to enrich your life, not to survive. It is ridiculous that people are so self-entitled to everything they *like*, not even *need*, that they do not accept that it is the publisher and the developer of the game who rightfully set price and rules for their product and if those conditions are found unacceptable you simply don't buy and play the game. What the fuck, the message you guys are sending is "I want it, but I don't want to pay for it, so I will take it if I can"? Really, if this is what educated and civilized people reason then we are in shit neck-high.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Wildclaw]

If I wanted to play a game, and that game is selling for $60 but instead I pirate that game, I have DEPRIVED (HARMED) the developer of that game.

But you also had $60 remaining which you spent to buy another game benefiting another developer instead. It all came out to plus minus zero for the developers combined. Although I guess according to your "logic", the second developer DEPRIVED (HARMED) the first developer by producing a game that you bought instead of the other game.

Oh, and I almost forgot. You got to play two games instead of one.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[DrXym]

Games should be released DRM free, publishers should be free to utilize what means have been approved to protect their work. At least that's how it would work in my perfect world....

They should be, but then people go and freely distribute the game with wild abandon. DRM'd games get pirated too of course, but the purpose of the DRM is inhibit the pirated game in the first days, weeks of release as much as possible. Even if it inhibits piracy by a few days or by 20%, that may still pay for the DRM and justify itself financially. Perhaps the devs could release a patch to disable the DRM later, as happened with The Witcher.

I think DRM free would work for a lot of games, but only where the game is largely online or is followed up by substantial after sales content, fixes, support, events etc. for people who've actually bought the game. I also think that a timelocked version of the game, or demo which can be converted to the full title would do much to convert potential pirates into actual customers.

The P2P waters could also be muddied substantially by distributing broken versions of the game. Release a 10Gb download that appears to be legit but the installer spews out some cryptic message. Then watch the support boards fill up with complaints about the error message, wait a week or so and then laugh them off the board.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[eugene2k]

Care to provide a link to those studies that have found little to no effect on game sales?

>Piracy doesn't hurt anyone. Nintendo's whalloping its competition.
Nintendo provides a platform, it's sales will only increase if the games can be pirated.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't matter what the pirates do. Selling the game DRM free convinced me to pre-order the game at full price instead of being cautious and cheap and waiting for it to hit the bargain bin. So, going DRM free has convinced at least one of their legitimate customers to pay more than I otherwise would have. I also wrote them and told them exactly why I decided to do this, and I included a link to my store account where they could verify that I had indeed bought the game.

I recommend that everyone who thinks DRM suck do the same thing: put your money where your mouth is. That's a whole lot better than arguing with anti-piracy fanatics and copyright-huggers on slashdot. Buy games you like, and write the companies making the games and tell them what you think of DRM.

As an added bonus, I also wrote to Topware to tell them that because of DRM they LOST a sale. I was thinking about buying "Two Worlds 2" when I saw that "The Witcher 2" would be DRM free. Same genre, same price, and one was DRM free. Guess which one I buy? Yeah, I know that "Two Worlds 2" is out now and I'll have to wait for "The Witcher 2" - but I'm not that desperate for a game right now that I mind.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[delinear]

If your argument revolves around it not being fair that some people get stuff for free, then you are incorrectly applying copyright. It's not meant to be there as a means to punish people because they're doing something you don't think is fair, it's meant to be there to ensure that people can earn a licing from their ideas or skills. Using copyright to go after filesharers - if you assume filesharers aren't impinging on the right to earn a living - is an incorrect application of the law and inherently wrong. Would you go after a filesharer for dangerous driving or manslaughter because you think it's unfair that they get stuff for free? And as someone who pays for their content, I have to ask why you even care. I don't care, people can copy what they like, if word of mouth from people copying a game helps me with my purchasing decisions (both for and against) then that's fine by me. At one time it might have been worth my while copying (I'm thinking school days, when I had lots of time and little money), but I simply wouldn't have the time or inclination to do that today when I can just pick up the game from pretty much anywhere on my way home from work.

What these companies fail to realise is that a lot of the people who are time rich and cash poor right now won't always be the same - when they're working and have a family they will be in exactly the same situation where it's easier to buy. By going after the file sharers of today, they're potentially annoying the buyers of tomorrow (and by going after the file sharers of today using techniques like DRM or live server authentication, they're also annoying the buyers of today - don't make me jump through hoops when I've already given you my money!).

Re:Intended Reaction?

[sammyF70]

Same here the day I received the notification from GOG (without the mails though:)

Now, if only they could release Witcher1 at GOG sometime...

Re:Intended Reaction?

[delinear]

We're not talking about some theoretical breech of copyright that may or may not happen in the future. This is already happening. It's been happening since the dawn of games on computers, and even with the advent of the internet and mass downloading it's been happening for the best part of two decades. Doesn't the fact that people still have jobs as games developers prove that it's still worth their spending 8 hours a day developing games, even when file sharing is ubiquitous on the net? We have actual real world data that piracy doesn't kill the games industry, we have probably 30 years worth of said data at this point (and the same goes for movies and music). I can understand why the games industry (and the entertainment industries as a whole) wants to perpetuate the myth - after all for them it's about being able to control what we consume, how we consume it and, most importanly, who we can buy it from - but I can't for the life of me understand why so many people are willing to blindly buy into it.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[vegiVamp]

I would think it rather obvious, but it is "wrong" for the simple reason that the movie theatre you sneak into only exists because paying for your ticket is what allows the movie theatre to actually exist and show movies.

The same goes for games, of course - people paying for the games they play is what allows developers to actually spend time and effort making games, instead of having to spend their time doing other things in order to feed themselves and their families.

I don't think illegal copying is the right thing to do in any way, but I find it especially loathsome if done against a developer/publisher that is being fair and provides the content you buy without any DRM or other hassle. These guys should be encouraged, not "robbed", for want of a better word.

So, yes, I fully support their cracking down on piracy, although I do hope they won't be going for MAFIAA-style settlements. I'd say full price of the game plus full compensation for actual costs incurred (search, legal action, etc.) would be both fair and deserved.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Do you work? If so, do you produce anything tangible? If you are not producing anything tangible, why should your boss pay you?

Because he wants me to produce something next month of course. You know, at least in Germany there were three ways of getting paid: You could be paid at the start of the month, in the middle of a month or at the end of a month (actually there was often weekly pay as well, and during the high-inflation time there was even daily pay). So if employers wouldn't pay reliable there are simple alternatives/fixes. Unfortunately it's not quite as simple as that for copyright.
Apart from that, an employer also takes up my time, whereas 0 people downloading and paying for the game and 1 billion people downloading and none paying comes down to about the same thing for the game developers (with the current game development method at least)...

Re:Intended Reaction?

[blahplusplus]

"Games should be released DRM free, publishers should be free to utilize what means have been approved to protect their work. At least that's how it would work in my perfect world...."

A copy of the games code and assets should be held in public libraries under lock and key and released after 8-12 years so that the game can be fixed and updated. Gamers should have the right to modify and update the products they buy.

This whole idea that gamers are not co-investors and owners of their own products is bullshit, since they are basically investors and supporters of a game companies success through their purchases. Corporations want us to perpetually rent and re-buy everything by cordoning off our rights as customers and it just a form of serfdom.

We should have the right to own our games outright and have the right to access code and assets regulated by law when our games are too old to run on later hardware and operating systems.

This is the problem with copyright, fundamentally there is no "software fixing" industry because of the copyright monopoly.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[delinear]

What, nobody is allowed to criticise a system unless they can propose a better system? That's patently ridiculous. If people dislike the system their opinion is valid regardless of whether they can come up with an alternative. When copyright was first introduced, do you think it was a hybrid of the ideas of every person who formed society at that time, or do you think a handful of people bashed it out in response to a large minority asking for a change to what they saw as the then broken system? You can continue believing it's the former if you want, but for me a person doesn't have to have all the answers to be able to recognise something's not working. Car analogy time: if my car won't start, despite having a full tank, I know it's broken - I don't need to be a mechanic.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[makomk]

Put simply, it devalues the work that they put in to the game. Less money coming in per man-hour means the value of those man-hours drop.

That's the funny thing - it doesn't necessarily. In order for the two to be related, increased income would have to justify one of two things: Employing people who cost more per-hour, which it doesn't except at the top as most of the staff are treated as interchangeable. Alternatively, they could employ more people, but that isn't justified either - both because games development teams are pushing the edges of what can be managed successfully already, and because even if it did increase quality that's not what sells games.

Now, you might argue that more games would be produced because more would be economically viable, but new games - especially small indie ones, which would be the ones most likely to be created - have two bigger problems. Finding a niche that isn't already occupied, and marketing. The first isn't hugely affected by piracy, and reducing piracy actually makes the marketing barrier even more insurmountable - it's a lot easier to convince someone to download something for free, and if the pirates do like it and tell all their friends that's marketing of a quality you can't buy.

Artificial Scarcity?

Yes, artificial scarcity. The marginal cost of production of software is very close to zero, which has some very interesting economic implications.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[delinear]

Nobody is claiming that, but copyright isn't meant to be a law set up to punish people who are getting freebies. Unless you can show their actions are harming your business (and so far nobody has been able to definitively do this) then using copyright against them is just co-opting the law for your own bullying purposes. If you think it's wrong that some people get free stuff, then lobby for your own law to prevent that, don't try and shoe-horn something that doesn't fit. Downloaders are freeloading, but they're not killing the gaming industry or taking the food from people's tables (go look at the figures).

Re:Intended Reaction?

[shentino]

The only reason pirates pirate is because they can.

They are blood suckers.

The only way DRM figures into the picture is that making it hard for legitimate customers to enjoy their stuff only pisses them off.

Now, I used to pirate, but I recently got a DMCA notice after torrenting HTTYD. Charter's abuse department then forwarded it to me along with a TOS violation notice. It was 100 percent legit, and the evidence with it had me caught red handed, timestamps and IP address included.

Paramount caught me fair and square, and were even nice enough to tell me "stop it and we'll forget this happened."

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really rather simple: yes it is often immoral to pirate - but it mostly shouldn't be illegal. Just like cheating on your spouse or telling lies. Back in the day when DRM weren't so bad, I remember most everyone sharing this view of the morality of copying. Even among people who pirated games, there was a "code of conduct". You did respect those who created the stuff and you didn't want to rip them off as long as they didn't try to rip you off. The more companies try to inflict DRM on us, however, the more people start to resent the companies themselves and eventually start to feel good about ripping off said companies. The legality of it really doesn't matter. If people think the greedy bastards deserve it - you're never going to stop it. Conversely, I never had a problem with companies going after "legitimate" pirates (i.e. the ones that sell pirated copies or build businesses around copyright infringement). The companies really need to make a choice of which is more important - their image or their belief that DRM and lawsuits will make them money?

Because that's all it is: a belief. They THINK that killing piracy will make them money, and that's the rationale behind all the arguments against piracy that I've seen. Unfortunately, reality doesn't seem to support this. Hence, the question you should be asking is: if piracy doesn't hurt your profits in any way, shape or form - why would you fight it?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnsin]

Except my time, you mean. This is different than specifically and directly asking someone to perform a job for you and then not paying them because in that example you have used their time. Pirates use their own time and resources to copy data.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[TFAFalcon]

And what do you think about people lending/giving away their (bought) copies of the game?
The end result is the same: many more people would get to enjoy a product, without paying for it. And I can't see anything wrong with it in any sense. What makes you think people don't have the right to play the game without paying for it? The only legal right they don't have is creating their own copy of the game. And even that right is supposed to be granted to them after a reasonable period after the game is first created.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[shentino]

The whole point of economy is exchange of value.

Now, if you don't like a business, you can choose not to shop there, and you are choosing *to forgo the benefit of what you would otherwise buy* in order to keep your money out of their pockets.

Pirates, however, cheat because they have their cake and eat it too by accepting the benefits of possession, without depriving themselves of the funds that the market has decided they should pay to get it.

It doesn't matter that pirates are or are not hurting sales. The point that is relevant is that they are cheating the system by enjoying stuff for free that they are supposed to be paying for.

Pirates aren't thieves in the physical sense. They're more like gatecrashers at a museum.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnsin]

I'm trying to get you to think about the *reason* society has created laws to that allow artists to charge money when people want to consume their creations.

I know of the reasons already, but I don't agree with them. I feel that placing blame on people who aren't actually taking anything (not time, resources, money, or property) instead of attempting (at least attempting) to come up with a viable alternative is irresponsible and illogical.

Does that wording make you happier?

Yes. When you used that word, I misinterpreted your position. It gets confusing when so many people mistake copyright infringement for theft.

But I see that you conveniently ignored my main point:

I'm sorry, but I've gotten so many replies that it's difficult to respond to every single point.

To rephrase - if all of the content that you are illegally downloading today were to disappear from the world tomorrow, would you miss it?

I never claimed that it has no entertainment value. It does. Pirates are only hurting themselves if they wish to see more content produced by the author and fail to pay them.

If yes, then how would you propose that society creates incentive for artists to create such content *without* copyright laws?

Aside from the fact that plenty of content actually is created for free, my suggestion would be to find a viable alternative to a system which uses artificial currency entirely. Perhaps a resource-based economy (just a simple answer). While this would surely be the end of people who produce content just to receive money and don't actually enjoy what they do, it wouldn't mean the end of people who actually enjoy what they do producing content. There are plenty of artists who merely agree with copyright because they feel it benefits them. Eliminate the need for money, and you eliminate the need to create artificial scarcity and can continue doing what you love to do.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Richard_at_work]

You really seem to be trying ever so hard in justifying piracy regardless and yet you seem to completely miss my point.

If there are no consequences to just taking the game, and people can see that there are no consequences for just taking the game, why would anyone pay for it?

That's the crux of the matter, and your argument skirts it entirely.

The amount of people that pirate something most certainly DOES matter in our discussion, because if there is a complete lack of consequence, and that completely lack of consequence is well and truly demonstrated, it lifts the barrier for the paying customer - why would they pay for something when there is no consequence to just taking it for free?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[delinear]

Where has this been proven? Citation, please, just saying it's a proven fact without demonstrating such doesn't cut it. Most of the studies into this area tend to show that people who download are actually largely buying more media than everyone else, not less. I have yet to see a study that proves definitively (across more than a single instance) that the ready availability of a free alternative in any way harms sales. It should be a simple enough thing to show, take a system where piracy is easy (XBOX), take another where it's not (PS3) take a game that is released for both and isn't seen as pandering to a specific console's market and compare sales as a percentage of owners of those consoles. Do that for maybe a minimum of ten games (more is better), just to normalise any anomalies. If they're significantly lower on the console which has more piracy then you may have a point. The fact that the industry have never released such figures, despite them being trivial to obtain, suggests to me that they know piracy is a non-issue and they're simply using it as a smoke screen. Why else would they sit on the proof?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[makomk]

what proportion of the 95% who spent $45 on the game would think 'hey, those guys are getting the same game as me but for free, and theres nothing being done about it - why am I spending my money?'

Probably not a huge proportion. They're not getting the same game - the commercial one comes with a guarantee that it's the genuine article with no included malware or undesired modifications, a nice DVD case to decorate your shelf if you bought a physical copy, and the smug knowledge that you helped support the creator of the game. This combination of convienience and bragging rights is actually worth a fair bit, which is why nasty DRM is so stupid - it makes the pirate version more convenient and makes legal purchasers feel like idiots.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[icebraining]

Or, you could play now and buy it later. But if you enjoy feeling good about pointless actions that benefit nobody, go for it!

Re:Intended Reaction?

[delinear]

One minute the developers are unhappy that they're not being paid, and claim this as a lost sale, the next they take it upon themselves to impose a fine that amounts to more than the cost of the game? I can understand them saying "you didn't pay for this copy, but give us the money equal to what you should have paid and we'll take no further action", but asking for more money than the copy should have cost is clearly just an attempt to bully people in the same way as the music industry have been doing by sending out mass mailings demanding small sums of money (they know people will just pay, sometimes even if they're innocent, because the fee isn't sufficient to justify the effort fighting it). When did private companies become the legal system, that we're happy for them to determine guilt and hand down their own punishments? By all means demand the sum you feel you've lost (and if the downloader disgagrees then have your day in court), but going beyond that feels like an abuse.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnsin]

So your argument is that digital (non-tangible) content creators should only create stuff if someone ask them specifically to make it?

No, it's that pirates aren't actually causing any harm. I can understand how someone would think that pirates are causing harm due to the way that the current system works, but they are not depriving anyone of anything (not time, money, resources, or property).

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnsin]

The time and effort it went into making a game that the thief enjoyed enough to bother downloading.

But that went into making the content one single time. It can't be stolen after that. Pirates use their own time and effort to copy the data while not interacting with the artist in any way.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[yariv]

The difference is that deciding not to buy from a store is legal, as is advising your friend not to buy a game. Surprisingly, you are allowed to cause harm to other people in many legal ways, even physical harm might be legal in some cases. However, copyright violation is illegal. You see, copyright violation is a crime with a victim, whereas protesting against Wallmart, trying to convince people not to buy there just outside the store, is a non-crime with a victim. Now, you might argue copyright laws should be changed, but that's a different argument.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[icebraining]

http://memwiki.pirate-party.us/But_How_Will_the_Artists_Get_Paid%3F

Re:Intended Reaction?

[NickFortune]

But I see that you conveniently ignored my main point

Mind if I take a crack at it?

To rephrase - if all of the content that you are illegally downloading today were to disappear from the world tomorrow, would you miss it?

Well, if all the content people were illegally downloading were to disappear, of course it would be missed. But then, that's not likely to happen.

If yes, then how would you propose that society creates incentive for artists to create such content *without* copyright laws?

There's two parts to that; the question as to whether social incentives are needed in order for art to be created; and how best to fund artists without copyright.

In the fist instance, I don't believe that society needs to create incentives for artists to create art. Most artists create because they are driven to do so, rather than as the result of a business plan.

This isn't to say that artists shouldn't be able to make a living from their efforts, of course. However, there are existing models for such recompense. Michelangelo spent four years of his life paint the roof of the Cistene Chapel. And he did it without copyright to provide an incentive. Art has been commissioned by taking up a subscription in advance before now. So I don't see copyright as a necessary element in the recompense of the artist.

So the question then becomes, given that copyright is not essential, what benefits does it give us, that we should defend it?

Personally, I'm of the opinion that copyright worked well in an age when the means of reproduction required significant capital investment, and when placing a surcharge on distribution was sufficient to compensate the punblishers (and hopefully creators)of a work. Those conditions no longer hold true, and as a result I think copyright is increasingly impeding rather than facillitating the creative act. And I think that's only going to get worse as time goes on.

So, why defend copyright?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[delinear]

I disagree with you on the incentives front. For me, it would be ridiculously easy to get all my media by downloading. This has been the case since at least the mid 90's. I'm reasonably tech savvy to the extent that I could manage this in such a way that it would not be traced back to me (either by using an anonymous downloading solution or just by piggy-backing off someone else's connection). I choose not to do this. I like the feeling of buying a physical product knowing that the money will find it's way back to the people who made the product. Sometimes I'll buy a product because there's something special in the way it's produced (like a collector's edition of a game with some goodies included). Other times it's just a lot more convenient to buy, I'm short of spare time and I'd rather spend that playing the game than hunting down torrents.

I'm a living example that, even where it's trivially easy to pirate without repercussions, people are still willing to pay for products. I'm also probably a developer's worst nightmare because I don't pre-order everything months in advance and will only buy after I've read independent reviews from real gamers. Poorly produced games are far more likely to lose you my sale than the ready availability of a free download. Instead of wasting money fighting piracy games companies should be spending that money polishing their games (but in actual fact if they weren't spending it on piracy they'd put it in marketing because they get more bang for their buck hyping an inferior product than soft-launching a superior one - if you want to talk disincentives to buy, talk about that one first).

Re:Intended Reaction?

[icebraining]

Money isn't the only thing you can lose: reputation and time (precious hours of life) are lost too. Your analogies are broken.

tl;dr: just because you're too stupid to work out how piracy hurts people, doesn't make it a good thing.

Just because you think you proved piracy hurts people through broken analogies, doesn't mean you did.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnsin]

If there are no consequences to just taking the game, and people can see that there are no consequences for just taking the game, why would anyone pay for it?

They probably wouldn't. But since each individual is doing zero harm in the first place, that equates to zero harm in the end (to others). If they harm themselves by not paying for something (because the artists no longer have money), then that is their problem (as well as a fault in the broken system).

The system which forces artists (and others) to introduce artificial scarcity and treat as criminals those who do something that logically harms no one is what needs to be fixed.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you have gotten the job had they given a good review? Then yes, it is definitely wrong. Would you have bought the game if pirating weren't an option for whatever reason? Then yes, pirating it is wrong. If you would not have gotten the job, even if they had given you a glowing review, was lying wrong? Yes, but only from the perspective of it hurting your reputation with a third party, not from any financial perspective. If you would not have purchased the game/software if piracy had not been an option, is it wrong to pirate it? I don't see how.

In your second option, the company is in the wrong because they broke faith on the contract. The fact that you did not receive money for that is a secondary consequence. If you had entered into a contract (be it verbal or written) with someone saying they would have you come and cut their lawn once a week for the next two months for absolutely no compensation, but after two weeks, they told you not to come back, they would still be in the wrong because they broke faith on the contract. I have entered no such contract with any software company, movie studio, musician, or publisher. And before you reference the EULA, what if, before I ever opened the software, I applied a patch to it that changed the text of the EULA to "It's ok to pirate this. Everything is gonna happy!" and then clicked "I agree"? From the moment I started the download to the moment I finish installing and running the software, I have never once entered a contract with the company, either written or verbal.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[makomk]

Additionally, the scarcity of software isn't artificial. In order for it to be artificial there would need to be a naturally occurring source of software.

That is completely and utterly wrong. In fact, pretty much all things which have a naturally occuring source are in fact naturally scarce. Wikipedia has a good explaination of what artificial scarcity is - basically it boils down to the fact that the marginal cost of production for software is nearly zero, so our usual economic model breaks down with weird results. In particular, it causes an interesting kind of economic inefficiency in which people who want the product and are willing to pay a price that makes sense don't.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[delinear]

Well, sneaking into a movie isn't quite the same as downloading a movie. You are depriving the cinema of something - not the price of the ticket (because there's no way to determine that you would have paid if sneaking was not an option) but rather the seat you occupy. When the cinema is empty, of course, the real world effect is that it won't hurt the cinema. If the screening is full then at the very least they'll have to spend time and effort identifying that the seat has been occupied by someone without a ticket and dealing with having you removed. That's because seats in cinemas represent a physical resource with the opportunity to be exhausted by demand. Digital media, on the other hand, has no such restraints. If someone copies your game you don't have one less copy to sell, it doesn't affect your offering at all. That's why artificial restraints are being imposed in the form of copyright and so forth to try and negate this effect.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnsin]

It doesn't matter that pirates are or are not hurting sales. The point that is relevant is that they are cheating the system by enjoying stuff for free that they are supposed to be paying for.

But again, if you've already admitted that they aren't taking anything, then why act like what they are doing is a bad thing?

If artists (or anyone else) must introduce artificial scarcity in order to provide incentive, and people that do something that logically harms no one are being treated as criminals, then don't you think it is the system which needs fixing?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[sammyF70]

I guess that highly depends on who we are talking about. As far as I can see, there are three categories of illegal copiers/downloaders:

• I know out of my own experience as independent developer that some people will download pretty much everything they can and just ~hoard~ the stuff (going so far as having huge collections of old DVD-R's they never ever use). Those are not lost sales (maybe lost souls ... but that's getting metaphysical ;).
• Then you have those who download games, etc ... because they just can not afford the sometimes horrenduous prices asked. Those aren't generally lost sales, and it's a situation where I would personally say "As long as they enjoy the product, who really cares?", even though many seems to also belong into the third category when it comes to extremely cheap offers (think bargains at GOG for $2.99-$5.99 for example, or actions like the Humble Bundle)
• And finally you have the people who could afford to pay, sometimes even very easily, but who will not nevertheless because it doesn't hurt THEM in the least if they just pirate stuff. Those are definitely lost sales, and those are the people who SHOULD be brought to justice in a way or another (without falling in the 1.6 million dollar suit for 5 songs type of madness of course).

The problem of course, and that's where I am all on your side, is that the system, as it is now, is so broken that one can not differentiate between those cases.

Just thought of a fourth category by the way : people who would buy some games but will not due to invasive DRM ... and I tend to agree with those, as long as they DO buy games which are provided without DRM if they want to play them (which brings us back to The Witcher 2 :)

Re:Intended Reaction?

[shutdown -p now]

But that went into making the content one single time.

It's not any different from R&D that goes into some of the shiny gadgets out there, such as e.g. iPhones. Their price is also composed from the cost of creating one particular instance of the gadget, plus some of the cost of R&D spread over all instances. A video game is an edge case of that, where cost of the particular instance (a digital download) is so small as to be negligible. You then go on to claim that the R&D part is not important.

If we buy into your theory, then the thief who steals an iPhone in the store should only pay the original owner the "real" price of the phone, as determined by the losses incurred manufacturing it, rather than the label price. Since everything in that label price above the manufacturing cost is pure markup, and - since thief did not intend to buy the product he stole - represents "missed opportunity to sale", rather than actual monetary loss.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[gregrah]

The point is that whether the producers make money and are encouraged to develop it depends on how much money they get.
The critical question for them is whether someone buys the product or not, not whether they download it illegally or not (and as others have pointed out, it actually is "how much money do they spend on all my products together).

So... you are saying that it's alright for *some people* to download without paying, because there will always be those *other* people who will pay for it instead, to ensure that the developers get *enough* money.

If everyone had your attitude, that it is other peoples' responsibility to pay, then *nobody* would pay. So where do you draw the line between who gets to think like you and download for free, and who needs to pay? And where do you draw the line at how much is enough?

By forbidding the download to everyone else in addition, you are depriving them of something without any good reason, at an overall cost to society

Again, we run into the problem here of drawing the line at who "everyone else" is that doesn't need to pay. In the absence of any such magical formula, the fairest thing that society has been able to come up with is to say "everybody needs to pay" and let those who really want it come up with the money.

Yeah, it's a downside that some people have to go without. But the reason that copyright rules were enacted is that people thought that the benefits would outweigh the risks. And to mitigate these downsides we have created things like public libraries, fair use, open source, public broadcasting, etc.

If you claim downloading is theft, then let me say that enforcing copyright on those who cannot afford to buy it is just as much "stealing" from society, copyright was granted to to increase the cultural wealth, hindering access to beyond the "necessary" is in conflict with that and exploiting a bad implementation just to hurt others.

How do you get people to follow the laws without enforcing them? Once again - where do you draw the line at what's "necessary"? I would say that "necessary" has been reached when the penalty for copyright infringement, taken into consideration with the probability of getting caught, is greater than the benefit derived from downloading content illegally. Given that millions of people are downloading illegal content every second of every day, I would say we probably have not arrived at "necessary" yet.

I can accept that those who really cannot afford the products are just "collateral damage" that we currently have no good way of avoiding

That's pretty much the way I feel. Inequality sucks - but I can't think of any way to avoid it. One the plus side, I don't think that there is ANYBODY in the United States these days (or any other developed country) who is starving for information. Much the opposite, really.

but I can't imagine that someone who really understands that would label everyone a "thief" and use similarly strong language since they would realize they really are not in a position to feel particularly superior since they are willing to hurt others as well to get what _they_ want.

I'm willing to replace the terms "stealing" and "thief" with "downloading illegally" and "criminal" - which are both accurate terms for someone who breaks the law but do not imply "theft" of any sort.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[SilentSandman]

I'm actually not sure what I think of this, I've not come across such a situation before. Initially I think I would mostly be wary. The guise of 'donations' has been used inaccurately in the past.

Thankyou for this question by the way. I've been having difficulty coming up with an answer I find satisfactory, which suggest to me that I need to reevaluate.

For the most part I would hope to look at the situation as something I would 'ignore'. As you mentioned in this hypothetical, there is no profit element on your side, and my product (I would hope) would advertise itself. So in a sense you would simply be providing free advertising, and absorbing all the 'demo' bandwidth costs on my behalf. Those are the apparent benefits. There is the issue of 'competing' with my own product for my own profits.

At the end of the day, I don't know. I would likely keep a careful eye on this, and try to find out exactly what sort of effect (positive or negative) such a situation might have for me, and make a decision based upon that instead. In either case, I would do my best to contact you and discuss the situation, possibly for our mutual benefit if such a thing is possible.

I will certainly contemplate this more. (And for anyone who knows who I am/what I sell etc, I'd prefer you contact me before you try to take a casual conversation on the internet as hard-boiled, irrefutable fact and decide to start making websites with my product all over them. ^_^)

Re:Intended Reaction?

[delinear]

We've already seen how the music industry use this. They fire out a bunch of blanket demand notices based on nothing more than an IP and they rely on the fact that the fine is just low enough that people will be too scared or won't be able to afford the cost or effort to dispute the fine (even if they know they're not guilty) to ensure payment. The music industry and its lawyers have already been heavily criticised recently for this practice. Demanding money without proof of guilt and with the threat of legal action is certainly extortion. What makes you think the gaming industry will be any more responsible in how they use this?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Jaysyn]

What games do you develop?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[delinear]

Everyone wants to sell more, of course. But going after pirates is a waste of resources. It's like me coming up with a cake recipe then complaining because some people figure out my recipe and are making their own cakes instead of buying mine. What I should be doing is making my cake better so that my existing customers are happy. Instead we have DRM, which is the digital equivalent of me putting a special coating on my cakes meaning they are tasteless without a decoating agent I personally hand out (okay, cakes were a bad analogy, I'm trying my best) - such a move would do nothing to stop people baking their own cakes, it just makes life miserable for my existing customers (and maybe forces some of them to go down the route of baking their own cakes).

As someone who does actively give money to developers I want my voice heard for once. I don't care about pirates, I don't care that people are getting stuff for free, I care about the quality of what I am paying for, so focus on that if you don't want to lose my actual real money while you're busy chasing theoretical money.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[u17]

You have never once explained what exactly is being stolen. Not the media itself, as they merely copied that. They never had the money in the first place, so it's obviously not that. What is being stolen?

The time and effort it went into making a game that the thief enjoyed enough to bother downloading.

Exactly how much time and effort is "stolen"? Taken literally, your statement seems to imply that the more a game gets copied without permission, the worse its quality becomes. After all, less time and effort went into making it -- they were stolen!

And not to nit pick, but how can the thief enjoy something before he downloads it?

I don't think such arguments will induce remorse in people who copy without permission.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[pacinpm]

Even if you assume 100% of pirates wouldn't have bought the game if they couldn't get it for free, what gives them the right to play the game without paying for it?

The same thing which gives them right to sing a song they just heard in radio. You can't steal ideas.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Vacuous]

Then why don't the PS3 and Xbox 360 suffer from the same issue? You can't blame piracy for Nintendo's failure to court 3rd party devs.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[shutdown -p now]

Exactly how much time and effort is "stolen"? Taken literally, your statement seems to imply that the more a game gets copied without permission, the worse its quality becomes. After all, less time and effort went into making it -- they were stolen!

You seem to believe - like many who argue against copyright - that "stealing" is always and only when the one being stolen from has less of something in the end. This is not the case - in colloquial English we talk about "stealing ideas", and other similar cases where the subject of the action is not really lost.

In truth, something is always lost. For example, in case of copyright infringement, the exclusive right to redistribute - which itself has a certain price - is lost.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[pacinpm]

Friend, if you're going to call the system broken, it seems like you should propose an alternative.

I've not myself encountered another way for artists to be sufficiently supported to continue in their art. I've certainly seen single case examples (Cory Doctorow and his one book, Stephen King and his one book), but these things don't work at scale and it's notable that neither of them did that twice.

What would you suggest?

He can work as a carpenter to guy his food and publish books for free in internet. He can sell his books on paper. He can gather money from sponsors. He can sell ebook wothout DRM through Kindle store and count on people buying it because it's more convenient than torrenting. There are multiple ways to share your ideas. People used to create music and books and acts long before copyright.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[mcvos]

They should be, but then people go and freely distribute the game with wild abandon. DRM'd games get pirated too of course, but the purpose of the DRM is inhibit the pirated game in the first days, weeks of release as much as possible. Even if it inhibits piracy by a few days or by 20%, that may still pay for the DRM and justify itself financially. Perhaps the devs could release a patch to disable the DRM later, as happened with The Witcher.

But does it actually inhibit piracy by a few days? Wasn't Spore cracked before release, despite rather ambitious DRM? And who knows how many people would have bought Assassin's Creed 2 if it hadn't been crippled by ridiculous DRM?

It's nice to state the goals of DRM, but I've never seen anything that suggests DRM accomplished those goals. It just seems to hurt honest customers and encourage people to download the cracked version.

And there have been plenty of DRM-free games that sold like crazy, despite their availability on torrents.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

DRm was never about piracy, it was about control. Saying that they will remove DRM but you can only buy the download from one source still gives them all the control. They've found a way to get the control and not only have no complaints, but have people actually cheering them. Congratulations, you have walked straight into their end game with your eyes tightly closed.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[GameboyRMH]

Also, while the game is DRM-free, it's damn expensive (current preorder price on GoG is $44.99)

I'm confused too :(

Re:Intended Reaction?

[mcvos]

You sound a lot like Brad Wardell. He says similar stuff: pirates don't matter, paying customers do. And I agree. It's an healthy attitude, and I hope you become rich.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Gordonjcp]

Pirates use their own time and resources to copy data.
... which other people created. If you want to give your own work away for nothing, that's fine. Other people might want paid for their time, and rightly get annoyed when people steal from them.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[mcvos]

Interesting. So if we were to strip away the profit element on my side - maybe only accept donations from customers which would go directly to hosting costs - and offer your game for free downloads on my website, would that be ok?

Most likely the game is already available for free through torrent sites. Yet he still makes money. People who can afford to, who want the official product, and those who want to support the official developer, will all buy from him, rather than go to you or torrents. It's only when you manage to acquire the appearance of being the official publisher by selling cheap copies in retail stores, that you truly hurt him. Suddenly people with money to spare will go to you.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the harm is to society as a whole, for if artists weren't given this control, a fairly large portion of our culture likely wouldn't exist.

That must be why most "artists" are always broke and mega-corporations control copyrighted work. A few decades after a reasonable creator dies, movies might be made from the works and the creator's later family which may not have even been born at the same time as the creator get to live off the proceeds.

Tell me where this isn't wrong.

Don't forget, you will never see old works coming into the public domain for the rest of your life. And this is right somehow?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[makomk]

Perhaps the harm is to society as a whole, for if artists weren't given this control, a fairly large portion of our culture likely wouldn't exist.

The interesting thing is that it doesn't actually follow from this argument that we should eradicate piracy. While copyright may incentivise artists to create, it often doesn't give them an incentive to contribute to our culture. For example, suppose an artist has a choice of selling a few copies of their creation at huge prices or many copies at smaller prices. The former will probably make them more money than the latter, even though the latter benefits society more (and is better from an economic perspective).

Now bring piracy - commercial or otherwise - into the picture. Suddenly it becomes impossible to create the levels of artificial scarcity and exclusivity necessary to make the "few copies, huge prices" model work - anyone who can't pay the prices can just pirate. Piracy tilts the balance towards a more mass-market approach of prices most people can afford, benefitting society and the economy as a whole at the expense of a reduction in publishers' profits.

(In fact, part of the reason Disney has such problems with piracy is that they make particularly aggressive use of artificial scarcity, in the form of the Disney Vault. They deliberately make their titles unavailable at any price to many potential buyers, in order to improve overall profits.)

Re:Intended Reaction?

[DrXym]

Of course it inhibits piracy or they wouldn't do it. Of course if a publisher is going to use DRM (or copy protection), you can easily shoot yourself in the foot by going overboard on it.

As for DRM games selling like crazy, I expect in most cases that's due to some of the things I mentioned previously. The classic example would be Stardock games where there is substantial after sales support which are strong incentives to buy the game at retail.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[daid303]

There are about 600K Wii's with the Homebrew channel (as reported by http://hackmii.com/ ) Which is a 'requirement' for Wii piracy.

There are over 75 million Wii units sold according to Wikipedia.

Claiming that 1% of the users has a huge impact on game sales is quite something.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[mcvos]

Of course it inhibits piracy or they wouldn't do it.

Really? Are publishers clairvoyant, or is this just wishful thinking? I'm sure they hope it inhibits piracy. Maybe they even honestly think it inhibits piracy. But I have never seen a shred of evidence that it actually does. I have seen loads of evidence that big publishers have no idea what they're talking about, though. Their estimates of lost sales are completely detached from reality, to name just one example.

My guess is that they don't use DRM because it's proven to work, but only because their misinformed investors believe it works. And they think appeasing investors is more important than appeasing customers. It's a world ruled by marketers and investors, not one ruled by common sense.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't apply as you are not depleting a resource, shared or otherwise. Did you read the first sentence of your link?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[killmenow]

One phenomenon you have ignored is that a lot of third-party games don't sell well on the Wii, especially those that aren't targeted at the casual gamer. You know why?

Yes, I do know why: they suck. I've owned a Wii since day one. Had mine reserved and pre-paid. Waltzed past the line of people to pick mine up on November 19, 2006. I own more freaking Wii games than I can count. Multiple drawers full of them. ALL bought and paid for. Most of the 3rd party games are ASS. I'm not sure why this is. I don't think Nintendo is keeping the secret sauce of how to develop actually decent games for the Wii to themselves. It's all there in the SDK. Yet 3rd party after 3rd party just vomits up garbage, bolts an asinine control interface on it and stamps the "Wii" logo on the box looking for cheap and easy money.

I have the know-how and the "savvy" as you say but I would NEVER pirate a 3rd party game for the Wii because none of them are worth the effort.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

We invented the means to copy things without any effort, we can duplicate and reproduce media as much as we want. We can share any media we like with anyone we may want to. Sharing is caring.

If I invent a means to produce unlimited energy.
What would benefit society the most?
  A: I produce just that what I can sell for profit
  B: I produce as much as wanted and needed and share it with everyone?

Switch unlimited energy with food, transportation, housing, ...., media
When do you decide sharing is good and when not?

Profit has only one single positive aspect: It motivates people. If people start to get motivated by something better than greed, I'll ditch capitalism in a heartbeat. And we can leave all this nonsense behind us.

I remember some law or constitution somewhere that said that corporations are allowed to exist to improve society. Think about that for a moment.

P.S.: I think it was the U.S. constitution??

Re:Intended Reaction?

[L4t3r4lu5]

So, did Paramount gain a paying customer or lose out on your business altogether?

If you started paying for the content you consume, well done. you successfully proved that, in your one case alone, a pirate is definitely a lost sale. If you stopped consuming their products, then really well done. You've proven that pirates aren't lost sales, and they need to reduce their outrageous prices on digital media to get consumers back.

Here's hoping you send the right message.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[bberens]

First of all, you're lying. You will never go back and buy the games you pirated and even if you did you'll pay the bargain discount price because it will be several years old. You won't pay the full retail price. And the other argument about the value of the game based on how long it engages you is complete garbage too. That's why there are game rentals at your local store or any of several netflix style game rental sites. If you pay to go to the movies you can't get your money back because you didn't like the movie. You generally don't get your money back for meals unless it was really atrocious. This idea of having your cake and eating it too. Most games are in the $50 range. If you can't be bothered to cut two lawns on a Saturday to get a newly released video game then you've got problems. And if you don't like the game? It only cost you the time you played + 2 hours and a bit of gas.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[kenshin33]

To rephrase - if all of the content that you are illegally downloading today were to disappear from the world tomorrow, would you miss it?

The answer is no. If I wasn't ready to fork $$s to buy it why would I miss it?

If yes, then how would you propose that society creates incentive for artists to create such content *without* copyright laws?

The problem isn't copyright per say it is the excess of it. It is the excessive control that some want to impose. it is the logic of profit profit profit no matter what the cost is. it the sensation that we're getting screwed and we have nothing to says or do about it. the link in the post bellow is not bad at at all, you may want to read it ... http://memwiki.pirate-party.us/But_How_Will_the_Artists_Get_Paid%3F

If no, then why are you illegally downloading that content in the first place?

availability, it was there. I want 1M$ -who doesn't?- but I'm not actively seeking to robe a bank to get it, but if I found a suite-case full of money --knowing that no one will miss it--, why would i not take it?.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[TFAFalcon]

But is 'harming' the developer a 'bad' thing? If so, is buying a used game a 'bad' thing? Or giving your game away?

You can't equate 'harming' the developer with being wrong.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Raenex]

The biggest resistance to the "DRM free" approach comes from the fear of piracy. I don't think this is a particularly rational response to the problem on the part of the devs, as only a single game copy needs to be cracked and torrented to make the DRM irrelevant

The reason for DRM is to reduce "casual copying", the kind that occurs when one friend copies the game for another. If you have to circumvent the DRM and download from a torrent site it's clearer that your circumventing copyright. They're not trying to put up an impenetrable wall -- just a fence that you have to walk over.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[wye43]

I agree Anarchduke. Stealing is stealing, doesn't matter if the thing that got stoled does not exist physically or the owner was not "harmed". And you know something, I used to pirate too. But I never fooled myself that its ok to do it.

These guys preaching all forms of sophisms to make excuses for stealing know it too.They are just trolling.

And its getting really boring, indeed.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[shentino]

I suppose it's hard to argue against "no harm done so who cares" especially among slashdot crowd.

Though I could make the same argument about people sneaking into theatres or museums without paying admission.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[openfrog]

Well how about you don't expect to be able to get stuff when you don't have the money.
I get tired of their shit.

The parent never said that people should have it for free. He just pointed out, with the support of facts, that the claim about companies being hurt by piracy are unfounded.

The difference this point makes is in the legitimacy of the amount of damage that is claimed when teenagers get sued over this.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Raenex]

I've certainly seen single case examples (Cory Doctorow and his one book

Correction: All of Cory Doctorow's books are available free online. You can also buy them print.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[makomk]

Hell no. What I am going to do is save up my money until I have enough extra to buy a copy for myself. The problem with people nowdays is that they are whiny little bitches who cry, "I want, I want, I want."

You do know that - unlike pirates - you're almost certainly hurting the economy, right? Let's see why.

Firstly, you want "Call of Duty: Black Ops" specifically. You're not going to rush out and buy a similar game just because it's cheaper. This is normal, but it means there's no price signalling that would otherwise lower the price towards the cost of production.

Secondly, the money you saved up to buy it is money that you're not spending on something else. Now, some of that money goes to useful things like paying people's wages - but because games have artificial scarcity that breaks the usual price-signalling mechanisms, a lot of the money becomes excess profit that doesn't do anything economically useful. What's more, this is also why so many game studios are really badly run, get away with employing highly-paid idiots as managers, etc - there's no competition or price pressure that would force them to become more efficient.

Add this up across all the other people out there who think like you, and the loss to the overall economy is probably enormous. I've no idea how you'd put an exact figure on the total losses or the number of people who are jobless because of this economic inefficiency, let alone how much better off we'd be on average, but it's probably fairly impressive.

The pirates are almost certainly better for the economy than you are - because as far as I can tell, they're the main force counteracting this effect.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[shentino]

I'll bite...

Eh, no I won't.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[rxan]

I read the whole story in Geralt's gravelly voice.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[mcvos]

Copyright was originally intended to protect the investment of book printers against competing printers. It's about protecting the potential market. A downloader indeed doesn't deprive the copyright owner of anything, but someone who distributes illegal copies to others actually does deprive him of some potential market.

I guess that's why only uploading copyrighted material is illegal in Netherland. Downloading music and films is legal. For some weird reason there's an exception for games, though.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[donscarletti]

It's a good thing, the game is DRM free, but you shouldn't be pirating it anyway so demanding a settlement is probably reasonable. Seriously, even if they don't sue you, you still should be ashamed.

However, if you are in a geographical region where you can pirate with impunity, then torrenting still has the value of thumbing your nose to a threat. However, I suggest you purchase the game before you torrent it so you can get self righteous about it. Nothing I hate more about a pirate getting self-righteous about DRM, since they are the primary reason that DRM is implemented.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[jambarama]

This isn't tragedy of the commons. Tragedy of the commons occurs with non-excludable but exhaustible resources. Piracy makes games non-excludable, but the game is utterly inexaustible.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Tanktalus]

You're both right. Many people today have entitlement issues. They feel entitled to things they can't afford. For many people, this results in credit card bills racking up faster than they'll ever be able to pay them. For others, it results in theft and/or piracy.

That doesn't justify the ludicrous claims of the game/music/movie industries of what piracy is doing to their bottom line. The fact is that a very significant portion of those pirating their games would not be able to afford the games anyway, thus are not truly lost sales (if you prevented that piracy, the publisher's profits would not have increased).

What we really need to do is find a way to bring the public debate back to reality.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[imakemusic]

... so why should he pay you?

So that I turn up tomorrow.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[sorak]

How many others are wondering if this company is trying to "bait" people into getting their game? I don't think it makes good business sense, but they are practically begging to be pirated, and then shaking down the pirates.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[arkenian]

It does hurt someone. It hurts the creators, who would otherwise get some of the money.

"Potential profit," then? For one thing, in order for it to explicitly hurt them, something that they previously owned must be taken from them.

Suppose someone decides not to buy a product from a store. Would the store have had more money if they did? Yes. Using the logic of those who utilize the potential profit argument, this would mean that they have 'stolen' potential profit from the store, and have therefore 'harmed' a legitimate business.

Suppose that someone tells all of their friends who were originally going to buy a product not to buy it. They ultimately decide not to buy it. Would the store have had more money if the person hadn't told their friends not to buy the product (or if the friends had given them their money anyway)? Yes. Using the same logic above, it can be concluded, then, that the business was 'hurt'.

It should be noted here, that while I am free to tell my friends not to buy a product, if I lie about the product while doing so, and they choose not to buy it, I can be sued for damaging the business (slander/defamation). So yes, under the law, and indeed laws that have been in our culture for longer than our country has existed, the business was indeed 'hurt'.

Likewise if , through negligence, make it impossible for a business to open their doors for a day, I may be liable for lost profits. For that matter, if I injure someone and make them unable to execute their livelihood, I may be liable for lost earning potential -- a concept which is enshrined in common law for many centuries.

So the point is that the idea that preventing someone from making money due to direct actions on your part may, under some circumstances, be direct harm to that person, is hardly a novel legal concept, and you shouldn't treat it as one.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason pirates pirate is because they can. They are blood suckers.

Now, I used to pirate, but I recently got a DMCA notice after torrenting HTTYD.

There's nothing worse than a reformed whore.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[1u3hr]

Stealing is stealing, doesn't matter if the thing that got stoled does not exist physically

Of course it matters. Stealing is taking something away, not just copying something. You can argue that it's immoral, but if you say it's "stealing", you're just wrong by definition.

All you do is start a pointless argument about the definition of "stealing". Just talk about what is actually happening, don't try to bend the language to make it seem more evil.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Schadrach]

Cheer them, of course. DRM is evil, it's selling you an intentionally damaged product on the assumption that if they didn't damage it before they sold it to you then someone might steal it. Piracy is certainly a lesser evil, but a company forgoing a greater evil in exchange for aggressively fighting a lesser one is all good.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Sancho]

Well part of the problem here is that copyright is now effectively infinite. If it was 24 years max, culture would clearly benefit.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whew, it's a damn good thing that the ancients had strong IP laws, else we'd never be able to read The Odyssey, or the Bible.

Scaremongering doesn't prove anything. In fact, this CONTROL keeps other (perhaps equally talented) artists from adding to our culture by building upon that which (recently) came before. Every artist builds upon earlier work. But, only modern works are sacrosanct. There is a big problem here. Until it gets fixed, I totally support copyright infringement.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[hairyfeet]

Actually I think we can pull this off, just like we do the /. effect. Come around brothers and sisters, and let da feet tell you how we can spit in the eye of the Disneys of the world...

It is high time my brothers and sisters, high time I say, that we use our incredible powers to change the things that sucketh! This is the ONE TOPIC that pretty much we ALL agree on, for none with a straight face can say 150+ year copyrights are fair! Now I hear you saying "But how can we change things, brother feet? We are just the geeks and nerds of the world!" But da feet knows my brothers, gather round and he shall enlighten..

I say my brothers and sisters it is high time we use our control of technology for OUR ends! Not with some lame Chanology DDOS style crap, but to actually change the minds of our fellow Americans, and then the world! Yes brothers I am talking about the most glorious of weapons ever created, the power of propaganda which can change elections, make the clueless vote against their interests, and make the unbelievable believable! I say it is high time my friend that we, the noble geeks and nerds at the great institution known as Slashdot pull a Willie Horton on the copyright industry! Can I get an amen brothers?

Now first we will need some of our greatest website builders to build for us a site. There are plenty of free site hosting, so all it will take is a bit of the brothers time. Then from that central meeting place the artists that work in graphic design and media arts can help us to design catchy ads that will dazzle the eye. Again they have the tools, all we ask for is a bit of the brother's time. Those of us with musical talent will donate plenty of catchy music to choose from, all under CC of course. Again all it will cost us is a bit of time. From there we spread it heavily upon the net, sites like Youtube will spread it far and wide. We will make it so NO American will be able to go onto the web without seeing and hearing our message. From our site we will have letter writing pages to hit everyone in congress, so it will be easy for our newly converted to let the congress critters in their district know how they feel, as well as OUR "Contract with America" where everyone will pledge to VOTE OUT those that refuse to listen to us!!!

I'm telling you my brothers and sisters, we CAN DO this! WE have the power of technology, WE have the knowledge of its workings, WE can shape the minds and awaken our brothers from their slumber! Join with me and WE CAN change the world!!!

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Earn? There is no "earn". There is only work, and receiving a gift to entice you to continue work. That's it. We don't live in a meritocracy. Some people get a lot of money for shitty work. Some people do high quality, difficult work and receive peanuts. So don't go fucking preaching to me about people "earning" anything. It's a joke.

You want to talk about taking and entitlement? How about hundreds of years of American and European powers despoiling their neighbors of their natural resources? I could go on.

Let me tell you something, you fuckwit. If lower and middle class people are "stealing" so goddamned much, how come they still don't have anything? The fat-cats with all the money are the real thieves. They don't earn a damn thing ... except the worship of imbecilic thugs like yourself. Get off your own lawn ... it's not yours.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that you offer one thing he can't: support. You can fix problems that users have with your software. You can take suggestions for improvement and implement them. He will have to turn his crying customers away and they will not want to buy from him again.

Anonymous because I already modded here.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is why the AC above never goes out the movies, and never eats anything but the time proven Mac & Cheese which is hard to mess up, and is pretty good most of the time.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[seanvaandering]

If you pay to go to the movies you can't get your money back because you didn't like the movie.

That not entirely true. At all cinemas here in Canada at least, there is a refund policy that if you walk out within the first 30 minutes of the movie, you can get a full refund. How come there isn't a crippleware version that only works for a few levels that's completely free? Would most likely take care of the "casual pirate". The hardcore freeloaders, no matter what their reasons, won't pay anyways.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Score Whore]

It's not completely and utterly wrong. The fact that some people insist on only considering the duplication costs doesn't change the fact that without the initial development costs there would be nothing to duplicate. If you are part of the supply chain of a software product then it makes sense for you to consider your individual component. But when someone is trying to make a moral/economic argument then you have to consider the end-to-end costs, not just the part that it's easy to glom on to.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Score Whore]

Where did I do that?

I said "check into free riders before you tell us that no one is harmed." Your entire followup post was full of responses to arguments that I didn't make.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

In my perfect world, there would be no such thing as imaginary property. Either you make a game/movie/album and take what people give you or you don't make it at all.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Slider451]

Your post was practically incomprehensible and completely unsubstantiated. The only take away I got was inferred guilt for not doing my patriotic duty to improve the economy by incurring debt to purchase something I don't need.

You must be an economist.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[geekoid]

Man who gets free games complains about others who want free games.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Merk42]

Yes, the people who created the game don't benefit at all from the sales. Nor do other players since higher sales means "yes please make more of this kind of game". Nope, buying games is for suckers.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Taibhsear]

First of all, you're lying. You will never go back and buy the games you pirated and even if you did you'll pay the bargain discount price because it will be several years old.

Incorrect. Already happened. And there's no difference between that and borrowing it from a friend until you can get it for the discount price or renting it until then. Either way the producers still get nothing until later. If people won't pay the full retail price, mmm maybe the full retail price is TOO DAMN HIGH.

And the other argument about the value of the game based on how long it engages you is complete garbage too. That's why there are game rentals at your local store or any of several netflix style game rental sites.

That... doesn't even make sense. Games give you a longer engagement time. They cost more to rent than a movie...

If you pay to go to the movies you can't get your money back because you didn't like the movie.

Actually, yes, you can.

You generally don't get your money back for meals unless it was really atrocious.

Yeah if the meal sucks or isn't prepared as you asked it to be you can always get your money back. Can't typically do that for games. And the state of demos (when they actually bother to MAKE one) is atrocious. You get barely one level, if that. They don't tell you what the full product is like. And they tend to be buggy as all hell. I can't tell you how many demos I've played that sucked hardcore but my friends swear the full game is great. If I can't test it out first, I'm not shelling out $60 fucking dollars with no chance of recouping my losses if it blows.

This idea of having your cake and eating it too. Most games are in the $50 range. If you can't be bothered to cut two lawns on a Saturday to get a newly released video game then you've got problems. And if you don't like the game? It only cost you the time you played + 2 hours and a bit of gas.

The only one trying to have their cake and eat it too is the companies producing the games. Market your product properly (GOOD DEMOS, NO DRM) and people will buy it when they have the money. And if they'd just drop the damn prices (like the sales on Steam) they'd sell a shit ton more and make more profit from it. Rather than waste good money trying to lock down the games and prosecute people that either want to see the product before buying or don't have the money to spend on it YET.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Merk42]

Company X makes game Y. Game Y doesn't sell well (because of heavy piracy), Company X's reputation suffers due to making a game that didn't recoup the losses from development. The people who worked at Company X making game Y lost "precious hours of life" creating something that few paid for. There. Analogy better now?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I disagree. I use torrent sites to get movies and tv shows. I almost always pick up the series when its out or I can afford it. movies vary but if I enjoyed it I do.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

So if you get the letter...you pay the fine...don't let it turn into a civil suit....if you have the sense. Or just don't download it illegal in the first place, download what is called a "Demo" or just buy it. I myself go and buy my games the day they are released, I work so I earn money so i can afford my video games.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, my local theater does give refunds.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Quirkz]

Michelangelo spent four years of his life paint the roof of the Cistene Chapel. And he did it without copyright to provide an incentive.

Yeah, but in that system he's essentially a hired laborer, like a carpenter, rather than someone running their own business based on the sale of their creation. Maybe you're saying that doesn't matter, but I think there's a pretty stark difference between the two situations. I might be very satisfied writing novels and having them published, but I don't think I'd be satisfied at all being paid a salary to entertain a millionaire's kids by telling them stories all day long, and with no rights to tell those same stories to anyone else.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[ultranova]

Of course it inhibits piracy or they wouldn't do it.

If a CEO orders the use of DRM and the game gets pirated (as it will), it's not his fault, since he got the best protection money could buy (even if it was equivalent to none). If a CEO doesn't order the use of DRM, and the game gets pirated (as it will), it's his fault for not getting protection (even if it was equivalent to none). Therefore, ass-covering mandates the use of DRM. And DRMoil salesmen are, of course, more than happy to spread this idea.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[brkello]

Stupid. One action is legal, the other isn't. It would be like me saying that I want a candidate to win and another to lose. I could tell all my friends not to vote for B, which is great. Or I could break in to an election office and still all the ballots for the candidate I want to lose. If you pirate a game, you aren't paying for something that you should have. Go ahead and do that, just don't try to morally justify it because you are in the wrong.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[bberens]

You'd be hard pressed to convince me that people who pirate games have gone out and paid for every single game they have ever pirated. You're just being dishonest here.

There's a HUGE difference between borrowing a game from a friend and downloading it. If you borrow a game from your friend he no longer has possession of it.

Here's a newsflash for you, things that are new to the market cost more. When flat screen TVs first hit the market they were crazy expensive and small in size. Now they're just a few hundred dollars for a 40" hi-def tv. If the price is "TOO DAMN HIGH" then just wait until market conditions improve (read: the game is older and they are no longer charging a premium price). The only difference between the TV and the game is that the manufacturing costs of duplicating a game is nominal (near-zero). The price of manufacturing those first TVs was high not because plastic and metal were expensive, but because a TON of intellectual property goes into making that TV. Same thing for the games. After a while you pay for the IP costs and the price can come down more in line with the cost of reproduction. That's why TVs are coming down in price, the same way older games cost less.

What does the price of renting a movie have to do with your ability to rent a game to try it before you drop significant money on it?

You shouldn't expect to eat your entire meal and then not pay for it, which is what you're talking about when you're downloading games. Sure, you might get away with it at restaurants from time to time but it's pretty poor ethics to eat the entire meal and then leave without paying and eventually the manager is going to stop you.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[maugle]

Nobody's going to argue THAT. People on Slashdot may have different opinions on noncommercial piracy on the individual level, but just about everyone absolutely hates the sort of commercial piracy you just described.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[lortho]

This theory doesn't match the evidence in this case, though. Piracy has skyrocketed over the years, but the gaming industry has shown no signs of approaching anything near a situation where it's "no longer tenable to make games and no one has a game to play." On the contrary, it's gotten bigger and bigger as well. Even in this age where thousands and thousands of both legally and illegally free games exist for all sorts of different platforms, big titles like CoD Black Ops are seeing record sales. There's very clearly something about the economics of this situation that the old theories and models are missing.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with this logic is that it uses population statistics to justify individual behavior. Even if I subscribed to the theory that piracy somehow helps the music / movie / game / software industry (which I don't, not for a second), that still couldn't justify the act of pirating a game on a individual level.

To say "Look! I found a study that shows that piracy HELPED the music industry! That means piracy is actually GOOD and we should all do it without feeling guilty!" is ridiculous on its face.

If I want a game, I have two options to get it:

1) Buy it.
2) Steal it.

One clearly helps support the industry, and other clearly does not. End of discussion.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad for, the reality is that the items on Pirate Sites are often the most recent ones. How old is this game again?

I was just looking on Scribd as well, and saw several copies of 4th Edition D&D books.

Exactly why should I believe that there is some noble crusade to share the older materials when I can see that happening?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[interkin3tic]

What I should be doing is making my cake better so that my existing customers are happy. Instead we have DRM, which is the digital equivalent of me putting a special coating on my cakes meaning they are tasteless without a decoating agent

THERE IS NO DRM HERE. That's the point. They're only suing/fining the pirates.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[twokay]

I think games are in a unique position compared to movies or music. They hold a much greater potential to engaging for long periods of time. There are full price games ive played for 80hrs and indie games half or a quater of the price ive played for the same amount of time.

Developers need to work on making it possible for players to pay for the experience after the inital purchase. Not necessarily a subscription but the oppertunity for real fans to give them more money if they want. And to lower the barrier to entry for those who are not sure if they want to make a $60 commitment.

DLC and horse armor done well. I dont think anyone has really done this yet. And remeber that more and more adults will be their target audience, with real money. Not teenagers on torrent sites.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, we do go back and buy. I did it for quite a few Valve games, even the ones I only played single-player or at a LAN. I did it for Deus Ex, Psychonauts, Mass Effect and many others. FYI there is not even a game rental service where I live and games are terribly overpriced here.

Do you know how many games I would have legitimately bought if I never pirated? Probably ZERO, because I was introduced to gaming through piracy. My parents never too fond of gaming, so I doubt they would buy expensive original games.

Did you know that if you trade a game or buy it used you are hurting the industry the same as if you had pirated it. Now you know.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[BenoitRen]

Then why don't the PS3 and Xbox 360 suffer from the same issue?

Because pirating on those game consoles is an order of magnitude harder. It's really easy on the Wii.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[BenoitRen]

I have the know-how and the "savvy" as you say but I would NEVER pirate a 3rd party game for the Wii because none of them are worth the effort.

I don't believe you for a second (that they all suck). Have you tried all of these third-party games?

• A Boy and His Blob
• Arc Rise Fantasia
• Excite Truck
• Final Fantasy Fables: Chocobo's Dungeon
• Ghost Squad
• The House of the Dead: Overkill
• Klonoa
• Kororinpa
• Little King's Story
• Muramasa: The Demon Blade
• No More Heroes
• No More Heroes 2
• Opoona
• Rayman Raving Rabbids
• Rune Factory Frontier
• Sin & Punishment: Star Successor
• Sonic and the Secret Rings
• Sonic Colours
• Sonic Unleashed
• Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World
• Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars
• Valhalla Knights: Eldar Saga
• Zack & Wiki: Quest for Barbaros' Treasure

Re:Intended Reaction?

[h4rr4r]

Then I will buy the game when they release that. Treating your customers like pirates means I may as well pirate it. Instead I just avoid it, but might as well since the publisher will claim the lost sale due to piracy.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[scot4875]

Suppose someone decides not to buy a product from a store. Would the store have had more money if they did? Yes. Using the logic of those who utilize the potential profit argument, this would mean that they have 'stolen' potential profit from the store, and have therefore 'harmed' a legitimate business.

If someone decides to not buy a product from a store, they won't have said product to use. Piracy has all the benefits of choosing not to buy combined with all the benefits of buying.

That said, I wasn't planning on buying or pirating this game, and this story has convinced me that even if I hear very good word of mouth, I still won't be buying or pirating it. In my opinion, media producers really need to get over the fact that some piracy happens, and that they can still make a shitload of money anyway. The entire industry grew up with rampant piracy; obviously it isn't as big of a problem as they like to make it out to be.

--Jeremy

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

For what it's worth, some of my mother's friends regularly complain about bad movies and usually get their money back. Can't wait til I'm an old fart myself!

Re:Intended Reaction?

[lwsimon]

Doesn't matter which way he did it, as there is no way for Paramount to track his purchases to see one way or another.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps there is an indirect cost though. People who pay for a game are somewhat primed to like it, because they don't want to have wasted their money. Pirates don't have any such priming, and are more likely to crap all over a game and/or not invest enough time in it to see its value (if it has any). All customers, legit and otherwise, are cogs in a game's publicity machine.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[lwsimon]

Personally, I am far more likely to download an older game than a new one.

Just the other day, I was looking for a good copy of Civil War General II. Before that, I was playing OpenTTD, which is a clone of Transport Tycoon Deluxe.

There is enough interest in this stuff to foster a network of hosting sites if it were legal - but not enough to keep seeds operational.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[h4rr4r]

If there are no consequences to just taking the game, and people can see that there are no consequences for just taking the game, why would anyone pay for it?

If that is a question you have to ask, I must question the quality of your upbringing.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Bucky24]

This brings up a good point: Pirating a game may get you a free game that you will play for a year or so and then forget about, but if enough people pirate games and there isn't enough money for development of new games... Fewer new games every year, which means fewer choices for you to pirate.

A cheaper development budget also means that fewer game companies will be shelling out cash to develop for the newest technologies, since the dev kits for older platforms have already been paid. Welcome to the world of instant gratification: because you and a million others decided to pirate a game instead of paying for it, because you wanted it NOW, the small game design studio that created that blockbuster game is out of business and the sequel will be released by EA. And no one wants that.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Bucky24]

Legal costs can be arbitrarily high. I can just see the bill now:
Cost of game pirated: $50
Various legal fees: $100,000
Total bill to be paid: $100,050

Honestly, the only people who are winning at all in this are the lawyers.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[FictionPimp]

I personally know several people who pirate every video game they play. It's not that they can't afford it, or want to test them out, or any other reason that someone might deem legitimate.

They pirate the games they spend almost every waking moment playing because "they just are not worth the money".

I fail to see how something that entertains me for 20 hours isn't worth the few bucks an hour. I spend more on dinner with friends, drinks at a bar, or watching a movie with my wife. I also notice these same guys pirate every movie that comes out and all their music.

I however take a different approach. I don't buy things I don't feel are worth the money, but I also don't pirate them.

I think the answer is fairly simple. If you get caught stealing you have to pay a fine/do some time. This is basically what they are doing to protect their copyright. They don't seem to be saying downloading 1 copy of their game is 1 million dollars, but rather they just want you to pay for what you actually took. A rather fair and legit way of protecting their copyright.

I write software for a living. If I wrote a application that I was selling for $50.00 and I found someone was using that application without paying me my $50.00, my first step would be to contact them and ask for $50.00. If that failed, my next step would be to take legal action and stop them from using the software.

It's either worth $50.00 to you or it shouldn't be used by you. Fairly freaking simple.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[FictionPimp]

My friends can afford to hit the clubs every weekend and spend hundreds on drinks and food. They can afford to buy nice cars and rent apartments, they can afford to shop at the local mall for $100.00 jeans.

Somehow $.99 cent songs, $50.00 video games, and $7.00 movies are just too expensive for them. So they have to pirate all 3. They pirate everything, from their operating systems to the tools they used to do their jobs.

To paraphrase a conversation I had last year.

Friend: Why are you using linux?
Me: A few reasons. It's free and it gets the job done.
Friend: Windows is free and you can game on it.
Me: Windows is not free.
Friend: Just go download it off the piratesbay. No one should need to pay for windows MS has enough money.
Me: You know I'm a software developer right......
Friend: Hey, you wouldn't know how to crack CS2 would you? I want to upgrade.

I don't buy things that are not worth the money, and I save for the things I want. I really want a 27 inch imac right now, is it ok if I go take one from the apple store? It won't hurt apple's bottom line and I just can't afford it. Well I could afford it if I stopped buying video games....

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is another side effect. To fight piracy, video games are moving more to the console. It's a LOT harder to pirate console games, but console games are rarely as deep and easy to control as PC games.

So PC games start becoming shitty console ports because they know that they won't make a lot of cash due to piracy. Everyone has to buy AC2 for the xbox, but nobody has to buy it for the PC

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Should I be allowed to go to the patent office, get a patent of something you invented and start producing and selling it?

After all, it doesn't directly hurt you. There is no proof the people buying it from me would have bought it from you. Perhaps they only bought it from me because I was better at marketing.

Piracy of video games hurts everyone. The more people who pirate the game the less the developer makes. The less they make the less likely they are to keep hiring people and produce even more games.

Let's say I made a video game that sold 1 million copies. Now let's say .5 million copies were pirated. Now what if that extra 500,000 would have allowed me to keep the two programmers I'll need to fire because of the economy?

You can't say it doesn't hurt, you can say it only appears not to hurt.

Minecraft is a great game and only about 10 bucks. Because people decided to buy it rather than pirate it he was able to expand and get a team of devs who will hopefully help get the game growing faster. If we all pirated it we would have been left with 1 guy who eventually would see no reason to keep making minecraft.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[FictionPimp]

I'm assuming the banks are investing the money (otherwise they really should stop giving me interest). So in reality my money is being used to help the economy in the form of loans and investments.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[toriver]

Unlicensed copying of copyrighted works is not the same as illegal acquisition of physical property in a court of law. Why should it be so outside of it?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[FictionPimp]

What is it that a indie developer does that makes their shitty 10 hour game worth more than EA's shitty 10 hour game?

Let's say I make a 10 hour game. I'm a indie dev and I try to sell it at $25.00.

Now let's say it's a success and EA picks me up and my next game is published by them for $25.00 and is a 10 hour game.

Why do I suddenly not deserve my $25.00?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[FictionPimp]

I bought my wii exclusively to play emulated games. I buy the games nintendo posts for sale (Castlevania, punch out, etc), but many of the games I play have no nintendo downloadable version.

Am I a pirate? I have many (or at least at one time owned) most of the physical media related to the rom's I play.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[makomk]

It's not completely and utterly wrong. The fact that some people insist on only considering the duplication costs doesn't change the fact that without the initial development costs there would be nothing to duplicate.

Have you actually read the Wikipedia article I linked? Please do, I'll wait.

The initial development costs may be what matter as far as the company making the game is concerned. From an economic perspective, though, the fact that the marginal costs are almost zero breaks the things that are supposed to make the free market an efficient allocator of resources.

For example, suppose a company spends $20 million on a game and releases it via digital downloads from which it receives essentially all the income. Suppose they have two choices: sell a million at $30/copy or 700 thousand at $50/copy. Both of them will make back the money, but the second option makes more money even though it's less economically efficient: the same amount of resources are consumed but it produce a smaller amount of total output than the first option. The publisher's incentives are not aligned with the economic benefit of its actions.

(Software and other digital data is essentially unique in this regard - all the other things that appear to have a very high upfront and very low per-item cost tend to be restricted by limited production resources, equipment depreciation, etc.)

Re:Intended Reaction?

[icebraining]

Or, you could play now and ***BUY IT*** later.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[bberens]

Yes, we do go back and buy.

You have bought a legitimate license for EVERY SINGLE GAME you've ever downloaded/copied illegally?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

I said a lot. I didn't say all, and I'd wager I spend much more than the average shopper on my habi^H^H^H^Hobby.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[vakuona]

Value is not imaginary. The value of a product is the maximum you would pay for it. The value differs from person to person. The difference between the value and the price you pay is the consumer surplus. Perception of value doesn't drop when others get it for less. People don't like being treated unfairly.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[vakuona]

Not all DRM punishes non-pirates more than it prevents piracy. Case in point, PS3 games, and XBOX 360 games, and Nintendo games. In fact, I daresay, given the size of the video games industry, DRM thwarts piracy more than it actually hurts users, if at all. On the PC, DRM is a challenge, definitely.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[JustSomeProgrammer]

I'm not sure that no copyright would cause a boom in a "software fixing" industry as much as a "redistribute for profit without paying anything to the author" industry.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting how selectively you ask. Did you read only the first phrase?

Ok, if you want it so much, you win this internet discussion. I hope you are happy. Even then, I would advise you to read that comment more attentively, but I don't think you care about anything but being "right".

Re:Intended Reaction?

[toriver]

How can you twist "copyright is not theft" into "what if there was no copyright"? Copyright exists, and it does protect the creators, if they decide to spend the resources going after those that leech off their works instead of trying to make something that enough people are willing to pay for. Nobody owes you a success in business.

But to the individual developer a pirate is no more a paying customer than a subsistence farmer in Kenya with no computer, they contribute 0 to the income. Just like someone buying a book in a secondhand store, or someone picking up a discarded newspaper or magazine instead of buying a new one.

what percentage of your customers who are paying for your games are doing so because they actually want to support you

Probably zero. But that does not matter. People buy stuff out of self interest - what product will interest/help/entertain ME? The creator/manufacturer succeeds if they can fill that need.

Basing your business on some naive assumption that there are people out there who are just yearning to give you their money out of some other desire is taking the Interstate straight to failure. You find such dreamers on the out-takes on X Factor, teens who thought they were the next best thing but were laughed out the door, their dreams crushed...

Re:Intended Reaction?

[famanz]

By all means demand the sum you feel you've lost (and if the downloader disgagrees then have your day in court), but going beyond that feels like an abuse.

If you think it's reasonable for them to use the legal system to enforce you to pay then you should also understand that identifying pirates and serving them with legal notices is not free. So wouldn't it also be reasonable for them to pass this cost onto the pirates?

Of course since nobody knows what the actual cost of these "parking tickets" will be it's too early to know whether they'll be reasonable with the fines or if they'll use RIAA "math."

I'm still not sure how I feel about this. I think most of us have an aversion to using the legal system in this way due to the tactics employed by the MPAA/RIAA over the past decade so pretty much by default I don't like this idea. But at the same time the company is going to be releasing the game DRM free which is something the community has been asking for for a long time, and it's not unreasonable for them to expect players to pay for their product. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

I'll definitely be buying the game, my big decision will be whether to go with steam (the majority of my current games are there) or to use gog (to support the DRM free movement).

Re:Intended Reaction?

[toriver]

You are acting as if art and creations were not made before copyright law came into being...

You are aware that only a small fraction of the world's musicians, authors etc. actually can make a living off their art? IIRC around 1% of bands get a recording contract, perhaps 10% of authors get published etc. I cannot see the desire to create (among the majority) going away just because copyright would go away: It's not doing anything for them right now anyway. In fact it is hindering them since they cannot build on the works of others in their own art, the protections basically prevents modern creations from ever becoming parts of the cultural heritage (which largely consists of out-of-copyright works if you start looking).

The only "system" the current copyright laws protect is the industry built up around that fraction of artists that are commercially viable. And entertainment industry exploiting laws created to incite artists to create works of culture that would enter the common "pool".

Does a theater company staging "Romeo and Juliet" feel they are "stealing" from Shakespeare? Why are they staging an old play instead of a more modern one? Because industries demand royalties for the "intellectual product" that a modern play would count as.

And so the Bard abides.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[BitZtream]

I don't see anyone arguing that piracy is acceptable.

What I do see is people arguing is the fact that the punishment for piracy is ridiculous compared to the actual damages.

You are right, if you can't afford it, sorry, you can't have it. But if that person who can't afford it pirates it from a friend, then no one is actually harmed and nothing is actually lost by anyone that cares.

The software developer is arguing a lost sale, which is simply bunk if the person who pirated didn't have the money to buy it in the first place. The software developer didn't have to pay for bandwidth or disk storage. They were out nothing by the piracy because there were never going to make anything off that person and they didn't lose any money at all by that person getting a DIGITAL COPY ... COPY ... let me say it again FUCKING COPY from SOMEWHERE OTHER THAN THE DEVELOPER.

I'm a developer myself. I'm whole heartedly against piracy in all forms, music included. I buy my software and media or I don't, but I no longer pirate.

I've been put in several situations where I know my software is being pirated and the pirates are using my online services, actually costing me money in the form of bandwidth ... I just kill their online id. If they buy it then, I win, if they don't buy it then, I still don't lose because I'm literally not any worse off than if the person never existed.

Again though, I agree with you to an extent. People today believe they are entitled to whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want, without any compensation or consideration for others.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[BitZtream]

Yes.

We're about to be covered in 'in game advertising' anyway so they'll be making money on pirated copies as well.

You do realize thats how television is produced, right?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[BitZtream]

So which Paramount office do you work at again?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if you assume 100% of pirates wouldn't have bought the game if they couldn't get it for free, what gives them the right to play the game without paying for it?

What gives Disney et.al. (through their lobbyists) the right to extend copyright indefinitely? Answer: No right given by the people. Nevertheless, corrupt politicians continue to allow it. This isn't about rights any more. It's about the rich and powerful getting their way and not liking it one bit when the little guy gets it his way. I say, too fucking bad. I will continue to pirate with impunity. And if video games, music, and film go away, well boo hoo. I guess I'll read a book.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me that you are mixing and matching two different concepts within copyright.
Making a copy of something available for free - copyright infringement.
Making a copy of something available for profit - piracy.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's hoping you send the right message.

It's the one that says that a pirate is a lost sale, right?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[exomondo]

On the PC market, people won't generally finish a game, but complain when they don't get 100+ hours of gameplay, even when the game is sold at a competitive price (let's say 30 US$ or less).

Where exactly are you seeing this very specific situation occur?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Saib0t]

Yes, we do go back and buy.

You have bought a legitimate license for EVERY SINGLE GAME you've ever downloaded/copied illegally?

Oh, the nice fallacy of the indivisible middle... "we do go back and buy", he said, not "we do go back and buy EVERY SINGLE TIME".

Now, if you're interested as to when, there's crap games, there's "meh" games not worth the money they're sold for and there's nice games. Those are the ones that are gone back for...

Re:Intended Reaction?

[lymond01]

If artists need to introduce artificial scarcity to continue doing what they love and participating in society, then that is a fault of a broken system, not people who do no harm to others.

The thing is, people need to survive. It was decided a long time ago that money made the trade of goods and services easier -- including those required to feed and clothe oneself. If artists had to provide these things by themselves (farming, for example) we'd have less artists and less music.

I'm not sure what you're hoping for in a solution. I spent money (aka lessened my time to survive) to provide this game hoping that you would like it enough to pay me what I feel it is worth (aka returning my time to survive). If you think copying it and giving it to someone else to play doesn't hurt me, you're wrong. They are playing the game that I've determined there should be recompense when they do so. Part of the agreement in fact.

If you give them a copy and they do not play it, that's perfectly ok with me. But I'm charging for the entertainment received -- if they play it, they should pay.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[hairyfeet]

Emule my friend, Emule. There you can find some seriously oooold games still being shared. We are talking a decade or more. same thing with music and movies. Hell you can look up "single player Half Life" and find a custom CD that has ALL the mods that ever came out for single player Half Life all with a nice GUI and clicky clicky. But sadly part of the reason you don't see more of the really old stuff is because you are looking at the SAME outrageous fines if you share a 15 year old piece of software as you would sharing a new one, and it is more of a PITA to get working, so why should they share the old that less people will get to use?

while I was in class me and a friend tried to get the rights to some of the classic abandonware to make our own "DOSBox...in a box" CD so that those that didn't have DOSBox skills could give us a couple of bucks and have a nice CD where everything was GUI and clicky clicky easy. But thanks to the fricking minefield that is copyrights good luck on even finding anybody that actually owns the rights to these things anymore, and the few that are still around are like patent trolls and want 300K up front to give you their "limited license" to a game that hasn't even been sold since 92. That is why many of the good cheesy shareware of the early 90s will end up just like those movies of the 20s and 30s that are nothing but dust in a can and will never be enjoyed by anyone. Copyrights have made "IP" the new greed. They would rather NOBODY ever have it if they can't make out like robber barons. Sad but true.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[kiddygrinder]

fining you the retail price is only fair if they can reliably fine every single person who downloads the game.

Yes it's an attempt to bully people, but in the same way that parking fines are an attempt to bully people.

When did private companies become the legal system
erm... 20-30 years ago?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[kiddygrinder]

you didn't read my fucking comment past the first comma or else you'd know how it hurts them

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnsin]

I suppose it's hard to argue against "no harm done so who cares" especially among slashdot crowd.

If no harm is being done, then it is not a wrong thing to do. If people don't give the author a reward for their efforts and they eventually can't produce any media, the people have only hurt themselves (because again, the act of copying does not deprive the author of anything). The only way a pirate could hurt an artist is if they wasted their time (as in, the pirate interacted with the author and requested that they do a job with promises of payment), wasted their resources, or stole property that they previously had (potential profit does not exist).

Though I could make the same argument about people sneaking into theatres or museums without paying admission.

I've already responded to that argument. It really only harms the theatre if they were full (or perhaps the customer who bought the seat).

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnsin]

I did read your comment, and I already responded to at least twenty-five other posts using the same argument. The "potential sale" argument is simply illogical.

Suppose that someone tells all of their friends who were originally going to buy a product not to buy it. They ultimately decide not to buy it. Would the store have had more money if the person hadn't told their friends not to buy the product (or if the friends had given them their money anyway)? Yes. Using the same logic above, it can be concluded, then, that the business was 'hurt'. This is an example similar to piracy because many argue that piracy affects sales, but so does this.

Ultimately, nearly everyone can be counted as a lost sale. If they would have bought the product or given another person their money, that person would have been better off.

Fortunately, however, it is not possible to harm someone merely by not giving them your money. In order for you to harm them, you must steal money that they already have, waste their time (as in, you must specifically request that they work for you while promising that you'll pay them but ultimately don't), waste their resources, or steal property that they already had. Pirates do none of those things (the authors of the media are the ones who decided to make the media).

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnsin]

So the point is that the idea that preventing someone from making money due to direct actions on your part may, under some circumstances, be direct harm to that person, is hardly a novel legal concept, and you shouldn't treat it as one.

Ah, I see. The law may think that in some circumstances it's logical, but it really isn't. In order for it to harm someone, they must actually lose money, time, resources, or property that they already had.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnsin]

Just to make absolutely sure this time, you're arguing that if we continue to allow piracy and it becomes widespread, artists won't make money and therefore won't be able to produce anymore digital media, correct?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnsin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_law

Just because something is legal/illegal, that doesn't make it right/wrong. Yes, one action is indeed currently legal, but I was saying that that is illogical because they are doing almost the exact same thing as a pirate (not giving the business their money). The pirate may have the media, but the sole act of copying (which doesn't deprive anyone of anything) does not by itself harm someone.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnsin]

If someone decides to not buy a product from a store, they won't have said product to use. Piracy has all the benefits of choosing not to buy combined with all the benefits of buying.

You're right. But, I ask again, since merely copying the product does not alone harm the author (since they're not deprived of anything from the action of copying), how does someone merely having the product hurt them? People who do not buy the product are doing the exact same thing that many people seem to think causes harm to authors: not giving them money. Since merely copying the product does not harm the author, they're nearly doing the same thing as the pirate.

But, not giving someone money doesn't harm them anyway. In order for you to harm then, you'd need to steal money they already had, waste their time (specifically request that they do a job promising payment and then not pay them), waste their resources, or deprive them of property (not merely copy) that they already had.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnsin]

I fail to see how something that entertains me for 20 hours isn't worth the few bucks an hour.

Please note that I'm not saying it's a bad thing to give artists money for their efforts, just that merely copying a product does not harm the author and that not granting someone your money does not harm them either. It's a good thing if they give them money for their efforts, but if they don't and the author is unable to continue producing media, then that have only hurt themselves.

If you get caught stealing you have to pay a fine/do some time.

"Stealing"? I'm sorry, but could you explain what is being stolen? Even the law which you're defending clearly differentiates between copyright infringement and theft. In order for it to be considered stealing, the pirate must steal money that they previously had. In order to harm them at all, the pirate must do one of the following things: waste their time directly (specifically request that they complete a job promising payment and then not pay them), steal money that they already had, steal physical property that they already had, or waste their resources. Pirates do none of those things.

Sorry if that's not what you meant.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnsin]

The thing is, people need to survive.

I did not claim otherwise. Please note that I have nothing against charging for your work. Just that I'm against the illogical notion that not granting someone your money somehow harms them. I don't blame the artists, but the system itself.

If you think copying it and giving it to someone else to play doesn't hurt me, you're wrong.

It doesn't hurt you. The pirates have deprived you of nothing that you already had. Not time (you're the one who decided to make the game, the pirates didn't request that you do and then not pay you), money (you never had the potential profit in the first place), resources, or property (copying doesn't deprive you of property).

It ultimately boils down to the fact that the pirates are only hurting themselves if they fail to pay the artist and the artist is unable to produce more media.

But, again, the need for artificial scarcity is clearly a flaw in this broken system. I do understand why artists want money, however (but even so, pirates aren't harming them).

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

How does disobeying this harm anyone?

You know... that whole starvation thing. Seems like everyone else these days is generally viewing death negatively.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnsin]

Yes, but the thing is, pirates aren't actually depriving the artists of anything.

In order to deprive someone of something, they must have had it in the first place. The artists never had the potential profit (hence its name).

The pirates have not directly wasted the artists time, their resources, or taken anything from them. Blaming them is as foolish as blaming someone for merely not buying a product.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[anyGould]

A DRM-free game released by a publisher that intends to hunt down pirates. Am I supposed to cheer them on or cry foul? I'm so confused :(

Actually, it seems like the best possible solution - people who buy the game don't get inconvenienced by stupid DRM, and they chase down the people who are actually infringing (no DRM means no need to get a cracked version of the game that actually works as advertised).

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Siffy]

No, he's mainly upset because the exchange for the good or service hasn't occurred fully. One side gets a benefit for nothing and the other doesn't get the benefit of revenue or income, not profit for the first 150,000 copies. Until that break even mark is reached, the pirate, or more potentially a large mass of pirates in what might be your non-broken system, runs the risk of the developer making no income and not having the resources to produce a future product to be bought or pirated. You've avoided the question that's been asked several time by saying the debate isn't about what fixes the system or truly even what is broken. Currently I assume you're bitching about a highly regulated capitalist model as being insufficient to get you and others free stuff. The alternatives for free stuff that I see are socialized gaming or an anarchic system that doesn't protect the intellectual property rights of the creator at all. Either of those would be worse than current. In the latter, no creator would have any protections what-so-ever to provide even minimal chance that they could support themselves by having skills in any useful art, hence why would anyone even be motivated to learn those skills in the first place? In a government provided gaming system, the payment for the developers' services would be provided by the government, regardless of how it came to the decision that the product was worthy to be produced, and everyone in the tax base would be deprived of their money to pay for the game not only whether they intended to play it or not but even if they even knew of its existence or not. Neither of those other solutions seem any more adequate, so I'd love to know your solution to the so called broken system that is yet to be clearly defined.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Siffy]

The copy merely existing doesn't affect anything.

Merely existing doesn't, but "making available" can be seen as "interfering with their flow of profit." Using bittorrent contributes to the availability of the pirated software even while just downloading "your" copy.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnsin]

No, he's mainly upset because the exchange for the good or service hasn't occurred fully. One side gets a benefit for nothing and the other doesn't get the benefit of revenue or income, not profit for the first 150,000 copies.

But, one side getting a free benefit doesn't deprive the author of anything that they previously had. The author was not harmed in the least.

You've avoided the question that's been asked several time by saying the debate isn't about what fixes the system or truly even what is broken.

If you've truly read my other comments, you'd see that I didn't avoid the question about what is broken. Here's one thing that's broken.

Supposedly, in order for artists of digital media (perhaps other media, too) to make a profit in the current system, they must introduce artificial scarcity and try to limit the amount of their work that exists only to those who paid (even though merely copying their work didn't deprive them of anything that they already owned, and therefore didn't hurt them). Sometimes, them or others, even though pirates aren't actually interacting with them at all, try to force the pirate to pay money even though no damages were inflicted upon them. How is that not broken? I don't blame the artists for trying to make money, I blame the system which forces them to earn money if they would like to produce more content.

Currently I assume you're bitching about a highly regulated capitalist model as being insufficient to get you and others free stuff.

If you had actually read my comments, you'd see that I'm "bitching" because, currently, people who are doing no harm to anyone else are being treated as criminals.

Either of those would be worse than current.

You neglected to mention the almost infinite amount of other ideas that haven't even been thought of yet. Reducing that amount to a choice between two different systems is illogical.

hence why would anyone even be motivated to learn those skills in the first place?

In a system that doesn't utilize artificial currency, people would be motivated by the love of their profession, not by their desire to get more money at all costs. Gone would be the people who only work for money. The people that work for money now only because they have to, however, would not be gone.

Neither of those other solutions seem any more adequate, so I'd love to know your solution to the so called broken system that is yet to be clearly defined.

The broken system is capitalism. Again, my inability to think of a viable alternative does not make my criticism of the current system moot. I only know that it is broken.

Remember: merely not giving someone money does not harm them. You only harm them by wasting their time (which pirates don't do because the pirate wasn't the one that specifically requested they make the media), stealing money that they already had (they never had potential profit), wasting their resources, or depriving them of property (copying doesn't deprive them of their property, if that's what you can even call data).

Saying that it is possible to steal potential profit (and that it harms people) would be either indirectly or directly blaming almost everyone in existence. Everyone who decided not to buy a product or not to give someone else money. Everyone who told others not to buy a product.

Yes, we still live in a system which requires that you have money, but blaming pirates (who don't deprive anyone of anything that they already had, and therefore don't harm them) for the inability of artists to turn a profit instead of the broken capitalistic society itself is both irresponsible and illogical. Ignoring the real problem isn't going to help anything.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Siffy]

Heh, for you free speech argument, it seems these developers have the perfect solution for your scenario. Let's say a person buys the game and is disappointed with the purchase. They can give or possibly sell their copy of the game to their friend since "owners will be able to install it as many times as they like on any number of computers." As long as they stop playing the game, and thus no longer receive the benefits from the product, the transfer would appear to fall under fair use and the spirit of selling software without DRM. In that scenario there is truly no harm being performed and no loss being made as there is still 1 copy of the game sold and 1 copy of the game being played. Do you really see 1 copy sold and 1 million copies being played as an ethical and proper situation?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Siffy]

But, one side getting a free benefit doesn't deprive the author of anything that they previously had. The author was not harmed in the least.

The author is deprived a potential sale.

If you've truly read my other comments, you'd see that I didn't avoid the question about what is broken. Here's one thing that's broken.

I've seen and read some of them and in all of those you've dodged the question.

Supposedly, in order for artists of digital media (perhaps other media, too) to make a profit in the current system, they must introduce artificial scarcity

I'll read that tomorrow and possibly get back with a response if I remember. :)

Currently I assume you're bitching about a highly regulated capitalist model as being insufficient to get you and others free stuff.

You neglected to mention the almost infinite amount of other ideas that haven't even been thought of yet. Reducing that amount to a choice between two different systems is illogical.

No, it's ignorance. As I said, those are the only 2 I can think of that will net you free stuff. Since you've refused (unless it's in that link) to give alternatives, I'm ignorant to what they might be. If you can name or describe any of those almost infinite ideas, please do.

In a system that doesn't utilize artificial currency, people would be motivated by the love of their profession, not by their desire to get more money at all costs. Gone would be the people who only work for money. The people that work for money now only because they have to, however, would not be gone.

Very few people are, will be, or can be motivated simply by love of their profession. Most people hate their jobs and hate working period. Until you can guarantee with absolute certainty that there will be just enough or an excess of farmers, road builders, factory workers, etc. to provide the basics for modern human society, you can keep your utopia far away from me. If all those things can be created in abundance only by people that love their jobs, why would the people that only work because they have to still be around? There's a breakdown in your logic. The majority of increases in efficiency have arisen by people trying to increase their profits, by lowering their costs not gouging their customers. The ultimate manifestation of the desire to make more money "at all costs" has been lowered prices and thus more widespread availability of goods and services to those of a lower economic status.

Humans as a general rule are not altruistic creatures. Many say they are but do not put their energy into any such task unless they're certain they can be seen doing it. That's simply vanity, not compassion.

The broken system is capitalism. Again, my inability to think of a viable alternative does not make my criticism of the current system moot. I only know that it is broken.

No, but it does make the discussion quite pointless. If you can't find a better solution to even a highly specific detail, it's hard to support an argument for or against it. You're basically just saying "this sucks" over and over and somewhat moving on. Actually what you have said over and over is "no harm", "harm no one", etc. and it becomes tiresome. The harm is in the violation of the authors rights. Whether you can see that harm or not makes it no less real.

Everyone who decided not to buy a product or not to give someone else money. Everyone who told others not to buy a product.

That's not a logical argument at all. When you produce something, no one has an obligation to purchase it. There's also no expectation of that when the developer created it, but there should be a good faith expectation (think before rampant piracy) by t

Re:Intended Reaction?

[lymond01]

the need for artificial scarcity is clearly a flaw in this broken system

Interesting. I think I get your point but feel free to tell me if I don't. You're saying that, because a single piece of work can be infinitely duplicated, essentially free of charge, that the laws of supply and demand do not apply. But you said it yourself, "pirates are only hurting themselves if they fail to pay the artist and the artist is unable to produce more media."

You could argue there's only one Mona Lisa, but I'll tell you that it can be recreated pretty much to the molecule with current technology. Does that make the original Mona Lisa worth less? You would say it does and there would be people who agree with you.

But there would be people who would disagree because they understand the original is unique. Same with a piece of music or a game. You are right that you're not taking away anything from the artist but because there is a need for money you are possibly preventing any more original works to be created.

There is a reason for the term "struggling artist". Because people don't believe art is always worth money, or at least not what artists are asking, those artists generally are forced to get other jobs and be artistic in their spare time. If you want more art, games, music, movies, you can't stop contributing to the cause.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Journe]

First of all, you're lying. You will never go back and buy the games you pirated and even if you did you'll pay the bargain discount price because it will be several years old. You won't pay the full retail price.

Denied. When Fallout 3 was released, I paid full price and still torrented it. Full price for the collector's edition, mind you. This allowed me to keep the box unopened, while still enjoying the game. Granted, I bought the game first, but there's others that I've torrented first and bought later. For example Borderlands, The Witcher, NFS Undercover, and Lego Batman. I'm not saying it's try before I buy, however. I'm on a fixed income, so I can't afford a lot of games. Since I only play computer games, I always torrent first, and only purchase after I've made sure it'll run on my hardware. Thanks to this practice, I'm able to have a thanksgiving dinner this month instead of spending it just eating ramen, as I torrented rather than purchased Fallout: New Vegas. Had I gone ahead and purchased the version I originally intended to (the CE, as I did with FO3) I would now have 70 less dollars of that fixed income, and a game that did not work at all.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

The author is deprived a potential sale.

As I've said time and time again, you absolutely cannot be deprived of something that you never even had. It is logically impossible. Even if it were possible, this would mean that everyone who merely warned others of bad products has deprived others of a potential sale.

If you can name or describe any of those almost infinite ideas, please do.

The thing is, I do not need to. Logically, there are an almost infinite amount of systems that one could come up with. Now, not all of them would work, but there's too many of them to simply reduce that number down to two possible systems.

Very few people are, will be, or can be motivated simply by love of their profession. Most people hate their jobs and hate working period. Until you can guarantee with absolute certainty that there will be just enough or an excess of farmers, road builders, factory workers, etc. to provide the basics for modern human society, you can keep your utopia far away from me.

It's not a utopia, as that implies perfection. It's merely a society without money.

Machines would replace people in many of the tedious, simple jobs (something that is already possible but neglected in order to "save jobs").

Also, you can't guarantee anything with absolute certainty (heh), especially something as complex and illogical as human behavior.

The love of their profession would be what motivates someone. However, while an artificial currency would no longer exist, the rest of society wouldn't just stand by and watch as someone leaches off of their work and contributes nothing.

No, but it does make the discussion quite pointless.

No, it doesn't. My points that the current system is broken would remain true, and other people may start to realize that it is true so that they can come up with a better alternative (maybe). It's not completely pointless.

That's not a logical argument at all. When you produce something, no one has an obligation to purchase it.

Apparently they do, since if they don't, they've 'deprived' (not really, since they didn't have it in the first place) the author of a potential sale, or potential profit. The pirate may have the product, but again, that doesn't hurt the artist because copying something doesn't alone deprive anyone of anything, and in order to deprive someone of something, they must logically have it in the first place.

take it that's your real problem here and we're all evil because we find money useful as an efficient means of exchange between goods, services, and our time.

It ultimately makes us hurt others (corruption through bribery, desire to get more, and pointless wars fought ultimately for profit), the environment (money being treated as more important than the environment, which is something that happens often), other animals (if it's profitable to treat them cruelly, it will happen unless someone is there to stop them). It only provides incentive because people have already been indoctrinated to believe that money is the only thing they should work for.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

Does that make the original Mona Lisa worth less?

Unless people find value in the physical copy, yes (some people find value in the original). It really depends on the person.

You are right that you're not taking away anything from the artist but because there is a need for money you are possibly preventing any more original works to be created.

You're right, and they're only hurting themselves. If they want to see the artist produce more content in this current system, pay them.

If you want more art, games, music, movies, you can't stop contributing to the cause.

Exactly.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[shnull]

i suppose it sounds like a plan, but i'm afraid it also somewhat sounds like a challenge. Will they be sending letters across the globe ? asia ? russia ? turkey ? will they press charges against people in foreign countries ? Are they bluffing? If one game were to have no pirated copies. Would the revenue be exactly the same as when they fine everyone who wasnt going to buy it anyway? Are they bluffing? Can they actually enforce this outside usa and uk ? eum -- what is witcher :p should i have heard of it ;-)

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt that IP enforcement has had that much of an effect in compliance. If anything, downloading things is bigger than ever. I remember back in the old days before people knew you could download stuff for free, and people would look at a filesharer like they were some sort of "l33t" hacker or something. If someone wants to download a game, they'll do it. if they want to support the creator, they'll buy it.

As far as your scenario? Reinvent the wheel. Create a game that can only be enjoyed as a part of a larger experience, whichi s more convenient to get from you than to "pirate" or get from a knockoff artist. There is no guarantee in business that your competition won't put you under. That's just business. IP causes many problems by trying to solve one. The MPAA and RIAA have never been in favor of artist rights. They allow content creators to get fucked royally all the time by big conglomerate labels/publishers. . . but all the sudden, as the consolidated behemoths lose their death grip over the marketplace in favor of a more level playing field for the dissemination of art and information, they're up in arms.

IP is no longer about profits. It's about control. They want to return to the good old days, when you could only get any artistic creation seen by people if it was conduited through a few corporations. You had no chance. Now, with the internet, including file sharing, whether it's profit generating or not, someone can hear ANYTHING at ANY TIME, with very little in the way. There is no need for big conglomerates to get your creations out to people. The IP frenzy is more about the control over information IMO than profit losses.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[xenobyte]

Actually it'd you that need to learn some economics... Nothing is ever so simple as you seem to make it, even though the morons at MPAA and RIAA still seems to think so.

Sounds simple enough: If you don't pay for something, someone loses money, i.e. it hurts someone.

But it's never that simple.

First up there's the question whether the 'thief' would have paid for the merchandise if he/she couldn't get it for free. Studies have shown that most pirates pay later when it comes to music and movies; they only pirate stuff due to lack of availability. Dunno about games which might be different. In any case, a pirated copy is is either paid for later or never a sale to begin with, i.e. no lost sale.

Next up is the question whether a digital copy actually is a loss on any level. Ordinary theft consists of two sides, the loss incurred by the owner and the gain incurred by the thief, either in the form of the item itself or its value when sold to a fence. A digital copy does not include the immediate loss as we're talking about a copy. And loss of sale is questionable at best.

Now we move on to the next level. Going after your (potential) customers while feeding lies to the media is not good marketing. It's actually hurting sales - quite a bit actually. So would-be customers might actually chose a different product based on this negative reputation. Now that is a clear loss.

You might even generate generic hostility against your business in general, making people take action against you and your business practices. We're talking something akin to picketing the head office or sales outlets, generating more negative press. That's even more loss.

So, going after pirates might cost you a lot more than you 'lose' in 'lost sales' (which doesn't exist for the most part). It is good business sense then to ignore 'pirating', and even better business sense to try to find out why people pirate your stuff and see if it's something you could turn into profit. Prices too high? - Lower them! Missing back catalogue titles? - Release it! Inability to obtain something in a certain geographical area? - Release it there! - And so on and so forth. Most of the solutions are easy and right there - if there's a will to actually do business as opposed to alienating your customers.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[vegiVamp]

Of course they can, but it's still a fairer system than, say, 75.000 USD per downloaded song.

I can't say for America, but in some countries it's standard practice if you lose the lawsuit that you're also liable for the victor's legal costs, so it won't make a lot of difference there.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your an idiot. Compairing someone that downloads any program because they can not or will not pay for it, to someone that downloads any program for resale have nothing to do with each other.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be an idiot too that just was born this year. Have you never heard of shareware or try before you buy. Guess what people pirated the shit out of those programs in the 80's and 90's and I dont remember any of them trying to find the biggest diaper that could find to wrap around their tail. The fact of the matter is people who download so called "illegal" copies has no bearing on if they will or will not pay for it.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Doggabone]

The only reason pirates pirate is because they can. They are blood suckers.

Now, I used to pirate, but I recently got a DMCA notice after torrenting HTTYD.

There's nothing worse than a reformed whore.

An ex-smoker.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[NickFortune]

I might be very satisfied writing novels and having them published, but I don't think I'd be satisfied at all being paid a salary to entertain a millionaire's kids by telling them stories all day long, and with no rights to tell those same stories to anyone else.

Well, yeah. I mean if you assume that working as a children's entertainer under some form of NDA would be the only possible creative outlet for litterary talent in a post-copyright world, then that would make sense. I think you'd be hard put to establish that, however. I don't Shakespear wrote for a patron, and he made a living. Dickens made much of his income from speaking engagements. Neither of them had their works vanish into obscurity because. Neither did Michelangelo, come to think of it.

And of course, just because you write a novel doesn't mean it'll get published, nor is publication any garuantee of sales. So copyright doesn't do what you what it to do, and taking it away won't prevent you making a living as writer.

Maybe you're saying that doesn't matter, but I think there's a pretty stark difference between the two situations.

Well, clearly it matters to you, but I'm not sure it's particularly relevant to the point at hand. You'd like the status quo retained, either because you make money as an author, or because you aspire to do so. This is understandable, but it doesn't offer much of a way forward.

The post-copyright world is coming, like it or no. The hard question is how to ensure that large scale creative endeavours remain financially viable. I'm not sure gregrah and I see eye-to-eye here, but he was asking exactly the right question.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a programmer and I have dabbled in DirectX and OPenGL programming and I can kind of see how much time and effort needs to be spent to create a game worth playing.

Now, as a kid, I used to pirate games but since the time Iv had a job, I have purchased every game. Back in the day, I used to be really into Civ3 and 4, loved Fable, Need For Speed games, Fifa, Virtua Tennis 2 (excellent multiplayer experience), Command and Conquer, Mech Warriors Mercenaries 4, Tekken and Oblivion. So 2 months after I nailed my first job I got me an XBox 360 and since then, I have purchase the latest versions of all these games for the xBox360, mostly new but some preowned thrown into the mix. (well bought Armored Core instead of Mech Warrior since both were kinda the same series, I regret spending those 40 quid). Now, until Civ 5 came out, all my purchases were for the xBox 360. For civ 5, i placed a pre-order for the extended veersion (with the poster and all) and I was willing to go and queue for it if I needed to, got the game, I have two laptops, 1 with an amd athlon processor (its got a 3 hour battery life under load), the other with a core i7 with close to 1 hour battery life under load so I decided to install the game on my 'roaming' laptop for when im travelling and on the 'desktop replacement' laptop for when im home. only problem, iv 2 different steam accounts set up on my laptops so i cant install it on both laptops unless i login with the id setup on the first laptop since the game is now associated to that id. now this leads me to wonder, if i were living at home with parents and both me and my brother wanted to play the game or if i were a little older and had a child who also wanted to play the game, would they have bought a different copy of the game or would they have had used my steam id? also i cant play the game unless connected to the internet so wot the flip? if im on the train or on the plane where i dont have any internet connection, im buggered! so now, although i paid for the game, i wish i hadnt since the game is excellent, its just that this crap has put me off pc gaming and i would much rather play ninja kaka on my htc desire hd when on the move! so i think im not going to buy any more computer games...these, in my opinion would be lost sales coz altho i did pirate the games when i couldnt afford to pay for them, as soon as i had the means to, i started paying for them to make up for it

Re:Intended Reaction?

[samoanbiscuit]

If they respected the copyright previously, they'll think "Hmm, I wonder if this one is any good".

However, if they played a pirated copy, they'll think "I just looooved the last one, definitely going to get this one too".

Now, in one case, they didn't buy two games. Nothing was pirated, so no money was lost, right? In the other case, they pirated one game and bought the other. One pirated, one sale. How much money was lost?

You're forgetting the third (and IMHO, most common case). The person with poor impulse control and financial planning pirated the first game, enjoyed it and got the full intangible benefits the developers intended their customers to get (entertainment, stress relief, etc), then upon hearing that the next game in the series has come out, pirates that next release too!
The bottom line of this scenario is: a gamer who has experienced and enjoyed both games without benefiting the developers materially in any way by paying, nor immaterially by adding to the statistics of sales numbers, which convinvce publishers which titles should have sequels, and which should get canned.
I hate DRM as much as the next slashdotter, but but the high piracy rates on non-DRM games show that most pirates are just lazy assholes who either can't afford, or couldn't bother to buy the stuff they pirate.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Dan541]

You're starting from the false premise that pirates are willing to pay for the games. Clearly they are not.

It comes down to simple economics; a product or service is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Dan541]

Is time and research not valuable commodities? That is effectively what a lot of development is, time and research. They owned their time with the intent to sell off the fruits of their labor (say for example working in a field) for the price that would be set.

Tell that to all the failed business owners; I'm sure many of them would love this fantasy world.

If I start working on a project will you buy the end result from me? I am after all doing with the intention of being able to sell it. Seems only fair that you and everyone else should pay me for this work.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Dan541]

So you did what you believed to be the wrong thing at the time?

I don't think your in any position to take a moral high ground. Even though you didn't do anything wrong, the fact that you thought you where doing wrong but still did it anyway isn't a good thing.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Dan541]

False analogy. You're trespassing as the theatre doesn't want you in there.

Not the same as finding someone who wilfully gives you a copy.

Find a theatre that's willing to let you view the movie free of change and you have an analogy that fits.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[samoanbiscuit]

But since each individual is doing zero harm in the first place, that equates to zero harm in the end (to others).

Zero harm? They're distorting data on the popularity of the game, because they didn't buy it, meaning less sales numbers when publishers decide which games get sequels, and which games get scrapped. If a good, non-DRMed popular game is heavily pirated, and has lower actual sales than an inferior game with DRM, obviously the latter would be getting a sequel, while the former would be binned. Also,

The system which forces artists (and others) to introduce artificial scarcity

But there is scarcity present, the vision and ideas of the artist(s). People are obviously downloading and enjoying the work of such artists because they lack the originality/talent/work ethic/time to produce such works. If the pirates don't actually enjoy the games, etc they download, why the hell are they doing it? And as they enjoy said works, hasn't/haven't the artist(s) created value for them, and don't they deserve something in return? The current system attempts to do this.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[daid303]

but many of the games I play have no nintendo downloadable version.

Am I a pirate?

In strict sense. Yes. You answered your own question.

In my personal opinion, if they don't offer you to buy these old games anymore. Then go ahead.

And for every Homebrew Channel install that's only used for homebrew there is an install that isn't connected to the internet. At which point Team Twiizers cannot count that one.
I'm not saying these numbers are very accurate, without counting for legit uses, unconnected installs. But the installation pool is in the right size order.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[samoanbiscuit]

I see, you're stubbornly sticking to a very narow definition of harm in order to back up your point, but you contradict yourself. You continually repeat that :

In order for it to harm someone, they must actually lose money, time, resources, or property that they already had.

This apparently is your definition of harm when talking about developers and how piracy does not (in your view) harm them. Thus they have to lose something they already had to be harmed, not a future gain, but a present asset. And yet in a previous post you said:

Pirates are only hurting themselves if they wish to see more content produced by the author and fail to pay them.

Obviously, you definition of harm changes when discussing your precious pirates. Here you acknowledge that the loss of a future gain is actually harm done. You're a troll and a hypocrite, and reading some of your other posts, it seems, not too bright...

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

BS. As a child I plaid pirated StarCraft a lot. In those days in former USSR very few could afford pay 20$+ for computer game. On those days all we could afford was 10$ CD with atleast 4 games in it and even that was shared till the moment no CD-ROM accepted it. This year I got preorder of StarCraft 2 and several of my friends did the same. How many of us would pay for SC2 now if during golden days of SC there would be only one legal copy of SC on, lets say, 1000 PCs and no illegal ones?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

And yet in a previous post you said:

Is it really so difficult to understand that I meant that if they want to see future releases, they should pay the artist? True, no harm was done to them either, but it's true that if they want to see future releases, they should play the game. Truth be told, I anticipated a reaction such as yours soon after I made those comments.

You're a troll

So many people here don't know what trolling actually is. Someone with a dissenting opinion is not a troll.

Also, hypocrisy isn't an argument.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

They're distorting data on the popularity of the game, because they didn't buy it, meaning less sales numbers when publishers decide which games get sequels, and which games get scrapped.

Potential sales numbers are also affected by people who are allowed to tell others not to buy a product. If you wish to 'protect' artists, then perhaps you should protect them from freedom of speech.

But, as I've said many times, in order for it to actually harm them, they must lose something that they already have.

But there is scarcity present, the vision and ideas of the artist(s).

Scarcity of artists, not scarcity of digital media. Like it or not, there is a difference.

People are obviously downloading and enjoying the work of such artists because they lack the originality/talent/work ethic/time to produce such works.

I'm sorry, but how does someone downloading something mean that they lack any of those things? It says nothing about them other than they download media.

If the pirates don't actually enjoy the games, etc they download, why the hell are they doing it?

Why do people keep repeating this? I don't understand. I have never claimed that the media didn't have entertainment value. Not once.

And as they enjoy said works, hasn't/haven't the artist(s) created value for them, and don't they deserve something in return?

Perhaps they do. But, my point is not to argue against buying digital media, my point is to state that pirates do not actually harm the artist. The current system attempts to criminalize people who have logically done no harm to anyone (for reasons stated above).

If you've actually read any of the other comments, you'd see that I have already responded to arguments such as yours a multitude of times. You would have already had your answer and could have moved on to a different argument, but you chose not to do that.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

they should play the game.

That should be "they should pay for the media."

Re:Intended Reaction?

[samoanbiscuit]

True, no harm was done to them either, but it's true that if they want to see future releases, they should play the game.

Let me be clear: causing someone to lose a future gain IS harming them. Consensus on this is clear with legal precedent in other contexts, as a poster mentioned further up this thread. You playing definitions games, and repeating "logical" and "true" every few sentences isn't going magically change the definition of the word, and the understanding people have of situations and contexts surrounding the concept.

I think Daniel Moynihan said it best: "You;re entitled to your own opinions, but you;re not entitled to your own facts."

Human beings strive for and anticipate better futures for themselves, whether it's long term goals, such as financial security, or even just planning to get the shotgun seat before a road trip. When you are likely or sure to have a favourable outcome, and someone changes the circumstances such that you have a less favourable outcome, or even makes a favourable result impossible, they HAVE harmed you, and in several cases, if they did this illegally, you can sue them.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

The author is deprived a potential sale.

As I've said time and time again, you absolutely cannot be deprived of something that you never even had. It is logically impossible.

Yes, you can. You want to work from a different definition than the rest of society. "Deprived a loan from the bank." "The child was deprived food." etc.

deprive, tr v, 2. To keep from possessing or enjoying; deny:

It's not a utopia, as that implies perfection. It's merely a society without money.

It can also mean "2. An impractical, idealistic scheme for social and political reform." and I believe your money-free society definitely falls under that. I don't think you've claimed the "better" system would be perfect, but that is the expected tone when people describe these places rid of the evils of money.

The love of their profession would be what motivates someone. However, while an artificial currency would no longer exist, the rest of society wouldn't just stand by and watch as someone leaches off of their work and contributes nothing.

Have you speculated what such a society without money would do? They would invent an artificial currency. My basis for that prediction? History. Until our technological advancement is sufficient for such a system to develop naturally it will be rejected not on a moral basis but a rational one. Do remember that societies without money have existed before and few still exist today, but most people would agree the rest of us are better off with the concept of money than those without. Merging modern comforts with a money-free existence would require at least 2 thing: Star Trek style (in capability) replicators and an inexhaustible source of energy (likely fusion).

That's not a logical argument at all. When you produce something, no one has an obligation to purchase it.

Apparently they do, since if they don't, they've 'deprived' (not really, since they didn't have it in the first place) the author of a potential sale, or potential profit.

I think you're the only one that would make that argument, illogically, because you're trying to support your ideology.

The pirate may have the product, but again, that doesn't hurt the artist because copying something doesn't alone deprive anyone of anything, and in order to deprive someone of something, they must logically have it in the first place.

Ok, so by that logic, that no harm has occurred, one could argue that stealing money from any of the hyper-rich billionaires should be legal because it doesn't hurt them. Or that it should be legal to steal from any country's institution that prints the money since it can simply make another copy of the currency. Replacing it is a tiny inconvenience. Having it in the first place is, as I've already noted, is a minor distinction.

take it that's your real problem here and we're all evil because we find money useful as an efficient means of exchange between goods, services, and our time.

It ultimately makes us hurt others (corruption through bribery, desire to get more, and pointless wars fought ultimately for profit), the environment (money being treated as more important than the environment, which is something that happens often), other animals (if it's profitable to treat them cruelly, it will happen unless someone is there to stop them). It only provides incentive because people have already been indoctrinated to believe that money is the only thing they should work for.

Bribery would continue without money. There will always exist something that will influence and persuade people to do things.

Wars will still be fought, even for profit. Land is real property and is not artificially scarce. Government regulations can make it artificially scarce but it w

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Siffy]

Oops, I don't remember checking the AC box but apparently I did.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[blahplusplus]

"I'm not sure that no copyright would cause a boom in a "software fixing" industry as much as a "redistribute for profit without paying anything to the author" industry."

Open source code means people could pay for licensed modifications. i.e. people could make money off of additions (mods) to programs, while the main code for said old product is free. This wouldn't just apply to games but ALL software and I'm sure there would be niches.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[smcdark]

When is the last time you were able to return or rent a pc game? If it weren't for a Darksiders torrent, I wouldn't have known that it has a game-breaking bug that auto-detects a xbox360 gamepad on pc, even when there isnt one, so you can't play it with mouse and keyboard.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

Let me be clear: causing someone to lose a future gain IS harming them.

How? They've lost nothing. It is illogical to say that they've lost anything.

Consensus on this is clear with legal precedent in other contexts

Your quote you used below goes well here:

"You;re entitled to your own opinions, but you;re not entitled to your own facts."

What the majority think is irrelevant. What matters is what is correct.

You playing definitions games, and repeating "logical" and "true" every few sentences isn't going magically change the definition of the word, and the understanding people have of situations and contexts surrounding the concept.

Nor does you using the word "is" or pretending that it is a fact that harm is being done. Multiple times you have already declared yourself the victor, stating that it is irrefutable that harm is being done, like now.

Human beings strive for and anticipate better futures for themselves, whether it's long term goals, such as financial security, or even just planning to get the shotgun seat before a road trip.

I'm sure they do, but it is impossible to steal something that doesn't exist. Think about it. If they have lost absolutely nothing that they had before, how were they harmed? They were left unchanged.

or even makes a favourable result impossible, they HAVE harmed you

Wow. So, if an artist finds it unfavorable that some people are deciding not to buy their product, we should force everyone to buy their product because otherwise they won't make as much money and will be harmed? I'd say just about every artist in existence wants other people to buy their products.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

You want to work from a different definition than the rest of society.

No, I want to work from the actual definition. How can you take away (deprive) someone of something that they do not even have?

Have you speculated what such a society without money would do?

http://thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project-introduction/faq

Apparently, there is an idea after all.

They would invent an artificial currency.

Not if it worked properly.

I think you're the only one that would make that argument, illogically

I especially like how you state that it's illogical but you don't say why. Why? How is that not a loss of a potential sale or potential profit when piracy somehow is?

because you're trying to support your ideology.

The funny thing is, so are you. Isn't that the point of an argument?

Ok, so by that logic, that no harm has occurred, one could argue that stealing money from any of the hyper-rich billionaires should be legal because it doesn't hurt them.

No, you couldn't. Why? They already have the money, and in that scenario, you take it from them. You have directly stolen something that they previously had. It's gone. They no longer have it due to your actions of stealing it right now.

I would think that someone on Slashdot would know what copying is and how no one was deprived of physical property.

Having it in the first place is, as I've already noted, is a minor distinction.

No, it's not. As I said above, saying it's possible to steal things that only exist in the future of an alternate dimension where someones other self has acquired something is absolutely insane.

Otherwise, I want to see everyone in existence buy every product in existence, or else they'd be stealing potential profit and therefore harming artists and legitimate businesses.

Bribery would continue without money.

But not with a system where the majority have far more power than they do now. Bribery would be useless, then, if it still even existed.

Unless you can see into the future, I would not make such statements.

Wars will still be fought, even for profit.

Apparently you missed the part about having no money.

Land is real property and is not artificially scarce.

Humans don't need to fight over land, there's plenty. Sorry to say, but people wouldn't all be living in huge mansions and own large sections of land. The 'need' for that would be rooted out.

Government regulations can make it artificially scarce but it will have a very real finite quantity and thus value even without money and building new places to live over most of the oceans and then populating other planets.

Yeah, even with as many people as we have now, we are nowhere near close to running out of space.

Wars will also continue to be fought over racial superiority beliefs.

For a time, perhaps. Humans will evolve, or they will die.

The environment isn't treated as less important than money by most businesses.

Oil drilling, chemical dumping, etc. No, they might not say or think it directly, but they have absolutely no consideration for the future.

Our current pollution situations are in some cases actually solutions to worse pollution problems. A car is less polluting than a horse.

That's nice, but I mentioned nothing of getting rid of technology. We need to find (already done) and utilize clean, renewable energy sources. The problem right now, in many cases, is cost, and profit. It would be difficult to charge outrageous fees for something

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Siffy]

You want to work from a different definition than the rest of society.

No, I want to work from the actual definition. How can you take away (deprive) someone of something that they do not even have?

I gave an actual definition. "deprive, tr v, 2. To keep from possessing or enjoying; deny:" Preventing the seller of the benefits of the transaction while the receiver is allowed to utilized the benefits is wrong.

http://thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project-introduction/faq

Apparently, there is an idea after all.

Sure, sounds great on paper like many things, but resources are not overly abundant. They are limited and would become more so after a short time in any society they describe. Quite quickly the people would decide to implement forced rationing.

They would invent an artificial currency.

Not if it worked properly.

It won't.

I think you're the only one that would make that argument, illogically

I especially like how you state that it's illogical but you don't say why. Why? How is that not a loss of a potential sale or potential profit when piracy somehow is?

Do I really need to? No one else would even ask that I prove why it's illogical to expect everyone everywhere to be obligated to buy every product.

because you're trying to support your ideology.

The funny thing is, so are you. Isn't that the point of an argument?

I'm trying to be realistic as well.

Ok, so by that logic, that no harm has occurred, one could argue that stealing money from any of the hyper-rich billionaires should be legal because it doesn't hurt them.

No, you couldn't. Why? They already have the money, and in that scenario, you take it from them. You have directly stolen something that they previously had. It's gone. They no longer have it due to your actions of stealing it right now.

I would think that someone on Slashdot would know what copying is and how no one was deprived of physical property.

I'm commenting on your "no harm" argument which is silly. Not you refusing to understand what "deprive" means.

Having it in the first place is, as I've already noted, is a minor distinction.

No, it's not. As I said above, saying it's possible to steal things that only exist in the future

It exists the moment the torrent is downloaded... it being the received goods along with the obligation to pay for those goods.

Bribery would continue without money.

But not with a system where the majority have far more power than they do now. Bribery would be useless, then, if it still even existed.

Unless you can see into the future, I would not make such statements.

Things still have inherent value without the existence of money, those values just become more complicated to represent and somewhat ambiguous. Money is nothing more or less than a convenient representation of value, usually your time.

Wars will still be fought, even for profit.

Apparently you missed the part about having no money.

Again, things other than money have value, and with that profit if the net gain is positive. Think land and increased territory.

Land is real property and is not artificially scarce.

Humans don't need to fight over land, there's plenty. Sorry to say, but people wouldn't all be living in huge mansions and own large sections of land. The 'need' for that would be rooted out.

You s

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

Preventing the seller of the benefits of the transaction while the receiver is allowed to utilized the benefits is wrong.

Ah, all this proves to me is that humans are more illogical than I suspected. You can't steal (as in take) something that someone doesn't have.

Sure, sounds great on paper like many things, but resources are not overly abundant. They are limited and would become more so after a short time in any society they describe. Quite quickly the people would decide to implement forced rationing.

Resources are not abundant? That depends on which ones you are speaking of.

It won't.

I wish I could see into the future like you can.

Do I really need to? No one else would even ask that I prove why it's illogical to expect everyone everywhere to be obligated to buy every product.

I don't expect them to. I was asking why you think it should be illegal to pirate something (and according to you, deprive the artist of potential profit) but not illegal to choose not to buy something (which has the same implications--it deprives the artist of potential profit).

I'm trying to be realistic as well.

Really?

I'm commenting on your "no harm" argument which is silly. Not you refusing to understand what "deprive" means.

Even if you're correct on the definition, that does not just my point that nothing in existence is being taken.

Things still have inherent value without the existence of money, those values just become more complicated to represent and somewhat ambiguous. Money is nothing more or less than a convenient representation of value, usually your time.

Not if the necessary resources are in abundance and overpopulation is quelled.

You should tell your environmentalist friends that. You know, the ones that like to claim the earth is overpopulated even though we're using less than 10% of it.

Apparently you don't understand the real consequences of overpopulation. The real consequence is not space, it's resources, food, and available shelter. This capitalistic society only worsens that through its inefficient use of all three of those.

Die from what?

If they don't drop the highly inefficient system that we have now, the resources remaining on this planet will continue to be wasted at an amazing rate until none are left, instead of used efficiently and using technology to its greatest potential.

We're generally better off now than we were before major changes else that change wouldn't have occurred and been kept.

If something can be improved further, it should be. If people had the mindset of "the current system is okay" a few hundred years ago, it would have stayed the same.

Don't forget feasibility. The "right" laughs at most of the "left's" ideas when it comes to clean energy because they generally only work 12 hours out of a 24 hour day, and the left gets scared of the right's ideas and scream "NIMBY!".

Solar energy, wind energy, geothermal energy (probably the best one once we actually tap into its potential), etc. There are plenty of options. As for the environmentalists who disagree with everything, I'm not like them. Anything better than what we have now would suffice.

Sounds disgusting and unnatural.

Your taste buds don't override the importance of the life of another living being, sorry to say.

Also, from the article:

and a long-term goal is to grow fully developed muscle tissue.

There you have it. Someone just needs to put more work into this.

The rabbit was likely going to die for another reason, was already dead when the foot was removed

How does that justify ki

Re:Intended Reaction?

[LordLimecat]

Answer this: if it doesn't hurt anyone, then why does it matter?

Because this is a capitilist society, not a commune nor anarchy, and there are RULES in our society. One of them is, if you want a service, good, or entertainment, you offer compensation for it.

Has society gone completely crazy? Why are people being cheered on for basically being leeches on the underbelly of society, demanding to be able to see whatever movie they want, play whatever game they want, and copy whatever they want, regardless of the rules our society has set up? Can you just come out and say that you honestly dont care about our society's laws, and that you intend to do whatever the hell you want?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Siffy]

Preventing the seller of the benefits of the transaction while the receiver is allowed to utilized the benefits is wrong.

Ah, all this proves to me is that humans are more illogical than I suspected. You can't steal (as in take) something that someone doesn't have.

Indeed... Yes, you can steal something they're supposed to have by depriving them of it.

Sure, sounds great on paper like many things, but resources are not overly abundant. They are limited and would become more so after a short time in any society they describe. Quite quickly the people would decide to implement forced rationing.

Resources are not abundant? That depends on which ones you are speaking of.

No, it does not depend which we're speaking of, resources are limited. Open any economics textbook.

It won't.

I wish I could see into the future like you can.

As do I.

Do I really need to? No one else would even ask that I prove why it's illogical to expect everyone everywhere to be obligated to buy every product.

I don't expect them to. I was asking why you think it should be illegal to pirate something (and according to you, deprive the artist of potential profit) but not illegal to choose not to buy something (which has the same implications--it deprives the artist of potential profit).

"When you produce something, no one has an obligation to purchase it." "Apparently they do" Looks like you expect them to. It comes down to intentions and possibilities. The intention to buy the game or not. The intention to play the game or not. The random person on any street that has no intention of playing the game has almost 0 possibility of buying the game, but the pirate in question that has every intention of playing the game is a much greater possibility of a sale that they subvert directly by their own actions. Telling a friend the game sucks is not the same in any means.

I'm trying to be realistic as well.

Really?

Really.

I'm commenting on your "no harm" argument which is silly. Not you refusing to understand what "deprive" means.

Even if you're correct on the definition, that does not just my point that nothing in existence is being taken.

It does exist. The $50 in the pirate's pocket they would have lost if they'd purchased the game is certainly real.

Things still have inherent value without the existence of money, those values just become more complicated to represent and somewhat ambiguous. Money is nothing more or less than a convenient representation of value, usually your time.

Not if the necessary resources are in abundance and overpopulation is quelled.

Resources are limited. Overpopulation isn't a problem. Anyone wanting to "quell" anyone's reproductive rights I oppose on a moral grounds. If you want to live in a country that shoots you in the head for not wearing a condom when you were told to, go right ahead.

You should tell your environmentalist friends that. You know, the ones that like to claim the earth is overpopulated even though we're using less than 10% of it.

Apparently you don't understand the real consequences of overpopulation. The real consequence is not space, it's resources, food, and available shelter. This capitalistic society only worsens that through its inefficient use of all three of those.

Ah, finally you agree with me that resources are limited, not overly abundant and enough to provide free for all. Capitalism is the most efficient system for providing all of those things. Tyrannical regimes don't have obese societies. Over regulatio

Re:Intended Reaction?

[LordLimecat]

If you think that all game developers that work in large companies do not enjoy developing games,

Youre creating a false dichotomy. I do IT for a living, and love it-- I routinely stay up till the wee hours of the morning troubleshooting some new project or enabling some new feature on my home network. But would I do it for free? No, because this is the real world and there are bills to pay.

I dont think youd end up with a game like Witcher 2 from devs going pro-bono, honestly.

Why is that? Is it because you need to have money to live in the current system? There are actually plenty of developers who work on software in their spare time. Very talented ones.

This is true, and you also end up with games like minecraft and tremulous and nexiuz and saurbraten--which, while fun, isnt exactly on the same level as your average game made by a for-profit studio. Talented people tend to do their side projects for free, but they DO have jobs. Heck, the most recent example of excellent indie OSS games on slashdot was for profit-- the devs want to make money so that they can CONTINUE to make games like this.

Would you still be a software developer if you lived in a system where money was not required?

Thats not really relevant to this conversation, as we live in the real world, not some imaginary one run off of good feelings. If you spend 200 hours on an awesome freeware game, thats 200 less hours you have to earn a living to pay the bills.

It's not immature or irresponsible to make people aware of the flaws in something without providing an alternative.

Its irresponsible to imply that its OK to undermine the current system (via freeloading) because the current one is flawed. You might as well suggest that people tamper with democratic elections, because democracy has some flaws and therefore its OK if we actively work towards its failure. Freeloading games is a burden on the system, and its NOT a form of political activism-- its just being immature and selfish.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[LordLimecat]

How about we demand a bit of reason from both sides-- less ridiculous punishments from the content creators, and less stupid bull about "the man getting me down" and "information wants to be free" from the kids who want their latest game for free?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

Because this is a capitilist society, not a commune nor anarchy, and there are RULES in our society.

That's nice, but I disagree with those rules. That is why I am voicing my disapproval.

Has society gone completely crazy?

It's always been crazy.

Why are people being cheered on for basically being leeches on the underbelly of society, demanding to be able to see whatever movie they want, play whatever game they want, and copy whatever they want, regardless of the rules our society has set up?

I'm merely disagreeing the artificial scarcity. Also, rules can be wrong.

Can you just come out and say that you honestly dont care about our society's laws, and that you intend to do whatever the hell you want?
Cancel Reply Parent

If slavery was legal, would you agree with it? I disagree with laws that I feel are wrong.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

Youre creating a false dichotomy.

How so? I was considering other options. I said "if you think that all game developers do not enjoy developing games." I never said that some people don't work for money, or wouldn't do so without money.

But would I do it for free?

That's nice, but again, not really a problem with pirates since they're not taking anything. If everyone stopped buying and pirating your product, the result would be the same.

This is true, and you also end up with games like minecraft and tremulous and nexiuz and saurbraten--which, while fun, isnt exactly on the same level as your average game made by a for-profit studio.

Subjective. Some people find simple games more fun. Not everyone likes million dollar budget games more than simple ones, for whatever reason.

Thats not really relevant to this conversation

Yes, it was. I was asking him if he would still be a game developer in a society without money--if he would continue doing what he loves for the love of it. It is relevant.

Its irresponsible to imply that its OK to undermine the current system (via freeloading) because the current one is flawed.

So if slavery was legal and it took a massive amount of change in the current system to make it illegal, it's irresponsible to undermine the system where slavery was legal? Even if it took a failure of the current system, I would still be all for it to get rid of such perceived injustice.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[LordLimecat]

Sounds to me like you simply want a system of arbitrary laws where you can pick and choose the ones you like. Sorry--doesnt work that way, so yea, you WILL get called "wrong" when you go around claiming that the rules dont apply because you think they suck.

Its a pretty childish attitude, and all the more so because you make it sound like youre some political crusader for downloading the latest games in the name of "sticking it to the man". I too once had a vague attitude of "the rules suck and information wants to be free" as I downloaded games etc; then I entered the real world, and grew up.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

Indeed... Yes, you can steal something they're supposed to have by depriving them of it.

Whether they're 'supposed' to have it or not is irrelevant. The point is that they don't have it, and they never have. You can't steal something that doesn't exist.

No, it does not depend which we're speaking of, resources are limited. Open any economics textbook.

Right. But, some resources are more abundant than others. Not all resources are dangerously scarce.

As do I.

I make no claims that the system will certainly work or fail, just that we should try. Imagine where we would be if people didn't take risks or try something new. Nothing, and I mean nothing, would ever improve.

It does exist. The $50 in the pirate's pocket they would have lost if they'd purchased the game is certainly real.

At no point did they ever own it. The money you are speaking of, the potential profit that the artist supposedly owns in the future of an alternate dimension, does not exist at this current point in time.

Overpopulation isn't a problem.

The more people there are, the more resources are consumed. There are a lot of people. Resources are being abused dangerously fast.

not overly abundant and enough to provide free for all.

It depends on the resource (the amount of it available). Everyone couldn't go around wearing diamonds, for instance. The problem of food scarcity could be somewhat solved through science (such as in vitro meat). That will likely happen anyway, not just in the system I'm proposing.

1, it's not highly inefficient.

It is if they're warring over pointless profit, killing animals for profit, and wasting resources.. for profit. Etcetera.

2, resources are not wasted or used up but only temporarily employed to serve a function.

Really? You don't think this is a waste? If they made goods that lasted forever, they wouldn't need to be replaced. However, that's not is profitable, so it is rarely done.

Everything has costs. Even if you are more than capable of doing something amazing, you are limited by the amount of money you have on many fronts.

There just isn't enough for everyone to have everything.

As I said, not of every resource. We aren't talking about building mansions made out of diamonds for everyone. We're talking about solving overpopulation and providing the basic necessities (the limiting factor there is food, but that can be solved with scientific advancement). To say that future technological advancements will never happen or are impossible is insane.

As illogical as you may think the rest of us are, you are no higher power to better make those choices for everyone else.

It's not a process meant to be done through the use of force. If and when the current system fails, they will look for alternatives. Hopefully before then, but probably not.

Sure, but bad ideas must be rejected and good ideas must be examined thoroughly and tested rigorously.

Thank you for considering it then. It can only be truly tested if it is tried. Perhaps a somewhat small-scale test.

You cannot even say it would be better if the output levels were the same. Removing energy from a once closed system can be dangerous.

Actually, in some places, we already are using geothermal energy. Yes, they do emit some pollution, but it's far better than fossil fuels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy#Environmental_effects

That life wouldn't have existed if it weren't for taste buds

Re:Intended Reaction?

[samoanbiscuit]

I'm sure they do, but it is impossible to steal something that doesn't exist.

Nowhere did I say they were stealing. Copyright infringement by downloading media isn't stealing, and NOWHERE have I said this. I just said that it harms the creators of the works downloaded.

They have not "lost" something they have, they have lost the possibility of gaining from a legitimate buyer of their work because someone has decided that they'd just download it without paying.

Think about it. If they have lost absolutely nothing that they had before, how were they harmed? They were left unchanged.

Exactly, they were LEFT UNCHANGED. They did not get any benefits they would have gotten from sale of the work (i.e, revenue, and prestige from increased sales numbers). It's exactly this that is the problem. The pirate is changed by experiencing the work, but they are unchanged because they have no benefit from the pirate's downloading. That is the harm that so many people are trying to explain to you, but you seem determinedly contrarian. Is it so hard to understand this concept?

Wow. So, if an artist finds it unfavorable that some people are deciding not to buy their product, we should force everyone to buy their product because otherwise they won't make as much money and will be harmed? I'd say just about every artist in existence wants other people to buy their products.

That's a ridiculous strawman argument, and you should be ashamed of yourself for using it. The artist has to convince people that their work is worth paying money for, that the value they give consumers of their work is worth money. If people decide it is not, and do not buy it, that's fine, that's the way things work. But if someone enjoys the work, but does not pay what the artist has proposed, that's wrong, and they ARE hurting the artist.

Your stubborn refusal to acknowledge the wider definition of the word "harm", and your ignorance of the subtler points of my argument are disappointing.

Multiple times you have already declared yourself the victor, stating that it is irrefutable that harm is being done, like now.

It IS irrefutable, what's up for debate is HOW MUCH harm is being done. I don't see the answer to that question being determined any time soon, not unless we developed telepathy and time travel, to see intentions and possible outcomes. I don't think I'm the victor. To win would be to convince you of your errors. But I think you're a loser, because you stubbornly refuse to see other people's points, and stick to your narrow world-view.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

Sounds to me like you simply want a system of arbitrary laws where you can pick and choose the ones you like. Sorry--doesnt work that way, so yea, you WILL get called "wrong" when you go around claiming that the rules dont apply because you think they suck.

Except that I explain my reasoning. Do you disagree with the civil rights movement because they wanted to "pick and choose" what laws existed and what laws didn't? You fight laws that you feel are doing people an injustice, not all of them.

Its a pretty childish attitude, and all the more so because you make it sound like youre some political crusader for downloading the latest games in the name of "sticking it to the man".

Childish? You mean like criminalizing children who download a music album because it could 'deprive' someone of something that doesn't even exist in this point in time? You mean like introducing artificial scarcity?

I don't think fighting laws you think are unjust is childish, even if they're not as severe as others.

then I entered the real world, and grew up.

That is a terrible argument, I'm afraid. It doesn't really answer any question or contribute to the discussion. I guess African Americans should have just "grew up" and accepted their society. While this is not nearly as severe, unjust laws should not be tolerated, no matter how small they are.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

they have lost the possibility of gaining from a legitimate buyer of their work because someone has decided that they'd just download it without paying.

So, if you tell someone else who was going to buy a product not to buy it, you harm the artist because they would have had more money if you hadn't done that? Should that be illegal?

Should we make competition illegal, too? Maybe we should just have one giant monopoly for every item. Otherwise, legitimate businesses may be 'hurt' by competitors.

Losing future gain is not harm, as you remain unchanged.

They did not get any benefits they would have gotten from sale of the work (i.e, revenue, and prestige from increased sales numbers).

Loss of currently non-existent benefits is not harm.

That's a ridiculous strawman argument, and you should be ashamed of yourself for using it.

People use the names of logical fallacies as if they're some sort of argument in themselves. I am comparing one situation to another. That is not a straw man.

It IS irrefutable

That attitude isn't going to get you anywhere. You're wrong. My arguments are irrefutable, yours are instantly wrong.

what's up for debate is HOW MUCH harm is being done.

Yes, it is. I think zero harm is being done.

But I think you're a loser, because you stubbornly refuse to see other people's points, and stick to your narrow world-view.

There is a very good reason why I attempt to refrain from calling the other person stubborn or closed-minded during an argument. If you do so, you have to ask yourself: "Have I changed my mind either? Am I being just as stubborn as them?"

No one here has changed their beliefs. If anything, you've just reflected your statement upon yourself.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[samoanbiscuit]

Potential sales numbers are also affected by people who are allowed to tell others not to buy a product. If you wish to 'protect' artists, then perhaps you should protect them from freedom of speech.

Actually, if you convince people not to buy a product, and the information you used to convince them was false, you are liable for damages. Look it up. Free speech is not the freedom to spread malicious lies, the old example is yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. You keep using strawman arguments, tsk tsk.

Scarcity of artists, not scarcity of digital media. Like it or not, there is a difference.

What you're saying is that because it is easy to copy, it's right? So you would support the idea that because it's easy for powerful people to impose tyranny on the masses, they are right to do so? This is not a strawman, because as I see it, that's the principle you seem to be implying in that statement,

Perhaps they do. But, my point is not to argue against buying digital media, my point is to state that pirates do not actually harm the artist. The current system attempts to criminalize people who have logically done no harm to anyone (for reasons stated above).

Yes, I read comprehend your points perfectly clearly. They're just incorrect, and I'm trying to explain to you how they're incorrect. It is you who don't seem to acknowledge mine. There you go again parroting the word "logic" like some magic talisman. Sad.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

Actually, if you convince people not to buy a product, and the information you used to convince them was false, you are liable for damages.

People have mentioned that too. However, this still doesn't account for people warning others of legitimately bad products. Or competition between businesses.

You keep using strawman arguments, tsk tsk.

Comparisons are not straw man arguments.

What you're saying is that because it is easy to copy, it's right?

I'm saying that because it doesn't cause anyone harm, it's a neutral action, neither good or bad.

They're just incorrect, and I'm trying to explain to you how they're incorrect.

Oddly enough, I'm trying to explain to you how you're incorrect as well. I wonder how far this well get us?

There you go again parroting the word "logic" like some magic talisman. Sad.

Yet two sentences before that, you used the word "incorrect" like some "magic talisman." Sad. Sorry, but this is an argument. Lots of statements such as "you're wrong," "that's illogical," and "that's stupid" will be repeatedly thrown around.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Siffy]

Indeed... Yes, you can steal something they're supposed to have by depriving them of it.

Whether they're 'supposed' to have it or not is irrelevant. The point is that they don't have it, and they never have. You can't steal something that doesn't exist.

How are the law and the rights of the author irrelevant?

As do I.

I make no claims that the system will certainly work or fail, just that we should try. Imagine where we would be if people didn't take risks or try something new. Nothing, and I mean nothing, would ever improve.

Apply a liberal amount of common sense to it first before simply trying or imposing though.

At no point did they ever own it.

The artist owns every copy, even data, of their intellectual ideas as property until they are compensated for that copy. What's your stance on plagiarism?

not overly abundant and enough to provide free for all.

It depends on the resource (the amount of it available). Everyone couldn't go around wearing diamonds, for instance. The problem of food scarcity could be somewhat solved through science (such as in vitro meat). That will likely happen anyway, not just in the system I'm proposing.

Who are you to say who can and who cannot wear diamonds? Who is to say? The problem of food scarcity could also be solved by governments getting the hell out of the way. You should look into Communist China of 1958-1962, the hyperinflation of the Weimar Republic, bread and cheese lines in Soviet Russia, and the responses to the Great Depression in the US. Generally people cite WWII as the cause of the end of the latter and they're right. WWII ended Hoover and FDR's New Deal policies of meddling with everything and allowed markets to correct themselves. Since you're mentioning food, did you know one of the causes of the Great Depression was too much food which drove prices down to the point many farmers went broke which in turn caused massive bank troubles. One of FDR's solutions was to have thousands of pigs slaughtered to raise pork prices. Their plan worked so well that pork prices rose so much no one could afford it. Government created artificial scarcity.

It is if they're warring over pointless profit, killing animals for profit, and wasting resources.. for profit. Etcetera.

We kill animals so that we can eat them. Very few animals are killed to be sold so that people can hang them on their walls and huge profits be made.

2, resources are not wasted or used up but only temporarily employed to serve a function.

Really? You don't think this is a waste? If they made goods that lasted forever, they wouldn't need to be replaced.

Seems like a good idea to many in government and environmentalist groups. Maybe you heard of the Cash for Clunkers program? Most people would call it a smart business idea, but I do see your point. There are ways around most of their methods though. Rarely products simply self detonate and stop working completely the moment the warranty runs out forcing you to buy a new one. It could be said though that the customer is generally better off buying the new product over continuing to use the old one.

There just isn't enough for everyone to have everything.

As I said, not of every resource. We aren't talking about building mansions made out of diamonds for everyone. We're talking about solving overpopulation and providing the basic necessities (the limiting factor there is food, but that can be solved with scientific advancement). To say that future technological advancements will never happen or are impossible is insane.

So if everyone can't have

Re:Intended Reaction?

[samoanbiscuit]

So, if you tell someone else who was going to buy a product not to buy it, you harm the artist because they would have had more money if you hadn't done that? Should that be illegal?

Should we make competition illegal, too? Maybe we should just have one giant monopoly for every item. Otherwise, legitimate businesses may be 'hurt' by competitors.

Losing future gain is not harm, as you remain unchanged.

I don't think I could ever convince you of the error of your ways, but thanks for making me argue and elucidate my points. I believe I've already addressed this "problem" you see in my argument in another thread, replying to one of your comments. Please read it, before proposing such ridiculous rebuttals. If something is not bought AND not used/played/viewed, then this reduces the artist's gains, but this is fair and legal, its how the market works. If they (pirates) haven't bought it and still have acquired it and used it, then they are wrongfully harming the artist.

There is a very good reason why I attempt to refrain from calling the other person stubborn or closed-minded during an argument. If you do so, you have to ask yourself: "Have I changed my mind either? Am I being just as stubborn as them?"

No one here has changed their beliefs. If anything, you've just reflected your statement upon yourself.

I am calling you stubborn because you don't seem to want to comprehend my points, instead misconstruing them into ridiculous extremes. I don't think I have any more to gain by debating this with you, but I will say I am correct because I am. If you cannot see my logic, that's not my problem, I think I've explained myself sufficiently and exhaustively.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[samoanbiscuit]

That attitude isn't going to get you anywhere. You're wrong. My arguments are irrefutable, yours are instantly wrong.

This is amusing. You seem to be doing the very thing you're accusing me of. What I said isn't an attitude, it's fact. And you haven't been making any new arguments for several posts now, just refuting mine with hilarious extremes, then repeating "logic" and your thesis "zero harm is being done here" as if that would make your argument correct.

You seem to be willfully misunderstanding my points, or is it that you can't understand?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[kiddygrinder]

there is a non-zero amount of pirates that would buy if they could not pirate which means they get less money. Less money hurts your business. Arguing that indirect actions can't harm someone is just plain wrong, i guess you don't tip because it doesn't harm the waiter?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

How are the law and the rights of the author irrelevant?

I'm arguing against the law. I want it changed. Something merely being illegal doesn't make it right or wrong. The same can be said about something that's legal.

Apply a liberal amount of common sense to it first before simply trying or imposing though.

Common sense isn't "it's impossible." It must be tried first, at least on a small scale.

The artist owns every copy, even data, of their intellectual ideas as property until they are compensated for that copy. What's your stance on plagiarism?

The law says that, and I disagree because copying their product deprives them of nothing. Mentioning the law isn't helping, because the law is irrelevant to me. That is what I want changed.

Who are you to say who can and who cannot wear diamonds? Who is to say?

No one would specifically tell them that they can't. It's only the basic necessities that would be supplied. it is unrealistic to assume that if everyone wanted the moon, everyone would get it. There are many resources that could be used for construction, among other things, that are abundant, however. Obviously, if someone wants a diamond, they would have to get it themselves. There would be no official distribution of that and no expectation that they would get it.

We kill animals so that we can eat them.

Most of the time, yes. There's still killing them for fur (useless in this day and age considering the amount of materials we can make without killing an animal).

Rarely products simply self detonate and stop working completely the moment the warranty runs out forcing you to buy a new one.

True, but many of them are intentionally made poorly (or at least poorly enough that they'll break eventually) so that they will eventually break in a shorter amount of time than if they had made them well. It's not just setting specific times before they break. It has to do with cost and future profit.

So if everyone can't have a mansion made out of diamonds then no one can I'd assume.

Like now, it wouldn't be something that would be 'officially' distributed nor would it be something that is expected. It would be viewed as a waste.

You do realize advocating for this other world is asking to make yourself worse off materially?

Not necessarily. Again, this only applies to very certain circumstances. To people like me who are poor, we would likely be better off (if everything went according to plan, that is, since the future is never certain).

You could say fighting wars are killing for sport.

Also, profit.

So they're being hurt by having costs which don't exist because there isn't any money? Your argument has broken down.

Huh? When you steal property (physical property that they actually have right now), there is harm because they have just lost something that they previously had. When you punch someone, for instance, they suffer physical pain right then, not in some imaginary future. The damage in those cases is real.

It's also fun and exciting. Leave them be. :)

I like slaughtering humans. It's fun and exciting. Leave me be.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

You seem to be doing the very thing you're accusing me of.

That was the point.

What I said isn't an attitude, it's fact.

No, my points were fact!

And you haven't been making any new arguments for several posts now

I make new arguments when it is necessary to make new arguments. You've been repeating the same things over and over, as have most of the replies I've received. It's difficult to make new arguments when the arguments your opponent is making is the same as the one they made before.

just refuting mine with hilarious extremes

Extreme? Maybe. An acceptable comparison? Yes. You certainly haven't told me why they're not acceptable or why your line of logic doesn't apply in those cases.

as if that would make your argument correct.

As if saying you're correct will make you correct.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

If something is not bought AND not used/played/viewed, then this reduces the artist's gains, but this is fair and legal

Fair? You've reduced the artists gains, which by your above logic means that you've 'harmed' them. Legal? Citing the law isn't helping you.

If they (pirates) haven't bought it and still have acquired it and used it, then they are wrongfully harming the artist.

So, there's 'right' ways to harm artists, and there's 'wrong' ways to harm artists? Why should either be allowed?

I am calling you stubborn because you don't seem to want to comprehend my points, instead misconstruing them into ridiculous extremes.

The points might be extreme, but your logic still applies to them.

I don't think I have any more to gain by debating this with you, but I will say I am correct because I am.

No, I am!

If you cannot see my logic, that's not my problem, I think I've explained myself sufficiently and exhaustively.

I'm going to say the same to you.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[samoanbiscuit]

You seem to be doing the very thing you're accusing me of.

That was the point.

Ummm, yeah totally!

It's difficult to make new arguments when the arguments your opponent is making is the same as the one they made before.

There's this saying about a pot and a kettle, google it...

What I said isn't an attitude, it's fact.

No, my points were fact!

This is the core of our disagreement, and it seems to me that you have your very own set of facts, and I have mine. I am saying I am correct, and you are maintaining that you are. I see no point in further discussion with you because you will not be convinced of my correctness.

As if saying you're correct will make you correct.

Again, the pot and kettle should come out and do a little skit for you.

Extreme? Maybe. An acceptable comparison? Yes. You certainly haven't told me why they're not acceptable or why your line of logic doesn't apply in those cases.

Because your "comparisons" are absurd, and ignore basic reality. In a previous comment, you stated that it doesn't matter what the majority think, only what is correct. In matters of this sort, ethics and law, there is often no objective test except maybe time and hindsight. What is correct, for most (remember this word) meanings of correct, is what the majority thinks and often the consideration of the most good for the most people. Please do not bore me with mentions of slavery, monopoly, etc, in your "comparisons", I said MOST.

To finish off, I'd have to conclude that I can see this discussion going nowhere.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

There's this saying about a pot and a kettle, google it...

Not much I can do about it.

Because your "comparisons" are absurd, and ignore basic reality.

I'd say, if anything, they poke holes in your line of logic. Why is some harm okay to you but not others? It makes no sense.

What is correct, for most (remember this word) meanings of correct, is what the majority thinks and often the consideration of the most good for the most people. Please do not bore me with mentions of slavery, monopoly, etc, in your "comparisons", I said MOST.

The majority sharing the same opinion says nothing about the correctness of something. Facts do. If the entire population believed that the sum of two and two was equal to five, that would not make it more likely to be correct.

But, fine, I won't mention any of those examples because you didn't say "all."

Re:Intended Reaction?

[samoanbiscuit]

The majority sharing the same opinion says nothing about the correctness of something. Facts do. If the entire population believed that the sum of two and two was equal to five, that would not make it more likely to be correct.

There you go making invalid "comparisons". I was specifically talking about ethical and legal problems, not mathematics, where something is objectively valid, or is not. This is what I am talking about when I say you bring in crazy extremes to make a rebuttal. You change the parameters of my statement to make a hilariously wrong comparison.

There's this saying about a pot and a kettle, google it...

Not much I can do about it.

Yes you can do something about it. You can see understand my position, and see it is correct. But you won't. You seem to think that you have this TRUTH,these facts, and that mysteriously, I'm willfully disagreeing with you. You are wrong, I can understand what you are saying, you just cannot see the flaws in your arguments.

But, fine, I won't mention any of those examples because you didn't say "all."

Thanks, I guess to prevent you from ridiculous comparisons, I have to preempt them.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

There you go making invalid "comparisons".

Actually, I wasn't making a comparison, just making a point that some people (not you) don't understand and often get wrong.

You change the parameters of my statement to make a hilariously wrong comparison.

That wasn't a comparison, and my other ones had valid points, extreme or not.

You can see understand my position, and see it is correct.

Why don't you understand my position, and see that it is correct, instead? Oh, wait, it's instantly wrong because you said so.

you just cannot see the flaws in your arguments.

This is where you come in: explain to me (something you have yet to do) how my comparisons don't make sense. Don't just say "it's extreme," actually explain how your logic of "it hurts potential sales" doesn't apply to competition or people who inform others of legitimately bad products. I would love to know that. You're not helping yourself one bit by merely saying that my comparisons are "extreme" without telling me exactly how they aren't relevant.

Thanks, I guess to prevent you from ridiculous comparisons, I have to preempt them.

Nearly every comparison is 'ridiculous'. Of course mine are going to be 'ridiculous' to you. You've yet to explain how they are, though.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[samoanbiscuit]

Nearly every comparison is 'ridiculous'. Of course mine are going to be 'ridiculous' to you. You've yet to explain how they are, though.

Really? What about this:

I was specifically talking about ethical and legal problems, not mathematics, where something is objectively valid, or is not.

this:

Exactly, they were LEFT UNCHANGED. They did not get any benefits they would have gotten from sale of the work (i.e, revenue, and prestige from increased sales numbers). It's exactly this that is the problem.

and this:

Let me be clear: causing someone to lose a future gain IS harming them. Consensus on this is clear with legal precedent in other contexts, as a poster mentioned further up this thread.

What are these if not my arguments, and explanations on why yours are ridiculous? Well?

There you go making invalid "comparisons".

Actually, I wasn't making a comparison, just making a point that some people (not you) don't understand and often get wrong.

You change the parameters of my statement to make a hilariously wrong comparison.

That wasn't a comparison, and my other ones had valid points, extreme or not.

So you were making a point, a point you implicitly concede was invalid? How extraordinary. And yet you think I'm somehow getting something wrong?

Don't just say "it's extreme," actually explain how your logic of "it hurts potential sales" doesn't apply to competition or people who inform others of legitimately bad products. I would love to know that.

Thank you for asking a question, that I may answer you. A creator/artist tries to get people to buy a work and read/watch/play it, the exchange is the value of their work for a sum of money the creator/artist has decided on. Consumers have to decide, in the market choosing works, which ones are subjectively worth the money the artist is asking for, and which ones are not.

Now this is where my argument is. If a consumer purchases a work, and finds it is not subjectively worth their money, they are hurt, while the artist has gained at their expense. They have lost money, while not gaining equivalent value. However, if a consumer downloads/copies a work and reads/watches/plays it without paying for it AND gets value from it, the artist is hurt. They have lost a potential sale, because the pirate has enjoyed their work without giving them the return they asked for.

To prevent the former case, there are things such as consumer protections, product reviews and word of mouth, which compete against advertising from the artist or middleman selling the work. These are tools that consumers use to prevent themselves from being "hurt" by paying money for artistic works they do not enjoy, or find worth their money.

To prevent the latter case, copyright exists. This safeguards the creator/artist's livelihood, allowing the public to enjoy their works after paying them the price they have decided.

Deciding who is harmed is a balance between protecting both parties. Although creators lose sales to bad reviews, if the reviews are legitimate, they are preventing harm to the consumers who would otherwise buy it and be harmed. If the reviews are maliciously false, the creator has recourse in certain situations to take action against inaccurate or false information about them.

Finally, competition between artists/creators benefits the consumers by encouraging better pricing and products, while it helps the artists/creators by encouraging innovation and preventing stagnation. However competition is regulated, and malicious monopolistic practices are punished in most countries. If an artist fails because their work is of poor standard, they have hurt themselves and do not deserve to remain in the market.

Is that sufficient explanation? Would you require me to explain any particular point better?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

Really? What about this:

Apparently you failed to read what I said about that being something that wasn't specifically directed at you.

What are these if not my arguments, and explanations on why yours are ridiculous? Well?

Actually, those didn't explain why my comparisons were 'ridiculous', they only explained that you thought they were ridiculous and why you think piracy harms artists. I asked how your logic does not apply to competition between businesses or people who tell others who would have otherwise bought a product not to buy it because it is legitimately bad (hence, a loss of potential sales). That's the type of people you're directly or indirectly categorizing with pirates when you say that you can steal things which do not exist (or that loss of future gain harms someone).

Those particular responses didn't really answer that question.

So you were making a point, a point you implicitly concede was invalid?

No, it was more of a point that proves how a majority can believe in something wrong in case you felt that they couldn't, not because you do.

However, if a consumer downloads/copies a work and reads/watches/plays it without paying for it AND gets value from it, the artist is hurt. They have lost a potential sale, because the pirate has enjoyed their work without giving them the return they asked for.

This is where my argument is. If they didn't have the money in the first place, how are they hurt?

To prevent the latter case, copyright exists. This safeguards the creator/artist's livelihood, allowing the public to enjoy their works after paying them the price they have decided.

Preventing the latter case is pointless since no one in that scenario actually lost anything that they already had.

Deciding who is harmed is a balance between protecting both parties.

The process of deciding who is harmed should be based on logic, not feelings. 'Loss' of future gain is not harm.

Although creators lose sales to bad reviews, if the reviews are legitimate, they are preventing harm to the consumers who would otherwise buy it and be harmed.

So, saving one person from non-existent harm while inflicting non-existent harm upon another person is alright, then?

Piracy saves consumers from possible harm as well. The consumers, for instance, don't have to waste their money on goods that are themselves in an infinite supply and can instead spend it on more important things such as food and shelter. They don't have to worry about the product breaking, as they didn't pay for it in the first place.

Looks like this saves consumers from 'harm' just like reviews sometimes save them from 'harm', only this applies all the time with piracy. Too bad in both cases, the artist must 'suffer', even though they've lost nothing, huh?

Finally, competition between artists/creators benefits the consumers by encouraging better pricing and products

Yet it still affects potential sales, which do non-existent harm to both artists and legitimate businesses.

Same as above. Piracy does save people from harm. It's a 'balance', as you say.

Would you require me to explain any particular point better?

How does loss of future gain, something they never actually had, translate to harm? How is it logical to create artificial scarcity for the sole purpose of keeping the current system on life support? How does piracy not save someone from non-existent harm but competition and consumer reviews do?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[samoanbiscuit]

How does loss of future gain, something they never actually had, translate to harm?

I have repeated myself many times, explaining how this translates to harm. I will not do so again. If you cannot understand, I guess you never will.

How is it logical to create artificial scarcity for the sole purpose of keeping the current system on life support?

Because as you have admitted in other posts, you, and other people who think as you do, have no good system to replace this.

How does piracy not save someone from non-existent harm but competition and consumer reviews do?

It does not save them from any harm because if they pirated something and enjoyed it, they were not in danger of being harmed, but it wrongfully harms the creator. Please reread my post.

Piracy saves consumers from possible harm as well. The consumers, for instance, don't have to waste their money on goods that are themselves in an infinite supply and can instead spend it on more important things such as food and shelter. They don't have to worry about the product breaking, as they didn't pay for it in the first place.

Looks like this saves consumers from 'harm' just like reviews sometimes save them from 'harm', only this applies all the time with piracy. Too bad in both cases, the artist must 'suffer', even though they've lost nothing, huh?

As I repeated earlier, it harms the creator. It is not the benefit the consumer receives that is the issue, but the lack of benefit the creator of the work receives.

If the consumers are unwilling to give value to the creator, they should NOT receive value from the creator of the work. That is the simplest way I can put it. As I have previously mentioned, just because something is easy to do, does not make it right.

If consumers want digital media for free, they should consume digital media that is freely given from the creators/artists who do so (Corey Doctorow, etc), and not pirate it from those that want to sell their works.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[samoanbiscuit]

The process of deciding who is harmed should be based on logic, not feelings. 'Loss' of future gain is not harm.

But you have used no logic in formulating that opinion. You do not want to acknowledge that harm has more than the narrow definition you insist on sticking to, and you refuse to acknowledge that as we move through time, we are the same. We exist in the future. Our future selves are not strangers, but us. If someone wrongfully deprives me of a benefit I was to receive, they have not wronged a stranger, they have wronged me.

Let me try an analogy. Let's say you were a high school student, and were lined up for a cushy full ride scholarship to some fancy university. Now, you haven't received it yet, but you were almost certain to; you had all the requirements, and nobody else came close. Then say a parent of a fellow student knew some members of that scholarship board, and bad-mouthed you. As a result you didn't get that scholarship, and your future prospects became shittier as a result. I'd say I was harmed. Would you?

In this example, the victim didn't lose anything they already had, so by your definition, they're not harmed. What do you have to say?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

I have repeated myself many times

You said it's because they lose the possibility of future gain, but if they never had the gain in the first place, it can't translate to harm. No need to repeat yourself, just tell me how that logically translates to harm even though they're left completely unaffected (unaffected doesn't mean that they are worse off than before).

Because as you have admitted in other posts, you, and other people who think as you do, have no good system to replace this.

Yet, it's still illogical to blame pirates and create artificial scarcity. Also:

http://thevenusproject.com/
http://memwiki.pirate-party.us/But_How_Will_the_Artists_Get_Paid%3F

It does not save them from any harm because if they pirated something and enjoyed it, they were not in danger of being harmed, but it wrongfully harms the creator.

It saves them from the much more critical harm of losing currently valuable money for entertainment that is in an infinite supply while leaving the original creator completely unaffected. Also, the creator is actually 'harming' them by 'depriving' them of the possibility of future gain (free entertainment) by not letting them merely download their works.

It is not the benefit the consumer receives that is the issue, but the lack of benefit the creator of the work receives.

Which is what is being debated. I don't believe that people are inherently entitled to these future gains unless one of the following conditions is met:

A) Someone has directly asked them to perform a job for them while promising a certain amount of money for completing the job, and the artist completes the job.
B) Someone has actually stolen something that they already had.

Pirates don't even interact with the author in the least. They merely copy their content, and the author is likely completely unaware that a specific person just copied their work. They remain completely unaffected, unknowingly to them.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

We exist in the future.

Proof? That is a bold statement. If you can prove this, then that would be simply amazing.

Would you?

You 'lost' the possibility of future gain (as you said), but you in your current self were not actually harmed.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[samoanbiscuit]

Yet, it's still illogical to blame pirates and create artificial scarcity. Also:

http://thevenusproject.com/ [thevenusproject.com]
http://memwiki.pirate-party.us/But_How_Will_the_Artists_Get_Paid%3F [pirate-party.us]

This is what I read:

This kind of "honor system" works when people realize that they get screwed when they don't support the artists. If there's no money to be made, then artists won't produce anything.

From here, I gather that they should get paid via some kind of honour system?? But if pirates won't honour their wishes now, in the face of copyright law, how in the hell would they pay the artists without copyright? Please I want to know how law-breakers would suddenly stop what they are doing as soon as it becomes legal...

That page is simply hilarious. It shows both complete unawareness of how creative works are made, and a horrible sense of entitlement, that because people desire something, they should have it as long as it can be digitally copied.

Also, the creator is actually 'harming' them by 'depriving' them of the possibility of future gain (free entertainment) by not letting them merely download their works.

A sense of entitlement that you apparently share. Also here you finally widen your definition of the word harm. Good for you. You also apply my logic ass backwards, as expected. They are not deprived, because the artist is not obliged to give it to them or allow them access. Can you get that through you entitled head? If the artist wants to give it, it is the artists prerogative. If the artist wants to exchange for it, it is the artists prerogative to name the price. It is the consumers prerogative to accept the price, or reject it.

No need to repeat yourself, just tell me how that logically translates to harm even though they're left completely unaffected (unaffected doesn't mean that they are worse off than before).

Please read my post about the high school student and the scholarship. It's just below my last reply. I hope that's logical enough for you.

Which is what is being debated. I don't believe that people are inherently entitled to these future gains unless one of the following conditions is met:

A) Someone has directly asked them to perform a job for them while promising a certain amount of money for completing the job, and the artist completes the job.
B) Someone has actually stolen something that they already had.

Indeed, in your world, creators of art are not entitled to anything (except maybe attribution), only you and the consumers are. What a horrible world that would be.

Pirates don't even interact with the author in the least. They merely copy their content, and the author is likely completely unaware that a specific person just copied their work. They remain completely unaffected, unknowingly to them.

Please consider my analogy about the student and the scholarship, but imagine the scholarship board and the parent doing this without the student's knowledge. In my view, it's still harm. Yours?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[samoanbiscuit]

We exist in the future.

Proof? That is a bold statement. If you can prove this, then that would be simply amazing.

Yes remove the context from my words, to make them sound absurd. Thank you. I simply meant that we persist through time. Who we re from moment to moment is the same person, albeit changed through experience.

Would you?

You 'lost' the possibility of future gain (as you said), but you in your current self were not actually harmed.

Still with the insistence that these are somehow two separate people. Sad. I have an inkling that if the situation (or something like it) were to happen to you, you wouldn't maintain this view.

I don't want my future self tomorrow morning to be sleep deprived, because I've harmed myself by staying up late arguing with someone who is willfully ignoring the truth.
It must be amusing to have someone earnestly explain basic concepts over and over without apparent success.

If this is a troll, well played sir/madam, but the only way to win I guess is not to play.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

Yes remove the context from my words, to make them sound absurd.

Why do you seem so hostile? This is one thing I do not understand. Quoting each and every single thing you say is a mess. If someone wants to read it in full, they'll read your comment.

Still with the insistence that these are somehow two separate people.

You exist now, not in the past, and not in the future. Again, 'losing' the possibility of future gain is not harm because the gain was never yours to begin with.

Are you inflicted with non-existent harm if someone, say, tells you that they're going to give you money in the future, and then later they decide not to? When the time comes that they were supposed to give you the money, you are worse off than the 'you' who exists in an alternate dimension where they did get the money, right?

The thing is, they logically don't even exist in the future, because even your future self never had these gains to begin with.

Also, here's my reply to your other post, as I'm just going to reply to it from here:

Please I want to know how law-breakers would suddenly stop what they are doing as soon as it becomes legal...

I linked to that because someone else linked to that, and it listed possible solutions. As for that one, it lessens the hostility between the potential consumer (the pirate) and the business. Right now, you have next to zero chance of getting the pirate to comply. I believe the point is to encourage buying the product, but allow it to be voluntary. Your chances of receiving money from them would theoretically increase if these large businesses were less hostile towards them (of course, this doesn't account for small indie games).

Of course, nothing is certain. I also provided another solution above that one.

they should have it as long as it can be digitally copied.

You see it as a "horrible sense of entitlement," but others see it as "freedom of information while leaving the original artist completely untouched."

They are not deprived, because the artist is not obliged to give it to them or allow them access.

The question becomes: why? It seems from my examples that more non-existent harm is being done to the pirate by buying the entertainment than the artist if they hadn't bought the entertainment.

The pirate is not obliged to give them money, either. Or, at least, they shouldn't be. That is the point of this discussion, remember?

Can you get that through you entitled head?

I'd say people who think that they are entitled to future profit on the mere basis that someone copied their work but left them completely unaffected have an "entitled head." Even your future self didn't have the gains and merely had the possibility of having them. Even if it was previously certain (which it wasn't), loss of future gain does not translate to harm anyway.

Also, did I ever specifically state that I myself was a pirate? I can't remember if I actually said anything like that.

Indeed, in your world, creators of art are not entitled to anything (except maybe attribution), only you and the consumers are. What a horrible world that would be.

In my world, losing the possibility of a future gain would not be considered harm, nor would artificial scarcity exist. Artists wouldn't be solely motivated by artificial currency, and they would actually be able to continue doing what they love without fear of going out of business due to lack of revenue, because none would exist at all. Or at least, that's how it would be in my world. If that is possible, who can say? But, it did look like you were talking about my world.

Anyway, again, it is illogical to blame the woes of artists on pirates who merely copy data and don't interact with the artist in any single way and leave them completely unaffected.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Freyar]

It's fair if the end product is used, is it not? Even failed business owners get some revenue from existing sales even if they weren't enough to keep the business afloat. If you use the end-product, you ought to pay for it.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[oliverthered]

hmmm... your context is bias.

'theft' as a forcible violation of property presupposes the existence of property.

The parent quite clearly presupposed the existence of property, so the statement was apt.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Quirkz]

Missed this response due to the holiday, not sure if you'll catch it. First just wanted to point out that I'm really not in favor of the status quo, and would gladly accept greatly reduced limits on duration, greater acceptance of fair use, etc. But I do still think a limited term copyright would be a valuable thing to keep around. Mostly, I guess, because I think creators really should own their creations, at least for a little while, regardless of whether there's a benefit to society, or it does or doesn't encourage them to create in the first place.

I was going to admit to being an aspiring novelist, but realized I do already make some income from my writing, in the form of a web-based computer game. I think most of the money comes from people paying for gameplay rather than specifically the writing (though it's sort of a souped-up text-based adventure, and is writing heavy). I'd certainly feel pretty ticked (and cheated) if someone copied all the text, put some filler in to make it more like a novel, and sold it as their own work. There actually was one over-enthusiastic player who flat-out said to me one day, "I like your game so much I'm going copy everything but let the characters be villains instead of superheroes." I told the player I'd be pretty offended if they did that, and would again feel like they'd stolen from me if they copied the entire game except for that one facet.

Now ask me 20 years from now, assuming the game no longer exists, if some enthusiasts want to resurrect and host it (or a close mimicry of it) somewhere on the net, and that's not something I'm going to fuss about. (I'd probably be pretty honored.) Likewise I thing fanfiction is an awesome tribute, and applaud any player that feels like sharing some on the game forums. The line I'd draw isn't strictly financial, either. If someone wrote a book that only borrowed from the background city, or that used one character (but not everything), I don't think I'd complain, I'd take that as a complimentary reference.

But most of that was about other creators taking from my creations, and this may be a little bit off of the original topic, about people downloading copyrighted content. As a content creator I generally wouldn't get fussy about individual consumers enjoying the product without paying. I support the function of libraries, and it'd be silly to object to anything that works in an essentially analogous fashion. A torrent really isn't that much different.

At least that's the theory. Since my game is web-based, I've got exclusive control of all the code, and there isn't any way for players to really copy the game. (They can copy the text, but not the game engine.) On the other hand, the game is free to play with a donation model, and I go out of my way to make it nearly as enjoyable to non-donators as to donators (none of that "freeloaders get a tiny taste and donators get the whole kingdom" crap). I made that choice primarily for business reasons, but in a certain respect since nobody has to pay unless they want to I may already be working in fairly close alignment with the post-copyright world you envision. My business model allows those who do pay for the game to provide enough support to cover for any who can't or don't want to, and I'm fine with that. You won't see me treating a non-donating player any differently than a donator.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[Quirkz]

Sorry to reply to myself, but I think I can condense that rambling a lot.

Basically, I think the usefulness of copyright is in protecting creators from other "creators" who would try to resell someone else's creation, in some form or another.

I don't think copyright should be used to "protect" creators from consumers, nor do I think it should be used as a weapon against consumers.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[NickFortune]

I appreciated the longer version, but I'll reply to the condensed one :)

Basically, I think the usefulness of copyright is in protecting creators from other "creators" who would try to resell someone else's creation, in some form or another.

I tend to agree. Copyright does have some useful functions, and it would be useful if we could retain those without keeping the massive corporate abuse we see today. I'm not sure that's possible, and if not, I'd sooner junk copyright than keep the abuse. But that's not really the point, either.

The big problem is that human beings have different behaviour patterns for tangible, material property to the ones they display when dealing with information. With physical possessions we have a clear territorial response. With information however, our instinct seems to be to disseminate the data.

The result of this is that people fundamentally want to share information. The "rights holder" cartels would like to social engineer this out of us, but they've been trying for thirty or so years now, and it isn't happening.

As a result, the Internet is going to bring the public, especially the youngsters, increasingly into conflict with the cartels, and with copyright. Eventually, something's going to have to give, and it won't be human nature. It may take thiry years, long enough for a generation of kids who grew up file-sharing to become legislators, but eventually copyright as we know it is going to have to go.

Which is why I say the post-copyright world is coming. The important question how will we fund large creative projects in such a world. I don't know of any easy answers.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

Less money hurts your business.

Yes, less money hurts your business, not the same amount of money. I pirate something, and you're left with the exact same amount of money that you had to begin with, which means you were unaffected. If you're left exactly the same, you haven't been harmed.

If 'loss' of potential future gain can equate to harm (it can't, but this is just an example), then that means that a consumer choosing not to buy something is harming a business by that logic.

i guess you don't tip because it doesn't harm the waiter?

I'm very, very tired of these physical work analogies. Please think before using them. What are you using up by having someone employ a service for you directly? Time. Time is not in an infinite quantity. Pirates don't use up the authors time (development time may have been used, but that is not the fault of the pirate), money (they never had potential profit at all), or resources.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[kiddygrinder]

it's not a physical work analogy, the waiter has to get you the food weather you tip or not. If i never tip then the waiter loses nothing by your reasoning.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

it's not a physical work analogy, the waiter has to get you the food weather you tip or not.

You went into the restaurant and therefore directly used up the time of its employees that they could have used on other customers. The pirate never directly interacts with the artist. Not once. The artist loses absolutely nothing that they already had.

Re:Intended Reaction?

[kiddygrinder]

so then it's ok not to tip if you never tip and the place isn't too busy?

Re:Intended Reaction?

[cheekyjohnson]

What? By going into the restaurant, you know that you will use up the time of one or more workers. This is done directly. Yes, you should tip because you've wasted their time and you (presumably) knew that by entering the restaurant you would have to pay a tip because you'd waste their time.

As I said, pirates don't even interact with the artists in the least. Not at all.

Pirates don't use up the authors' time (development time may have been used, but that is not the fault of the pirate), money (they never had the potential profit at all), or resources.

Cool...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm buying the game and torrenting the ISO(s).
Its easier to mount an ISO than mess about with physical media.

Re:Cool...

[Winckle]

The game is sold digitally, drm free.

Re:Cool...

[hairyfeet]

No need. One the things I love about Good Old Games (which if you haven't tried it sign up for the email. Their weekend sales ROCK!) is that ALL games are just a single .exe. That's it. Just a single .exe (or in games over 4GB a .exe and a part file) which means I just drop the installers on my 1TB USB drive and I'm good to go. If I need to reinstall? Boom, right there. Decide I want it on my lappy? Boom and I'm good to go.

So I gotta give the GOG guys credit. NO DRM, NO install limits, NO bullshit. Oh and for you FOSS guys there is even a list of games that run on Linux and their forums are good at helping you run them on whatever. So as long as they aren't doing an *.A.A "Give us all ur moniez lol!" style bullshit I gotta side with GOG.

that's not how copyright law works

[drDugan]

as much as people would like to believe they are entitled to a given business, they are not. making a business work and making money are hard.

breaking the law is a crime, and if one proves that another has broken the law, there are extremely stiff penalties, especially for breaking the laws around copyright.

the law does not entitle the owners of copyright to a fine. that's just threats, and threatening your customers and the consumers of your product is bad business.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[LordLimecat]

Going after people who bootleg the thing isnt going after customers; its going after freeloaders, and generally thats substantially less bad for business.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[nbehary]

You summed up my thoughts exactly. (but you worded it better on the post I didn't make)

This may not be illegal, but it's definitely questionable. "Settle with us, or we may sue you"....

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[No Lucifer]

Right. This sounds like blackmail. At least, by calling it a "fine" some folks may unwittingly think it's somehow "official" and it's what they legally owe.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[damnbunni]

If you're torrenting a game that's sold as a download without DRM, I'm pretty sure you're not a customer.

Just sayin'.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[MoonBuggy]

Can't they just call it a 'settlement', like the big guys do?

While I wouldn't go so far as saying I support this (too much room for abuse, poor mapping of IPs to people, very dubious reference to "torrent sneaking companies", etc.), I also won't (yet) condemn it in the same way that I do when the *AA do this. Many of my arguments revolve around DRM, the insanely disproportionate punishments, the draconian laws that are forced upon us (I'm looking at you ACTA & DMCA) and so forth - since it would appear that CD Projekt aren't complicit in any of this, I'll give them the benefit of just a smidgen of doubt for now.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[DAldredge]

You aren't a customer if you steal the product.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine is a poor choice of word. This just an out-of-court settlement, which is extremely common.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[cheekyjohnson]

Luckily, pirates aren't actually stealing the product (but they're still not customers), they're merely copying it. In order for it to be considered theft, someone must be deprived of something that they previously owned. That does not happen when copying data.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[theY4Kman]

I like that you included "consumers," meaning all that enjoy the product, including torrenters.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[Anonymous Coward]

I stole your sister's innocence last night. See how that works? I didn't take anything tangible - I'm not a thief, and it wasn't thievery - but I did steal something. It's an amazing revelation, I know, but stealing is not theft. Theft is stealing, however (except according to law).

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[Charliemopps]

Going after people that would never buy your game in the first place is pointless. They want to go after people, so they will be scared, and then buy their game because they are afraid to download it illegally. So yes, they are going after what they consider potential customers. If they didn't consider them potential customers, there would be no logical business case for doing so and they'd never be able to talk their board into providing the funding needed to pay the lawyers.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[Anonymous Coward]

Going after people who bootleg the thing isnt going after customers; its going after freeloaders, and generally thats substantially less bad for business.

Except that studies have shown that the people who pirate music also bought more music than their non-pirating counterparts.

I wonder if the same is true for games.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[sumdumass]

SO you don't think the government created right to exclusive control over the copying and distribution of copyrighted works is being deprived?

Because that's what they are trying to protect.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[cheekyjohnson]

SO you don't think the government created right to exclusive control over the copying and distribution of copyrighted works is being deprived?

They created that artificial right, yes. But not abiding by the law, as I pointed out above, deprives no one of anything. If that's your only defense, then let me just point out that again, how does it hurt them if someone pirates their work? Violating their 'right' to distribute products that are in an infinite supply whilst not taking anything from them doesn't actually harm them by itself.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Let's apply this principle to something less contentious. Say, like many people, you have a bank account with your life savings in it. You willingly gave the bank money, and they kept track of the amount of money owed via some kind of digitally stored number. Let's say I then managed to somehow reduce that number to 0 and increase my number by exactly the same amount. By your characterisation of theft, this is certainly not theft. If anything, the bank is the one guilty of theft, because, by refusing to pay you money from an empty balance, they are depriving you of something you previously owned (even though you gave it to them willingly).

Perhaps I am guilty of theft, and your characterisation is simply wrong (I have my money on this one!). Perhaps I am not guilty of theft, but in which case, the argument over whether it's theft or not is a red herring. No sensible person would dispute that I have hurt you, despite the fact I have not deprived you of anything you owned.

Not convincing enough? Let's look at another one of my favourite examples. Suppose you're doing some kind of expensive contract work, that takes months and costs thousands of dollars. At the end of it, as per your contract, your clients are supposed to pay you, but they refuse to. It's not anything that you did wrong, just that they would prefer to keep the contracted work and the money. By your characterisation of theft, this is certainly not theft. Why? Because you never owned the money they were going to pay you, so they never "deprived you of something you previously owned". All they have deprived you of "potential profit", but as we all know, "potential profit" does not imply guaranteed profit, so therefore it's always worthless, right?

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[Anonymous Coward]

Your analogy is incorrect.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[sumdumass]

That right created by law is a primary driver for of value to the product. You are talking that from them. Also, you obviously think the product has some value if your willing to take it. This is especially obvious by how you appear to be wanting to take it and go though great lengths justifying how your theft is somehow not wrong even though the law says otherwise.

Might I suggest that you put your efforts into actually trying to change the laws instead of justifying why you shouldn't follow them. Perhaps then you could do more then look like an idiot. It doesn't matter what you think, all rights to property is created and upheld by law, even that boundary line to your property all the way over there where you never go. That's right, it's only the law that makes it possible for you to own more ground then you are stepping on at any single time. If I took some of that, you are in not different shape under your same excuses then if I took your latest fiction works and copied it.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[Anonymous Coward]

In the PC gaming world, the two are usually the same group of people.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[cheekyjohnson]

This seems familiar.

By your characterisation of theft, this is certainly not theft.

That really depends on what you owe for in the first place. Not paying for damages that you caused would, well, be damaging (due to the fact that the person never actually paid it off and the original person had to). Same thing goes for not paying for something that you bought, as they lost a physical object of a certain estimated value (according to the current system) and were never paid back for it. Pirates don't actually deprive them of anything or interact with them in any way.

No sensible person would dispute that I have hurt you

I disagree on your definition of "sensible."

Suppose you're doing some kind of expensive contract work, that takes months and costs thousands of dollars. At the end of it, as per your contract, your clients are supposed to pay you, but they refuse to.

Bad example. In that scenario, they have wasted that persons time (which isn't in an infinite supply). Pirates use their own time and resources to copy the data.

Don't you think the system is broken when people who logically do no harm to anyone are blamed simply because they decided not to give someone their money (an action which doesn't really harm anyone)? Don't you think the system is broken when artists are encouraged to introduce artificial scarcity on products that would otherwise be in an unlimited quantity just to make a profit so that they can continue participating in said system? That's what needs to be fixed, not piracy.

My point is, blaming pirates for the shortcomings of a broken system is illogical. If artists can't make money without harming innocents, that sounds like a problem with the system.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah yeah I know, her innocence was a lie. I was infected by a virus, while cybering...

Losing your 'net virginity isn't worth it, man.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[cheekyjohnson]

You are talking that from them.

But, I ask again, how does this hurt them? They have been deprived of nothing that they owned.

Also, you obviously think the product has some value if your willing to take it.

Entertainment value. But, if I can get it for free, and I don't pay them, I'm not actually harming them.

Again, not giving someone money doesn't harm them if you haven't even interacted with them in the first place. They haven't deprived the artists of time, property, or anything else.

If I took some of that, you are in not different shape under your same excuses then if I took your latest fiction works and copied it.

No, I wouldn't be. I do not support illogical arguments for personal gain. Stop blaming people who are not depriving anyone of anything and start blaming the system that practically forces artists to hurt innocents if they wish to continue doing what they love.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[Anonymous Coward]

You make a book. Some one copes your book. Some one sells copes of you book. He did not sell the book. That the way you are thinking?

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[PitaBred]

I think stealing his sister's innocence would amount to rape, not theft. Same with copyright infringement. Calling it theft doesn't change the legal and physical realities.

Just because the idiom exists doesn't make it accurate.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[Noodlenoggin]

I couldn't agree more.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see the point in questioning the definition of theft. Theft has a strict legal meaning, and none of those examples are it. I'm content with stealing though, as 'to steal' and 'to take' are often used nonmaterially, as opposed to a physical transaction. Or we can just leave it at infringement. Whatever.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[cheekyjohnson]

That the way you are thinking?

No, not at all. I'm thinking that copying something whilst not depriving anyone of anything is not the same thing as actually taking something that someone previously owned.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[kaka.mala.vachva]

Based on your fucked up logic, the software industry has no business existing, since none of the developers are robbed of anything by piracy, therefore everyone can pirate, developers don't get paid, no more developers. Welcome to the digitized world. Your arguments may be okay if applied to the 18th century (though I suspect they will fail there as well) - but if you want your Windows/Linux/Office/OpenOffice/Java/MSN/Yahoo/ and you don't develop it yourself, then pirating is robbing developers of their money.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[Anonymous Coward]

I know several people downloading the audio or ebook versions of books they own.

Are they customers or not? Is this legal? Is it right?

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[Noodlenoggin]

Bad example. In that scenario, they have wasted that persons time (which isn't in an infinite supply). Pirates use their own time and resources to copy the data.

So what you're saying is that by pirating the game you're actually stealing time away from the developers? The data itself may be infinite, but the practise of putting it together into a playable game takes a considerable amount of time.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[cheekyjohnson]

Based on your fucked up logic, the software industry has no business existing

Based on my logic, the system that is currently broken should be fixed, and pirates (who don't deprive anyone of anything) shouldn't be blamed for its shortcomings.

If you think that merely not giving someone money harms them, then that is a category that nearly everyone in existence fits into. Merely not buying a product would mean that you have 'harmed' them.

Blaming innocent people for the shortcomings of a broken system, as I've said many times, is not the answer.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[cheekyjohnson]

The data itself may be infinite, but the practise of putting it together into a playable game takes a considerable amount of time.

What's your point? The pirate doesn't interact with the artist at all. As I said, pirates use their own time and resources to copy the data.

The time it takes to make the game is irrelevant because they only have to do it once (and that's not the pirates fault), and they have no expectation of getting the money back. Your argument overlaps with the potential profit argument, which basically blames everyone in existence for not giving someone else their money because if they had, those people would have been better off.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, I'm pretty sure I said it wasn't theft. Theft is defined (multiple times) under U.S. law, while stealing is not - the word 'steal' only rarely appears in paragraph, when interchangeable with theft. These words are not exact synonyms.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[Anonymous Coward]

Theres alot of assuming in that statement.

But go right ahead... Threaten people for not paying you. Who will tell their friends, family, and the world at large what a shit company you run.

Yeah. That'll never cost you more than 'piracy' will.

)damm.. eyes rolled right outta my skull on that one(

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

This seems familiar.

I remember you too.

That really depends on what you owe for in the first place. Not paying for damages that you caused would, well, be damaging (due to the fact that the person never actually paid it off and the original person had to).

Sorry, but "damages I caused"? Are you admitting that the behaviour in my examples are damaging?

Same thing goes for not paying for something that you bought, as they lost a physical object of a certain estimated value (according to the current system) and were never paid back for it. Pirates don't actually deprive them of anything or interact with them in any way.

Oh, so you can identify analogous situations. Can you identify the analogy with piracy?

Pirates don't actually deprive them of anything or interact with them in any way.

Nope. You use your conclusions in justifying your argument, and the logic comes full circle.

Might I add that by fraudulently impersonating you to get my hands on your money, I have not interacted with you. By refusing to pay you money, I have not interacted with you. By doubling the country's currency, thus halving the value of all your money, and giving me half the country's money, I haven't interacted with you.

At least, I haven't interacted with you physically. That does not imply that you were not affected by my actions, or that my actions have not hurt you. It's simply false to think that the only meaningful interactions are physical.

Bad example. In that scenario, they have wasted that persons time (which isn't in an infinite supply). Pirates use their own time and resources to copy the data.

As someone already pointed out correctly, developers wasted their time when creating the game. You say that pirates "did not interact" with the developers. I assume you think that pirates didn't harm the developers. But, if everybody decided to pirate, then all the time the developers put into their work would be undeniably wasted, and they would be hurt (just like the contracted labourer was hurt). By contradiction, the assumption that piracy does not hurt developers cannot possibly be true.

My point is, blaming pirates for the shortcomings of a broken system is illogical. If artists can't make money without harming innocents, that sounds like a problem with the system.

By your broken definition of "innocent", I reckon I could make everyone innocent of just about any crime.

Thief? The window was broken and the TV was stolen while the family wasn't home, so there was no interaction with them. Blaming the thief for the shortcomings of their security system is illogical.

Traffic offence? The guy's running of a red light caused three cars to be totalled, but since he didn't interact with us, he's totally innocent. Blaming him for the shortcomings of traffic intersections is illogical.

Murder? It was the bullet/blade that penetrated the skin, not the trigger/handle. Blaming the killer for the shortcomings of biology is illogical.

Your definition is very much broken.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[quadrox]

"They have no expectation to get the money back"

I don't see how you can reasonably believe this. There is a sort of "unwritten agreement" or "mutual understanding" that developers will spend time on creating content/games/art and that consumer will pay them for their spent effort and money.

You are correct in that this "agreement" is never formalized and no one can/should be punished for not sticking to the agreement (Some people might not agree with the idea of the agreement). But to say that no one is aware of this or has no expecations on it would be wrong.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[Anonymous Coward]

Murder? It was the bullet/blade that penetrated the skin, not the trigger/handle. Blaming the killer for the shortcomings of biology is illogical.

LOL. You know, based on some of the idiotic copyright infringement trial defenses I've read ("It advertises the record label!" -- seriously), I wouldn't be too surprised if someone had tried that excuse for murder.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[gmhowell]

Yes, this agreement is formalized in any number of ways. There is the EULA that ones agrees to upon installation. The primary method is exchanging small green bits of paper for the game at a game shop (or various digital analogs.)

What cheekyjohnson misses over and over and over again is that the artist has created something. Suppose it is a painting. Part of the fact that he owns that painting for his very own is that he has the right to keep it hidden in the attic. Or he can share it with people. He decides that he will share it and let people take a look at it, but only under his terms, namely that he demands a quarter to view it. For 50 cents he will give one and only one customer a copy. Otherwise, it is HIS creation to keep locked in the attic.

Basically, cheekyjohnson has zero respect for the fruits of a person's labor. The logical endpoint of his train of 'logic' would be the most absurd exaggerations of communism. He unjustly enriches himself at the expense of others and follows this tortured scheme of thinking to find some moral underpinning upon which he can claim he did good. Yet I would bet good money that he has not once written a letter (not an email, not a fax, not a phone call) to his representatives, senators, and president (or analogs if not a US citizen) asking that changes be made for the 'broken system' he bemoans.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[Anonymous Coward]

I have, over the past several years, gradually stopped pirating any games. The last ten games I've obtained have all been purchases, and all DRM-free. In the normal course of events, I would probably have bought Witcher 2. But when I hear that they're making legal threats like this ... I'm less inclined to.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[Anarchduke]

He didn't rape; her he showed her goetse and two girls one cup. That steals anyone's innocence.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[Anarchduke]

no expectation of getting the money back???

You need to rethink that, because the entire argument isn't about freeware or shareware, where there is a paypal link that asks for voluntary donations. This is about a game that is only available by paying for it, until someone takes the software and manipulates it in order to make it available for free. The developer never wanted it available for free or they would have put it out for free.
Thus, there is your expectation of getting the money back.

Pirates are well aware of this, which is why most times they have to remove DRM from the product, which the developer put on there in order to prevent people from playing it for free.

As for the people who aren't harming anyone, just downloading and playing the game for free. They are aware that the developer of the game has an expectation of payment for their software. They just don't care. They are spoiled little babies who just want everything for free. They are the broken part of the system you keep talking about.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[cheekyjohnson]

Sorry, but "damages I caused"? Are you admitting that the behaviour in my examples are damaging?

No, I was saying that if someone, for instance, broke someones window and then didn't pay for it, harm was inflicted upon that person because they had to pay for it themselves. In which case, they actually lost money that they had previously.

The damages inflicted from not paying a bill or debt vary, but you will find that I am very much against capitalism.

Can you identify the analogy with piracy?

No, because the original artists lost nothing that the pirates specifically requested from them.

Might I add that by fraudulently impersonating you to get my hands on your money, I have not interacted with you.

I'm sorry, but what? It's not merely the act of not interacting with them, it's also the act of depriving them of nothing. The two go hand in hand, not one or the other.

By refusing to pay you money, I have not interacted with you.

Any damages inflicted here depend on the situation. If you specifically requested that someone complete a job for you and then you don't pay them, you have still used up their time, which is not in an infinite quantity. Pirates, however, use their own time and resources to copy data.

By doubling the country's currency, thus halving the value of all your money, and giving me half the country's money, I haven't interacted with you.

Well, I don't think copying is a problem, so I don't really think this is wrong (as annoying as that would be).

At least, I haven't interacted with you physically.

Why did you assume that the only factor in my argument was the lack of interaction? I was referring to how pirates neither interact with the artist at all (thus they don't use up their time or resources) and they don't deprive them of anything.

As someone already pointed out correctly, developers wasted their time when creating the game.

What do they want for their time? Money? If you don't buy their game, have you 'stolen' their potential profit? That doesn't exist, so it can't be stolen. Pirates didn't specifically command them to make the game, anyway.

Your examples above are just ridiculous, for reasons I've stated above. Interaction alone wasn't my argument.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[Ash-Fox]

If you think that merely not giving someone money harms them

Of course not. It's the fact a copy of the software was illegitmately obtained AND they were not paid that harms them. I have been in one of the more interesting unique positions where I have actually seen DRM increase sales due to it actually preventing casual copying, since I take this into account when people are pirating content, it's very obvious people are depriving the copyright holder(s) of rightly earned money. Since they could obviously afford it and considered it worthy of being bought when they were put into the position of buy it or don't have it.

Blaming innocent people for the shortcomings of a broken system

Innocent pirates, they didn't do nothin'

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[quadrox]

Unfortunately your are quite wrong.

The agreement I am speaking of is never truly formalized between both parties. There is no law that states that artists MUST create art and that consumers MUST pay for it. There is only a mutual understanding that this state is desirable.

The EULA you speak of is very one sided. I can write all sorts of contracts that put demands on your side, but if you don't sign the contract then you are obviously not bound by it. Similarly, if I do not accept the EULA I am not bound by it. And no, in my view clicking on the "click here to accept" button does not constitute an agreement on my part. I have to actually AGREE for that to happen. This is wellillustrated in the case where the EULA makes unlawfull demands - I do not have to agree to unlawfull demands, but I am still allowed to use a product (depends on jurisdiction of course).

Furthermore, cheekyjohnson is quite correct in his argumentation. The logis is flawless. You arguing based on emotions, but not logic. Cheekyjohnson is merely saying that the flaw lies somewhere else than where everyone else thinks it lies, he does not deny that there is a flaw.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[sosume]

Am I the only one who finds the idea of companies directly issueing fines a bit weird? My understanding is that this is a form of vigilance justice. Isn't this blackmailing?

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[cheekyjohnsun]

Of course not. It's the fact a copy of the software was illegitmately obtained AND they were not paid that harms them.

But what I'm trying to point out is that merely copying data, illegally or not, does not harm the author by itself because they have not been deprived of anything. Then there's the fact that not paying them doesn't harm them.

I have been in one of the more interesting unique positions where I have actually seen DRM increase sales due to it actually preventing casual copying

Even if this is so, artificial scarcity is still illogical. However, it would be difficult to determine whether or not it was because of the DRM or because the game merely sold more copies. There are far too many pirates and websites that host pirated content to get an accurate statistic on this. Far too many unknowns.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[makomk]

Going after people who bootleg the thing isnt going after customers; its going after freeloaders

Only if said people have never bought another game ever, which is incredibly unlikely. If said people have, then not only is CD Projekt pursuing customers, but all the money they make is money that can't be spent by said customers on buying games. That's pretty bad because instead of rewarding companies that make games people are willing to pay for, it rewards a far nastier kind of freeloader. It rewards companies that make games people aren't willing to pay for and that make their profits from the abuse of the courts, at the expense of companies that did make good products.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[quadrox]

I must admit it, I am impresseed with the way you are able to speak in (relatively) clear terms about the issues that matter without getting sidetracked or losing focus. All your arguments seem to be spot on. Thank you for being an inspiration :)

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[Ash-Fox]

But what I'm trying to point out is that merely copying data, illegally or not, does not harm the author by itself because they have not been deprived of anything.

But you look at the sales data of DRMed content and you can immediately determine that if they would have been unsucesful being able to casually copy the data as mentioned, then there would have been greater sales, thus they were denied sales. But ignoring that, I believe increasing the supply also has the possibility of devaluing the content, making it more accessible via free forms rather than paid forms. People will use the justification that price X is too expensive, if only it was Y, but then they go pirate it. Once the game is sold at Y, the people don't buy it, because they already own the pirated copy. I can see the harm with these illegitimate copies performed.

However, it would be difficult to determine whether or not it was because of the DRM or because the game merely sold more copies.

Without saying too much due to NDAs, each copy sold was uniquely identifiable and each machine it spread to was uniquely identifaible, the way software was copied/spread from which user was tracable to an initial extent. Usually it started it off with what was believed to be friends giving a friend a copy, after that it gets more shady. As each machine was uniquely identiable, when a piece of software was released with DRM, going through the same machines we identified as friends giving friends, their friends instead bought copies - identified from the the fact they had a unique software id, on their machine identity and were less likely to give those copies out. Said DRM was succesful in preventing pirated copies from being created too due to the service depedency involed (the previous version also had a service depedency, but while we were tracking pirated copies, we never acted on it).

That said, there were far less amounts of the software existing (that we knew of), but had nearly trippled the sales. I look at torrent sites now like thepiratebay and said software still isn't there.

So, I can say quite confidently that the DRM likely had a positive effect, the way it was implemented.

There are far too many pirates and websites that host pirated content to get an accurate statistic on this. Far too many unknowns.

Honestly, it depends how you design the content and if the content can fit some specific requirements to make it unfeasable for piracy (such as how many MMOs do this).

I don't particularly like the idea of entering a trusted computing age, but these "innocent" pirates are pushing us into this corner as a solution for your and the publishers' problems.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[cheekyjohnsin]

no expectation of getting the money back???

That's right. They have no reasonable expectation that anyone will even buy their product.

If you think that not giving someone money whilst also not using up any of their time or resources and not depriving them of anything physical harms them, then you are indirectly saying that people who merely decide not to buy a product are harming the artists. The same goes for people who tell others not to buy a product.

Again, the problem lies with the way that the system currently works. If artists are unable to make money without going after people who deprive them of nothing (not time, resources, money, or property), then that system is inherently flawed, whether or not it is the only viable system.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[Anonymous Coward]

Suppose it is a painting. Part of the fact that he owns that painting for his very own is that he has the right to keep it hidden in the attic. Or he can share it with people. He decides that he will share it and let people take a look at it, but only under his terms, namely that he demands a quarter to view it. For 50 cents he will give one and only one customer a copy. Otherwise, it is HIS creation to keep locked in the attic.

Great example!

Suppose that one guy who has a copy decides to show it to his mates - suppose he decides to copy it exactly, down to every brushstroke and then give copies to his friends and families - do you really think that Artist has any way of finding this out or stopping it? No? Yet you expect other Artists to be able to do this due to a different medium. Sorry, nope.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[slickepott]

I have to admit I feel the same way. It's well in their right to do so but it seems so hostile to me. Psychologically it just feels wrong. I've been to stores where you see a guard. So far so good. But if he'd tell me he'll follow me around to smack down on every wrong doing he can find. I'd leave quite fast, even if I'd never steal anything anyway.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet when a product is good enough people who got an un-boxed non-physical version get the urge to buy a 'proper' copy to have forever all the time, or just to contribute so the creator can produce more.

Look at the free album releases by NIN and Radiohead for a couple of examples.

Or they will buy the next product, having been pleased with the last and now finding themselves in a better financial or ethical position (maybe 5-10years later).

They will certainly discuss the work with others loudly, if it's crap it will be lambasted,if it's good it will be praised and drive even more sales.

If even a pirate wont take something for free then it must be really awful, and you KNOW their collective usage trends will clearly point out the highest quality available to them, as they haven't got the price difference to worry about.

They're still potential customers, and generators of customers, you cannot write them off completely and would be a fool to do so. Microsoft / Adobe and some others knew this a long time ago....

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[delinear]

Not only that, he's assuming those people will never become customers in the future. If a broke student downloads my game for free today and decides he likes it, in a few years when he's earning he will probably buy the sequel. If a broke student downloads my game and I send him a fine or drag him into court, I'm guessing he'll never touch my future products with a long stick. Even crack dealers are smart enough to give the taster for free.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[Anonymous Coward]

I will be. I haven't downloaded this cause I didn't know it had leaked til now. There's no chance that I won't buy Witcher 2 since I enjoyed the first one so much. I still may download it to play until it launches and I can buy it though.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[mcvos]

Let's apply this principle to something less contentious. Say, like many people, you have a bank account with your life savings in it. You willingly gave the bank money, and they kept track of the amount of money owed via some kind of digitally stored number. Let's say I then managed to somehow reduce that number to 0 and increase my number by exactly the same amount. By your characterisation of theft, this is certainly not theft. If anything, the bank is the one guilty of theft, because, by refusing to pay you money from an empty balance, they are depriving you of something you previously owned (even though you gave it to them willingly).

I think this might count as fraud rather than theft.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[Omestes]

I know several people downloading the audio or ebook versions of books they own.

Are they customers or not? Is this legal? Is it right?

They are customers of previous versions, but not current ones. It isn't legal, as far as I can tell. Is it right? Personally, I'm pretty sure it is.

This actually is a good example of ethics and law being wildly divergent, it is a shame you posted AC. I find straight piracy rather annoying, and while still harboring some gray areas it is probably mostly (ethically) wrong. Grabbing a game, or album you refuse to pay for is probably wrong in most cases, and deserves to be illegal. It probably is theft (no, not physical, but more inline with theft of service).

But I have no problem with format switching. I do know people who pirate ebooks which they already own the copy of, and I have no problem whatsoever with that. They bought it, they own it, and they can do what they want. Basically all they are doing is saving the time it would take to convert it themselves. Its like downloading a of a movie that you already own, there is no real loss.

I would say format switching is illegal, but completely ethical and moral.

I also have no problem with people pirating things that are old, as in the creator is dead, or disbanded, since banning that is against the theme of what copyright is for (promoting works, but if there is no artist there is no possible promotion), or pirating works past a certain age. I have no problem with using piracy to replace lost or broken (but previously purchased) media. I have no problem with using piracy to "try before you buy". Etc...

I do have a problem with piracy is it is just to get something for nothing. Its just greed then, and serves no other purpose but instant gratification at the cost of the creator. Or piracy for protest, since a simple boycott would do the job better, since with piracy you still show the desire, and often this is just an excuse (post-hoc) to justify being a greedy prick.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[vakuona]

It rewards companies that make games that people want to play. If companies make crap games, no one plays them, or even downloads them, and companies make no money.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[exomondo]

They created that artificial right, yes. But not abiding by the law, as I pointed out above, deprives no one of anything.

What's an 'artificial right'?

In any case what you've taken from them is the exclusivity to distribute something they created, so - by your logic - it's ok to take what they have created and re-sell it wherever they have it for sale at a lower price. So what you've taken is their exclusivity and because of that you have taken effectively all their sales too, i mean why would anyone buy from them if they can legally get it from you at a lower price?

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[exomondo]

No, I wouldn't be. I do not support illogical arguments for personal gain. Stop blaming people who are not depriving anyone of anything and start blaming the system that practically forces artists to hurt innocents if they wish to continue doing what they love.

So say Apple spend billions of dollars on R&D developing the spec for their new device, they give that to foxconn to build the device. Now Apple need to sell that device at a price to recoup the R&D costs and also the cost to build the device. By your logic foxconn could copy that specification that cost Apple billions of dollars to create, they could then build the device but they would only have to sell it at a price that covers the cost to build it. According to your logic this would be ok since they haven't deprived Apple of anything, so you suggest we blame 'the system' so what's the definition of 'the system' that should be blamed?

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[gmhowell]

The answer is to walk away. Civil disobedience is one thing when simply not dealing with the other person is not an issue.

It's ok. I understand unfettered, childish greed. Just sad to see so much of it from people capable of summoning together enough brain cells to handle a login and password.

There is no moral basis on which his or your thoughts on the matter can hang that doesn't eventually lead to distributism.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[cheekyjohnsin]

In any case what you've taken from them is the exclusivity to distribute something they created, so - by your logic - it's ok to take what they have created and re-sell it wherever they have it for sale at a lower price.

Yes, but how does merely copying something hurt them? They've been deprived of nothing. Not time (the pirates didn't specifically request they do a job and then not pay them, they chose it on their own), money (they never had the potential profit in the first place), resources, or property (copying doesn't deprive them of property). Merely not giving someone money if you haven't even interacted with them at all (and therefore not wasted their time or resources) doesn't hurt them (or else you'd be blaming everyone in existence).

So what you've taken is their exclusivity and because of that you have taken effectively all their sales too, i mean why would anyone buy from them if they can legally get it from you at a lower price?

Taking the above into consideration, pirates really aren't doing harm to them. It is a flaw in this illogical capitalistic society. Think about it. If artists have to extort/sue people who do no harm to them and create artificial scarcity so that they may make a profit so that they can continue producing media, then that system is inherently flawed. Blaming the pirates instead of fixing the system is both irresponsible and illogical.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[cheekyjohnsin]

According to your logic this would be ok since they haven't deprived Apple of anything, so you suggest we blame 'the system' so what's the definition of 'the system' that should be blamed?

You're right, they haven't been deprived of anything. Not just according to my logic, but logic itself. They must have had the money in the first place in order to be deprived of it.

I suggest that we blame the illogical capitalistic society which is what is really at fault for this supposed suffering. The first step is to admit the problem, and then work towards fixing it.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[exomondo]

Yes, but how does merely copying something hurt them?

Like I said, you've deprived them of the exclusivity of distribution, which obviously has significant value.

Taking the above into consideration, pirates really aren't doing harm to them. It is a flaw in this illogical capitalistic society. Think about it.

Well they are, they are removing exclusivity of distribution, something provided by law.

If artists have to extort/sue people who do no harm to them and create artificial scarcity so that they may make a profit so that they can continue producing media, then that system is inherently flawed. Blaming the pirates instead of fixing the system is both irresponsible and illogical.

Firstly they only have to sue people who don't abide by the law, just like anyone who breaks the law. The system is not illogical, just because something isn't tangible doesn't mean it has no value.

Secondly you speak of 'fixing the system' but you propose no such fix, nor specifically identify the flaw.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[exomondo]

According to your logic this would be ok since they haven't deprived Apple of anything, so you suggest we blame 'the system' so what's the definition of 'the system' that should be blamed?

You're right, they haven't been deprived of anything. Not just according to my logic, but logic itself. They must have had the money in the first place in order to be deprived of it.

But they have been deprived of something, which is the ability to profit from their research and development efforts, this is fundamental to innovation. What would be the incentive to innovate if you cannot profit from it?

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[cheekyjohnsin]

Like I said, you've deprived them of the exclusivity of distribution, which obviously has significant value.

Uh, their ego has significant value? If I said that I should be able to control all of the money in the world and I was unable to, then I've lost something of significant value? Just because the law provides it, that doesn't be it has significant value, so that can't be it.

Secondly you speak of 'fixing the system' but you propose no such fix, nor specifically identify the flaw.

Artificial scarcity.

I don't need to have a viable alternative in order for my criticisms of the current system to be valid.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[cheekyjohnsin]

What would be the incentive to innovate if you cannot profit from it?

I've already answered your first concern in my other post. However, blaming people who logically aren't harming anyone is both irresponsible and illogical. Introducing artificial scarcity (I provided a link to a blog post explaining that in my other reply) in order to keep in place a fundamentally broken system is not the answer, nor is blaming people who again, don't deprive anyone of anything (and again, them not being able to control something does not alone hurt them).

In a society that doesn't utilize artificial currency, their incentive would come from the love of their profession, not from paper that is ultimately worthless. Gone would be the people who only work for money (perhaps they could do something that actually interests them). The people who work because they make money but still love their profession, however, would not be gone.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[exomondo]

In a society that doesn't utilize artificial currency, their incentive would come from the love of their profession, not from paper that is ultimately worthless. Gone would be the people who only work for money (perhaps they could do something that actually interests them). The people who work because they make money but still love their profession, however, would not be gone.

Yeah and in fairy land i can defy the laws of physics. Fact is such a society does not work hence the reason we have the current system, it's the best available.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[exomondo]

Uh, their ego has significant value?

No, read what i wrote. Exclusivity of distribution.

If I said that I should be able to control all of the money in the world and I was unable to, then I've lost something of significant value?

Such a thing is not granted to you by the law so of course you haven't lost anything. However in the case of copyright law - which is what we are discussing here - such a thing IS granted to the copyright holder.

I don't need to have a viable alternative in order for my criticisms of the current system to be valid.

No but it might be that it is the best possible solution.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[cheekyjohnson]

Such a thing is not granted to you by the law so of course you haven't lost anything.

I've lost my ability to think that I can control all of the money in the world. Whether that was at any point granted to me by the law is irrelevant, because we are apparently talking about ideas instead of actual tangible harm now.

No but it might be that it is the best possible solution.

Against an almost infinite number of possible solutions, I really doubt that.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[exomondo]

Such a thing is not granted to you by the law so of course you haven't lost anything.

I've lost my ability to think that I can control all of the money in the world. Whether that was at any point granted to me by the law is irrelevant, because we are apparently talking about ideas instead of actual tangible harm now.

You can think that as much as you like, you haven't lost that ability at all.

No but it might be that it is the best possible solution.

Against an almost infinite number of possible solutions, I really doubt that.

Doubt all you want, you certainly haven't contributed anything to disprove it.

The fact is your belief that the system is 'broken' is merely your point of view, something you likely don't feel very strongly about since i take it you are a part of the society you say you feel is 'broken'? You don't have to be, you choose to be, probably because it is the best available. You can whine about how it's not perfect but nothing is perfect.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[cheekyjohnson]

You can think that as much as you like, you haven't lost that ability at all.

Sorry, but I still really don't understand how losing the ability to think something harms someone. Can you explain that to me?

Doubt all you want, you certainly haven't contributed anything to disprove it.

You're right, but it hasn't been disproved, either, so let's leave it at that.

You can whine about how it's not perfect but nothing is perfect.

The "don't fix it if it isn't completely broken" mentality ensures that nothing will get done. If there is a chance that something could be improved, it should be taken, or at least tried.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[cheekyjohnson]

Fact is such a society does not work hence the reason we have the current system, it's the best available.

You base this off of what, exactly? Has a legitimate resource-based society actually been implemented before? Or are you just speculated based on things such as "incentive"? I gave a very, very simple answer. There are a number of different ways such a system could work (not that all of them would work), so merely claiming that a very wide range of ideas doesn't work is a bit hasty.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[exomondo]

Fact is such a society does not work hence the reason we have the current system, it's the best available.

You base this off of what, exactly? Has a legitimate resource-based society actually been implemented before? Or are you just speculated based on things such as "incentive"? I gave a very, very simple answer. There are a number of different ways such a system could work (not that all of them would work), so merely claiming that a very wide range of ideas doesn't work is a bit hasty.

Are you blind or just stupid? I said it's the best available. Show me the available superior alternative.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[exomondo]

You can think that as much as you like, you haven't lost that ability at all.

Sorry, but I still really don't understand how losing the ability to think something harms someone. Can you explain that to me?

What are you talking about? You haven't lost the ability to think. Think all you like.

The "don't fix it if it isn't completely broken" mentality ensures that nothing will get done. If there is a chance that something could be improved, it should be taken, or at least tried.

Improved? But you said it was fundamentally broken, you said it was a problem of our capitalist society. A society you choose to be a part of because there is no superior alternative available.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[cheekyjohnson]

Are you blind or just stupid?

That's not what you said above. You said that any society that does not utilize artificial currency and has people that work because they love their profession couldn't work. I asked you what you base that off of. I fail to see how I misinterpreted you there.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[cheekyjohnson]

What are you talking about? You haven't lost the ability to think. Think all you like.

You said (not in that post):

Like I said, you've deprived them of the exclusivity of distribution, which obviously has significant value.

I fail to see how losing the ability to believe in something (believe that they have the exclusive right to control the distribution of their digital media) can harm you. Can you explain that?

Improved? But you said it was fundamentally broken, you said it was a problem of our capitalist society. A society you choose to be a part of because there is no superior alternative available.

Yes, improved. I said nothing about a perfect solution. Yes, broken. Broken as in highly flawed (alright, wrong wording there).

Yes, there's currently no place in the world which has a superior system in place. Or at least, there's currently no supported solutions that are superior.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[exomondo]

What are you talking about? You haven't lost the ability to think. Think all you like.

You said (not in that post):

Like I said, you've deprived them of the exclusivity of distribution, which obviously has significant value.

I fail to see how losing the ability to believe in something (believe that they have the exclusive right to control the distribution of their digital media) can harm you. Can you explain that?

Because it's not losing belief in something, it's losing a legal right - according to copyright law.

Improved? But you said it was fundamentally broken, you said it was a problem of our capitalist society. A society you choose to be a part of because there is no superior alternative available.

Yes, improved. I said nothing about a perfect solution. Yes, broken. Broken as in highly flawed (alright, wrong wording there).

Yes, there's currently no place in the world which has a superior system in place. Or at least, there's currently no supported solutions that are superior.

Well how do you improve it then, what exactly are you suggesting needs to be improved? Because this whole thread you've said the problem lies fundamentally in our capitalist society, you identified that as the problem, if that's the case then you can't improve it without changing the basis of our society.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[exomondo]

Are you blind or just stupid?

That's not what you said above. You said that any society that does not utilize artificial currency and has people that work because they love their profession couldn't work. I asked you what you base that off of. I fail to see how I misinterpreted you there.

Like I said, I base that on the fact that there is no such society successfully implemented, in fact we moved away from such systems to the monetary system hundreds and hundreds of years ago because it didn't work.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[cheekyjohnson]

Because it's not losing belief in something, it's losing a legal right - according to copyright law.

Yes, and I fail to see how that hurts them. Why should they have this 'right', exactly? How does it hurt them if they don't have it?

If stripping away this 'right' that you say they have will stop the injustices done to pirates, then I believe that it's worth it. People have had plenty of questionable rights in and past, and they have were weeded out.

Well how do you improve it then, what exactly are you suggesting needs to be improved?

Get rid of artificial currency, artificial scarcity, copyright law, and planned obsolescence for starters.

But again, my point isn't to argue about what system should be used next, but to make people realize that the current one is broken and that pirates logically aren't hurting anyone.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[sumdumass]

There may be tribal villages in Africa still that has used the non-currency thing. The problem there is that their children don't live past 5, they have no technological advancements past a spear or bow and arrow, and their medicine is more of an art of bullshitting someone into believing they will get better (placebo effect) then any actual help.

What the op is asking for has been tried. This is the main reason why most third world countries still live in grass huts at the turn of the 19th century and weren't much further along the lines in the 20th..

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[exomondo]

Because it's not losing belief in something, it's losing a legal right - according to copyright law.

Yes, and I fail to see how that hurts them. Why should they have this 'right', exactly? How does it hurt them if they don't have it?

If stripping away this 'right' that you say they have will stop the injustices done to pirates, then I believe that it's worth it. People have had plenty of questionable rights in and past, and they have were weeded out.

You seem to not understand the meaning of the words you are using. You say there is an 'injustice being done to pirates', well according to the laws of the society you live in that is false. You only fail to see it because you are ignorant, you don't know anything about copyright law which is a part of our society.

So how about you explain to me how a research firm is going to make money if what they develop can be taken by anyone and just given away for free?

Well how do you improve it then, what exactly are you suggesting needs to be improved?

Get rid of artificial currency, artificial scarcity, copyright law, and planned obsolescence for starters.

That FAILED, or are you not familiar with history either, that was abolished for most of the world in favor of the monetary system. There are tribes that still use such a system, you have the option to go and live in that society so go. But you won't because you know you're talking shit and that system DOES NOT WORK.

But again, my point isn't to argue about what system should be used next but to make people realize that the current one is broken and that pirates logically aren't hurting anyone.

You keep saying that but it's patently false, according to our legal system they are hurting copyright holders - if you fail to see that then you are not educated on the legal system or copyright law. Like i said, you have to option to go live in a non-monetary tribal society, but you won't because you know what you're suggesting is bullshit.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[cheekyjohnson]

You say there is an 'injustice being done to pirates', well according to the laws of the society you live in that is false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_law

If slavery were legal, they would not make it right. I believe that criminalizing people who have logically done no harm is wrong, sorry. Citing the law isn't going to make you more 'correct'.

You only fail to see it because you are ignorant, you don't know anything about copyright law which is a part of our society.

I know about copyright law, but I disagree with it.

So how about you explain to me how a research firm is going to make money if what they develop can be taken by anyone and just given away for free?

This is a problem with the current system, not pirates or copying. The fact that a research firm who may benefit all of humanity needs money in the first place is a disgrace.

That FAILED, or are you not familiar with history either, that was abolished for most of the world in favor of the monetary system.

This failed? For some reason, I didn't think that was tried before.

You keep saying that but it's patently false, according to our legal system they are hurting copyright holders - if you fail to see that then you are not educated on the legal system or copyright law.

The fact that you keep citing the law as evidence demonstrates that you yourself are ignorant. That is not evidence, nor does it change my point that nothing is being taken.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[exomondo]

If slavery were legal, they would not make it right.

Im not arguing right or wrong in general, im talking about the context of our society. If you're going to argue that our society is broken you're just trolling because you choose to be a part of that apparently 'broken system'.

I believe that criminalizing people who have logically done no harm is wrong, sorry. Citing the law isn't going to make you more 'correct'.

In the context of our society and our laws - which you live in and take advantage of - they have done harm. In the context of another society that may be different but not in ours. You're obviously just trolling because you choose to be a part of what you say is a 'broken system' even though you don't have to be.

I know about copyright law, but I disagree with it.

But you choose to live in a society that supports it while offering no alternative. Your argument is baseless because you don't action it, therefore you don't really believe it.

So how about you explain to me how a research firm is going to make money if what they develop can be taken by anyone and just given away for free?

This is a problem with the current system, not pirates or copying. The fact that a research firm who may benefit all of humanity needs money in the first place is a disgrace.

'who may benefit all of humanity', no don't add your own bullshit to try and justify it just because you can't answer the question, that was NOT a qualifier.

This failed? For some reason, I didn't think that was tried before.

And that's a 100% perfect system is it??

The fact that you keep citing the law as evidence demonstrates that you yourself are ignorant. That is not evidence, nor does it change my point that nothing is being taken.

No im aware of the rules and laws of the society i choose to live in and choose to abide by them. If you don't like it then don't be a part of it.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[cheekyjohnson]

Im not arguing right or wrong in general, im talking about the context of our society.

I'm saying that I disagree with the law and I would like it changed. It's happened in the past and it happened by people either using civil disobedience or protesting the laws that they wanted changed.

In the context of our society and our laws - which you live in and take advantage of - they have done harm.

Yes, and I disagree, so I voice my disapproval and say why I disagree.

You're obviously just trolling because you choose to be a part of what you say is a 'broken system' even though you don't have to be.

Unless I no longer want to partake in any society, I kind of do have to put up with the current one and attempt to change it if need be. It's certainly better than starting over.

But you choose to live in a society that supports it while offering no alternative. Your argument is baseless because you don't action it, therefore you don't really believe it.

What am I suppose to do, go live in the wood somewhere? I'm taking action by voicing my disapproval, as unimportant as that may sound. This does not mean that I "don't really believe it." I guess African Americans should have just left the country because it didn't suit them, rather than trying to change it, huh?

'who may benefit all of humanity', no don't add your own bullshit to try and justify it just because you can't answer the question, that was NOT a qualifier.

It's not a problem with pirates or copying, because again, nothing was actually taken. If they stole the work and deprived them of it completely, then yes, I would agree that harm was done. But they didn't.

And that's a 100% perfect system is it??

I don't know because it's never been tried before, but it doesn't need to be perfect.

No im aware of the rules and laws of the society i choose to live in and choose to abide by them. If you don't like it then don't be a part of it.

Again, I'm going to bring up the issue of the civil rights movement. Should they have just left because they didn't like it rather than try to have it changed? That would have changed nothing. That is just running away from the problem. You don't need to start a new society when another one has a problem. You try to change the current one, either through education or protest.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[exomondo]

I'm saying that I disagree with the law and I would like it changed.

How can you propose change to a law when you don't have a resultant state?

You're obviously just trolling because you choose to be a part of what you say is a 'broken system' even though you don't have to be.

Unless I no longer want to partake in any society, I kind of do have to put up with the current one and attempt to change it if need be. It's certainly better than starting over.

But you've been saying the problem is rooted in our society, in which case the only solution would be to start over.

But you choose to live in a society that supports it while offering no alternative. Your argument is baseless because you don't action it, therefore you don't really believe it.

What am I suppose to do, go live in the wood somewhere? I'm taking action by voicing my disapproval, as unimportant as that may sound. This does not mean that I "don't really believe it." I guess African Americans should have just left the country because it didn't suit them, rather than trying to change it, huh?

Live in a non-monetary society like you have been saying is the answer. And with regard to African-Americans the answer is no, they changed the laws, whereas you said the problem is because of our capitalist society. You are making and apples and oranges comparison.

It's not a problem with pirates or copying, because again, nothing was actually taken. If they stole the work and deprived them of it completely, then yes, I would agree that harm was done. But they didn't.

No it's that 'exclusivity of distribution' has value in our society just money has value in our society. In our society would you be accepting if someone deprived you of all of your money just because it only has value in our society? I doubt it.

I don't know because it's never been tried before, but it doesn't need to be perfect.

Substitute one flawed solution for another then.

Again, I'm going to bring up the issue of the civil rights movement.

Which is again idiotic as it is an apples and oranges comparison since that change happened within the context of our current society - it simply changed laws - and it was possible because there was a proposed resultant state. You are talking about changing the basis of our society.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[cheekyjohnson]

How can you propose change to a law when you don't have a resultant state?

I already linked to one. Perhaps a bit unreasonable at this time, but still.

But you've been saying the problem is rooted in our society, in which case the only solution would be to start over.

Many things would change, but not necessarily everyone. It wouldn't "start over," it would change drastically.

Live in a non-monetary society like you have been saying is the answer.

Of which there is none like the one I linked to.

And with regard to African-Americans the answer is no, they changed the laws, whereas you said the problem is because of our capitalist society.

Exactly, they changed the laws. They didn't just change the laws, they changed society, too. Perhaps not the same targeted portion of society, but society nonetheless. The laws are what I'm targeting right now, but just because they intertwine with society itself does not mean that the situations aren't similar.

No it's that 'exclusivity of distribution' has value in our society just money has value in our society.

How does that have value? You still haven't explained how someone copying something harms them. Why should they have this 'right'?

In our society would you be accepting if someone deprived you of all of your money just because it only has value in our society?

They actually stole something that I originally had. Again, why should this 'right' even exist when it clearly doesn't make sense? It's precisely one of the things I'm fighting against.

Substitute one flawed solution for another then.

Everything is flawed. Some things are just less flawed than others.

You are talking about changing the basis of our society.

Change is change. A society changing drastically is still change. A society changing its laws is again, still change. They are similar.

Yes, I am talking about that. But I also am not claiming that it's the only solution.

I saw another comment that links to this. I make no claims that there is only one solution.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[exomondo]

How can you propose change to a law when you don't have a resultant state?

I already linked to one. Perhaps a bit unreasonable at this time, but still.

Thats a change in the basis of society, not a change in current society's law. Changing the law of society and changing the basis of society are 2 very different things, you propose the latter but compare to the former, which is a flawed comparison.

Exactly, they changed the laws. They didn't just change the laws, they changed society, too.

Not the basis of society, which is what you are targetting which is why the comparison is stupid. The degree of change is massively different.

They actually stole something that I originally had. Again, why should this 'right' even exist when it clearly doesn't make sense? It's precisely one of the things I'm fighting against.

Stole something of artificial value, just as 'exclusivity of distribution' has artificial value in our society, just like money. How are research companies going to work in our society if you take that away? I know your response is going to be 'abolish monetary society', but im talking about the context of our current society, just as you would not be accepting of someone stealing your money.

Change is change. A society changing drastically is still change. A society changing its laws is again, still change. They are similar.

Except one is far more achievable than the other so comparing in terms of feasibility - as you have done - is idiotic.

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[cheekyjohnson]

Thats a change in the basis of society, not a change in current society's law.

It's a change in both.

Stole something of artificial value

It may have artificial worth, but I no longer have it. It's gone. I can never use it again. Not the case with piracy. I don't care about "exclusivity of distribution" because that's exactly what I want changed in the first place.

How are research companies going to work in our society if you take that away?

They'll have to find a new way, because the pirate hasn't logically done any harm.

but im talking about the context of our current society

Understandable, but the problem is that people won't even admit that pirates aren't actually taking anything.

Except one is far more achievable than the other so comparing in terms of feasibility - as you have done - is idiotic.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. If ending slavery, for instance, would require that all of society be changed, then I would agree with that change (I know it doesn't, but that is an example).

Re:that's not how copyright law works

[makomk]

It rewards companies that make games that people want to play.

Nope. It might reward companies that make games that people are willing to download for free, but that's not the same thing. Certainly in the past, a lot of the games people have been sued for downloading were well-known stinkers - enough people seem to download them to see if they're really as bad as the reviewers say that it's a good business model.

Leaking

[Formalin]

'Of course we're not happy when people are pirating our games, so we are signing with legal firms and torrent sneaking companies,'

That makes it sound like they are going to seed the torrents, making it available. I can't see that being airtight - If the copyright owner is making the torrent available, a leacher should be able to assume that they were granted permission to download it, no?

Seems pretty bent to me either way.

Re:Leaking

[LordLimecat]

I wouldnt be too sure about that; intent certainly figures into things when the law is concerned, and I think youd have a tough time convincing the courts that you thought being offered a single chunk from a "torrent sneaking firm" constituted permission to download the game; nor how you would convince them that you had the foresight to see all this in advance.

Re:Leaking

[ShakaUVM]

>>I think youd have a tough time convincing the courts that you thought being offered a single chunk from a "torrent sneaking firm" constituted permission to download the game;

How about pointing to TFA? The company itself put a version of their software up on a torrent site for people to download from freely. How can they then say said downloads were illegal?

As copyright holders, they have the right to put their software up for free download, but they can't complain when people take them up on it.

Re:Leaking

[IICV]

CD Projekt is a Czech company, so it's entirely possible that the meaning of "torrent sneaking companies" got lost in the translation. I can think of a few ways you could identify the IP addresses of people downloading torrents without uploading any material yourself, so they might be using some of those.

Or, you know, they're a Czech company - copyright law doesn't mean the same thing over there as it does here*, so this may be above-board in certain countries.

*cue ACTA lobbyist saying "Yet"

Re:Leaking

[DigiShaman]

Not really. You have to download the torrent before you can start downloading the content. Being that the user was going to downloaded it without caring where it actually came from anyways, setting up a honeypot to log users is a smart move.

If I had a product that was being pirated, I would do the same thing if I could get justice in return for my effort.

Re:Leaking

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering how the first game was crap i'd be surprised if the 2nd would be worth pirating much less purchase.

Re:Leaking

[Vaphell]

CDProjekt is definitely a Polish company

Re:Leaking

[Tharsman]

This can potentially be tracked with custom made software that request data but tosses it out as it recieves it, never storing or sharing it back. This software would then log the IP address and time of all packet transactions.

I'm sure they dont just go out and run a torrent and seed stuff and occationally look at the IP list, this would result in them not catching a lot of seeders or leachers.

Re:Leaking

[Ziekheid]

You can get swarm information (IP's, percentages, etc) without seeding yourself. The problem here lies with the fact that they'll have to know for sure that the content beeing shared between peers is their copyrighted content, for this they would have to download it at least once. I don't think this would be a problem since they would be downloading their own content.

Re:Leaking

[IICV]

Bleh, I originally had Polish on there, but then I decided to Google it just to double check. What did I get?

CD Projekt announces that as of April 29, 2010, CD Projekt Czech S.R.O, a Prague-based company...

So I said Czech.

What was the rest of that sentence?

CD Projekt announces that as of April 29, 2010, CD Projekt Czech S.R.O, a Prague-based company, which operates in Czech Republic and Slovakia, and CD Projekt Magyarorszag KFT, Budapest-based company, which operates in Hungary, have changed ownership as a result of sale and are no longer part of the CD Projekt group.

That'll teach me to not to trust Google.

Re:Leaking

[Anonymous Coward]

CD Projekt is a Polish company. Always were. They had division in Czech but they don't anymore: http://www.cdprojekt.com/news.asp?nID=55

Re:Leaking

[Anonymous Coward]

Downloading a torrent doesn't mean you intend or even want to download the material. It is necessary to get the torrent to see the contents you can download, and if you use a magnet link, most torrent-client don't give you the option of not starting the torrent once it has fetched it.

Re:Leaking

[microbee]

Ask the Feds to stop luring people into conducting illegal activities first.

Re:Leaking

[stewymcstewstew]

As I understand it downloading a file isn't illegal, rather uploading the file is what constitutes a copyright violation. In this case even if you could argue that the file was offered to you legitimately that does not give you an implicit right to go on providing it to others (uploading).

Re:Leaking

[ShakaUVM]

>>As I understand it downloading a file isn't illegal, rather uploading the file is what constitutes a copyright violation. In this case even if you could argue that the file was offered to you legitimately that does not give you an implicit right to go on providing it to others (uploading).

What if your share ratio is below 1.0? Then you haven't provided a useful copy of the software to anyone.

And in any event, if they put it up on bittorrent, they shouldn't be complaining when people use bittorrent to download it.

Re:Leaking

[stewymcstewstew]

What if your share ratio is below 1.0? Then you haven't provided a useful copy of the software to anyone.

And in any event, if they put it up on bittorrent, they shouldn't be complaining when people use bittorrent to download it.

IANAL and I agree with you, I was just providing what I believe to be the justification for using these private dick firms.

Re:Leaking

[ymgve]

You don't need to seed a single byte to get the IPs of everyone on a torrent. Just ask the tracker/DHT network, and it willingly gives away all info about seeders/peers. This is by design, as torrents were never intended to be used for illegal means.

Re:Leaking

[Anonymous Coward]

Iraq, Iran - what's the difference?

CD Project is a Polish company.

Re:Leaking

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it's a Polish company, and Polish copyright law happens to be quite strict ( although they are lax in enforcing it )

Re:Leaking

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there is Czech division, but CD-Projekt is Polish company, founded by Marcin Iwiski and Micha Kiciski.
Goto: http://www.cdprojekt.pl/aboutus

Re:Leaking

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I heard, they were very much Polish.

Not that it is that much of a difference to the US-educated masses, though, is it?

Happy Thanksgiving :D

Re:Leaking

[thetartanavenger]

How about pointing to TFA? The company itself put a version of their software up on a torrent site for people to download from freely. How can they then say said downloads were illegal?

I may have just missed something here, but I've just read both links available and I can't see anything where it says that they have uploaded a version of their software, or created any torrents. Where is it written that they did? I don't mean this as a troll as I may have just overlooked it somehow..Or has that juicy little bit of information been removed from the article since its initial publishing

Just to note, if they did upload/create their own torrents then I completely agree with you. That is them effectively publishing their material in a free manner, although I suppose if you downloaded it and installed it having to go through an EULA, legally dubious I know, then they could claim that you did not agree to their terms. But in those circumstances they wouldn't be able to sue you for just downloading it..

Witcher 2 threats could net you publicity

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anyone heard of this game?

Re:Witcher 2 threats could net you publicity

[meerling]

Yes, it's an interesting fantasy rpg. I think the first one sold decently, but I don't have any numbers on that, don't feel like looking them up. Although I agree that the statement they made is a little confusing. Maybe we're reading too much into this, or we are just too paranoid. Or maybe just me... : )

Re:Witcher 2 threats could net you publicity

[dougmc]

I haven't heard of the Witcher 2 (until now), but The Witcher (1) was a pretty good RPG game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Witcher_(video_game)

If the sequel is as good as the first, it's well worth paying for. Having no DRM is a definite plus. Going after those who infringe on their copyrights ... well, it sounds like they've decided that any publicity is good publicity. And they may be right.

And really, I don't have any problems with them going after the pirates, especially if they make this "fine" a reasonable figure -- more than the cost of the game, but less than thousands of dollars.

Re:Witcher 2 threats could net you publicity

[Anonymous Coward]

Going after those who infringe on their copyrights ... well, it sounds like they've decided that any publicity is good publicity. And they may be right.

Not really. For them pulling this kind of shit, I've put them on a shit list for all future projects they throw up. I'll do nothing to encourage litigation being used as a money model. If they know beyond a shadow of a doubt that a person infringed, prove it. Until I see exactly how they can avoid any false positives whatsoever, they're approach is flawed and going to have a backlash similar to the RIAA/MPAA/BSA/Etc.

And no, even a single false positive is unacceptable.

I eagerly await hearing of them suing dead people and small children.

Re:Witcher 2 threats could net you publicity

[Dhalka226]

I don't have any problems with them going after the pirates, especially if they make this "fine" a reasonable figure

I do. I have a major problem with it. They're going to make people pay a fine? Who the fuck do they think they are? They are not the police. They are not the government. This is nothing but legally-sanction extortion.

If they think these people are doing something wrong, so be it. Sue them -- fairly, none of this 200 John Doe lawsuits in a random jurisdiction where the cases get mysteriously dropped if the person actually fights back. Let the courts hear whatever evidence they think they have, let them make a finding of fact, pronounce a verdict and let it be enforced. I think it's stupid, but it's their right.

What is not their right is to demand anybody pay a "fine" based on their interpretation that they did something Really Bad(tm) and the average person's inability to litigate even a winning case. In short: Put up or shut up. You think you have a case? Then bring a case. Anything else is extortion.

Re:Witcher 2 threats could net you publicity

[RivenAleem]

I totally agree, this kind of extortion cannot go on!

I walked into Gamestop the other day and saw a game I liked. The staff there had the gall to try and issue me an on the spot fine BEFORE I tried to leave the store. They call it "paying for the product" but I know it's simply blackmail and extortion.

Seriously people, buy the product and then you don't have to worry about any fine. If you pirate it, then what are you expecting should happen?

Re:Witcher 2 threats could net you publicity

[L4t3r4lu5]

I totally read this whole article as a slashvertisment:

"CD Projekt releasing DRM free game on GoG.com" is the actual title. The letters setting fines for those who torrent the game instead are just to get it onto tech websites, like this. It's what any publishing company would do.

Re:Witcher 2 threats could net you publicity

[dougmc]

Not really. For them pulling this kind of shit, I've put them on a shit list for all future projects they throw up. I'll do nothing to encourage litigation being used as a money model.

And yet few people had even heard of the game until this point. And now we have, and I've pointed out that the original was a pretty good game. So far, I'd say the net effect has been positive for them -- somebody might buy their game who wasn't going to buy it before (can't buy it if you haven't heard of it.)

And really, saying they'll go after those who distribute their game without authorization is "this kind of shit"? I take it you also don't like the people who put up signs that said "looters will be shot" on their buildings during Katrina? Would it be better if they didn't put up the signs, and just shot the looters without warning? (I mean, yes, looters should realize that they get might get shot, but a warning might be good, yes? Similarly, those who use BT to download copyrighted stuff might realize they could get nailed for that (there's little anonymous about BT) and a warning might be good, yes?)

Inevitable posts blasting this...

[LordLimecat]

And somehow I have a feeling that their ire is about the wrong thing. If it were possible to have reasonable certainty about who actually downloaded the file, this would be worthwhile, but I dont think theres really a good tie a WAN address to a LAN address from the outside yet.

That issue aside, id be interested to see the objections raised-- I suspect theyll boil down to "I cant have whatever I want? No fair!".

Re:Inevitable posts blasting this...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

As someone who's had plenty of people raise objections to me (I happen to be firmly planted on the other side of the debate), I can tell you they almost always boil down to one or more of the following:

1) There's nothing wrong with sharing/copyright is bad
2) Sharing is only bad when companies do it (though I've had real trouble getting anyone to be able to justify why that is)
3) OK, sharing is bad/copyright is fine, but I still don't like companies suing people
4) I can't have whatever I want? No fair!

Although, I find with certain people arguing for points 1) and 2) that their arguments make significantly less sense if you assume they're not implicitly arguing for point 4). And by "certain people", I do not mean "all people". I can think of several people to whom this definitely did not apply.

Re:Inevitable posts blasting this...

[Pentium100]

2) Sharing is only bad when companies do it (though I've had real trouble getting anyone to be able to justify why that is)

Sharing copyrighted material for profit is bad, how about this?

What I mean is - it is difficult to prove or disprove that somebody who downloaded the game for free would have bought it, after all, there is a huge price difference between free and $50 and I have a limited amount of money and could buy a limited amount of games, while I could download much more games (depending on the hard drive size and connection speed). However, if somebody bought the game from a pirate it is more likely that they would have bought the game legitimately if the pirated version was not available (even worse is when the pirate tricks the buyer into thinking that it is the legit version and sells it for the price of the legit version).

Re:Inevitable posts blasting this...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Sharing copyrighted material for profit is bad, how about this?

Ah, yep. That's the one I mean.

What I mean is - it is difficult to prove or disprove that somebody who downloaded the game for free would have bought it, after all, there is a huge price difference between free and $50 and I have a limited amount of money and could buy a limited amount of games, while I could download much more games (depending on the hard drive size and connection speed). However, if somebody bought the game from a pirate it is more likely that they would have bought the game legitimately if the pirated version was not available (even worse is when the pirate tricks the buyer into thinking that it is the legit version and sells it for the price of the legit version).

Prices can be priced at any point, from free to full price and beyond. It seems true that the higher the price, the more likely the person is to have bought the product, but there are other considerations:

1) If a person pays nothing, does that mean they would never have bought the product at any price point the maker decides to price at in the future?
2) If someone sells illegitimate copies of copyrighted materials for prices a little above bandwidth costs (e.g. allofmp3.com), are they really that much worse than those who just give away for free?
3) Why do we need to make a loophole for non-commercial sharing? The people who would never have bought the product can just treat entertainment like all the other products they would never have bought.

And most importantly:

4) If free versions are available, then everyone who would have bought a commercial illegitimate copy will now just take a free version, thus making any bans on commercial infringement completely and utterly ineffective.

Re:Inevitable posts blasting this...

[Tharsman]

They don't need to know exactly who used the computer, they just need the external IP address and the time of download. With that they can contact the ISP and get the household that was doing this.

If the people download it from their work computers, IT will get a notification, from there it may be hard to track down the actual user. But at a household, it's not hard to just know it was the household.

Re:Inevitable posts blasting this...

[MoonBuggy]

I know that, in general, my personal views are tempered by the fact that current copyright law (and associated odds and ends - the DMCA, ACTA, etc.) as pushed through by the big media companies does significant harm to the very works and artists that they claim to be protecting, as well as to our ability to communicate freely in general (attacking net neutrality, attacking fair use, attempting to mandate pervasive network surveillance).

Not that this justifies infringement, of course, but I think it may explain why the immediate reaction of many is to side against 'big media' even if they may be technically in the right with any given lawsuit. I will note that this doesn't seem apply to this particular case, and I am therefore waiting with interest to see how it pans out.

Even what I've just said, however, is based on the assumption that the lawsuits are valid. Since we've seen several times that the methods of data gathering are technically inadequate, the law firms are willing to push a case with minimal evidence, and the potential cost for even an innocent person to fight could be life-destroying, it's perhaps less than surprising that many people feel quite strongly against cases of this nature.

One could even argue (although this is certainly a little more tenuous) the logic that it would benefit us all for organisations like the *AA, who have repeatedly attempted (and often succeeded) to pass legislation that harms us all, to be destroyed. From this comes the argument that giving them funding, even through means that could be argued as allowable in another context, is harmful in this one.

I've made quite a few posts in this thread already, and I guess you could (and perhaps would) categorise them all under point 3 of your list, but I'd say that I've made reasonable arguments for why I consider suing people (especially the innocent ones...) objectionable in most minor copyright cases. I've also said a few times that I would feel very differently if it were like getting a parking ticket, rather than fighting off the very real likelihood of seizure of your house, car and all other assets.

Re:Inevitable posts blasting this...

[Sancho]

As someone who's had plenty of people raise objections to me (I happen to be firmly planted on the other side of the debate), I can tell you they almost always boil down to one or more of the following:

1) There's nothing wrong with sharing/copyright is bad
2) Sharing is only bad when companies do it (though I've had real trouble getting anyone to be able to justify why that is)
3) OK, sharing is bad/copyright is fine, but I still don't like companies suing people
4) I can't have whatever I want? No fair!

Although, I find with certain people arguing for points 1) and 2) that their arguments make significantly less sense if you assume they're not implicitly arguing for point 4). And by "certain people", I do not mean "all people". I can think of several people to whom this definitely did not apply.

1) I happen to think that copyright is broken, due to the Congress deciding to take something limited by the Constitution and making it effectively unlimited. I'm just this side of thinking that piracy could be a form of civil disobedience, but I think for most people, it's all a matter of (4).

2) I think that for a lot of people, this is just a populist argument. However, I know a number of people who make a good argument about the intent of the infringement. In my mind, there's a moral difference between taking something someone else has created and using it versus taking something someone else has created and reselling it (via incorporating it into a new product.) Since individuals downloading music rarely resell it (or at least those stories never hit the headlines), it's quite easy to perceive it merely as populism.

3) The power differential is astounding. Most companies legal retainers are a drop in the bucket, whereas most individuals hiring a lawyer would nearly bankrupt them. This is a problem with our legal system more than anything, but it's still a problem.

4) Yeah.

Re:Inevitable posts blasting this...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

1) I happen to think that copyright is broken, due to the Congress deciding to take something limited by the Constitution and making it effectively unlimited. I'm just this side of thinking that piracy could be a form of civil disobedience, but I think for most people, it's all a matter of (4).

Yes, I forgot about that one. However, it doesn't apply here. CD Projekt is not responsible for copyright extensions. Besides, I've never heard of any advantage of piracy over boycotting, other than for the pirate himself.

In my mind, there's a moral difference between taking something someone else has created and using it versus taking something someone else has created and reselling it (via incorporating it into a new product.)

From what I understand, that's true in many people's minds. However, it's not in my mind. It probably stems from the fact that I don't see copyright's existence from a moral perspective, rather from a purely utilitarian perspective. It's there to give us maximum variety, choice, and growth in culture. This is considerably more undermined by free sharing than it is by commercial selling, since the free option is always the more appealing.

As I also said in one of my other replies, the existence of free alternatives for illegitimate copies makes it a moot point anyway. Nobody would buy copies that they could just as legitimately get for free.

3) The power differential is astounding. Most companies legal retainers are a drop in the bucket, whereas most individuals hiring a lawyer would nearly bankrupt them. This is a problem with our legal system more than anything, but it's still a problem.

Certainly. Number 3) is the option I tend to respect the most. Thanks to a problem inherent in our legal system (one without a clear solution), we are caught between a rock and a hard place. So I can sympathise with people who acknowledge the need for the power to sue pirates, but hate when people use it.

Re:Inevitable posts blasting this...

[Pentium100]

2) If someone sells illegitimate copies of copyrighted materials for prices a little above bandwidth costs (e.g. allofmp3.com), are they really that much worse than those who just give away for free?

Yes.

There is a huge difference in price between $0 and $0.01. At least for me, to pay any amount, I need to trust the seller enough to give my card info (better if he accepts paypal) have the money in my account that is associated with the card (I usually do not keep money there in case someone manages to get my card number). Also, if something's free I can just test it and if I don't like it - no big deal, but if I paid some money for it then it means that I "lost" the money.

One suggestion for reducing or eliminating email spam was to charge $0.01 for each email (then optionally allow people to give the money to some charity) with the idea that for anyone it should not be expensive (how many emails do you send in a month?) but it would be too expensive for spammers. For some reason people didn't like it.

3) Why do we need to make a loophole for non-commercial sharing?

Because people have copied records/tapes and taped off TV/radio for a long time now and the industry is not bankrupt for some reason, maybe the non-commercial copyright infringement is not as bad as MAFIAA says it is?

4) If free versions are available, then everyone who would have bought a commercial illegitimate copy will now just take a free version, thus making any bans on commercial infringement completely and utterly ineffective.

So, make the legit product somehow better. Include something in the box that collectors would appreciate. Make updates (bug fixes and new content) free to those who bought the game, but charge some money from those who pirated. Make multiplayer only available for legit users. Services like Steam (without DRM though) that allow you to play the game on other computers without recording it to DVD or torrenting it again (maybe the ISP does not allow P2P). Oh, and reduce the prices - $50 is something like 16% of the minimal wage before taxes. However, somebody who gets the minimal wage has to pay taxes, pay for his flat/house, electricity, internet, food, clothes, fuel for car etc. The $50 price becomes quite high, especially for a game.

Also remember that usually it is not possible to return a game if it sucks. When I bought a defective video card (analog output was blurry) I returned it and got my money back. If I bought "Big Rigs Over The Road Racing" I could not return it even though the game is even more broken than the video card (that I assume could output good picture over the DVI port).

Re:Inevitable posts blasting this...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Yes.

There is a huge difference in price between $0 and $0.01. At least for me, to pay any amount, I need to trust the seller enough to give my card info (better if he accepts paypal) have the money in my account that is associated with the card (I usually do not keep money there in case someone manages to get my card number). Also, if something's free I can just test it and if I don't like it - no big deal, but if I paid some money for it then it means that I "lost" the money.

So, what if they do accept paypal? I'm concerned that arguments here appeal to the convenience of the process, rather than morality of their actions. Surely you can imagine a situation where paying is only a tiny iota more inconvenient than downloading for free?

Because people have copied records/tapes and taped off TV/radio for a long time now and the industry is not bankrupt for some reason, maybe the non-commercial copyright infringement is not as bad as MAFIAA says it is?

It may be, but that requires proof. It could also be that people with a moral objection to piracy are largely supporting the industry. Not that pirates never pay for anything, just that they don't generally pull their weight.

So, make the legit product somehow better.

You misunderstand me. The commercial illegitimate copy is equalled or superseded in every metric by the free illegitimate copy. If someone will pay for an illegitimate copy, they would definitely download an illegitimate copy. If you allow non-commercial sharing, you might as well allow commercial sharing, because nobody would bother commercial sharing. With non-commercial sharing, the point about commercial sharing is completely moot.

Re:Inevitable posts blasting this...

[Pentium100]

If someone will pay for an illegitimate copy, they would definitely download an illegitimate copy.

Or they would buy the legitimate copy. Not everyone who buys the illegitimate copy does so knowingly and specifically (if, for example, their internet connection is too slow to download the pirate copy, they would either buy a pirate copy or a legitimate copy).

I'm concerned that arguments here appeal to the convenience of the process, rather than morality of their actions.

Yes, and most of the time the pirate copy is more convenient - no DRM, no need to pay, no need to go to the store etc.

Surely you can imagine a situation where paying is only a tiny iota more inconvenient than downloading for free?

Yes, but so far I have not seen such situation.

Also, if someone chooses to pay any amount for the pirate copy when a free pirate copy is available (as is for the vast majority of things) then he is much more likely to buy the legitimate version.

Re:Inevitable posts blasting this...

[Ash-Fox]

Services like Steam (without DRM though) that allow you to play the game on other computers without recording it to DVD or torrenting it again (maybe the ISP does not allow P2P).

Believe it or not, I wouldn't like Steam without DRM, the DRM is what makes it difficult for people to cheat and come back without concequence. With Steam's DRM, they'd have to get a new account and buy the game again, legitimately in order to play on the game servers. If they start cheating, they risk being automatically detected by Steam as a cheater and getting flagged as a cheater on their account and additionally, if you ban a specific steam account from your server, unless they buy the game again and create a new account, they can't come back on your server.

Re:Inevitable posts blasting this...

[Pentium100]

You can ban their IP or account. You can require a Steam account to play online and require that the game be bought to play it without any client-side DRM. That way the cheater will be able to play on non-Steam servers (as he can do now with a pirate copy) or play the same on single player, but not play it on Steam-enabled servers.

Re:Inevitable posts blasting this...

[Ash-Fox]

You can require a Steam account to play online and require that the game be bought to play it without any client-side DRM.

Client side DRM also ensures that certain files have not been tampered with etc. In a trusted computing environment, it's something that helps against unauthorized code/modifications that could for example, assist in cheating. DRM is not only a technology to prevent copyright infringement. I'm still against it's removal.

Re:Inevitable posts blasting this...

[Pentium100]

In a trusted computing environment, it's something that helps against unauthorized code/modifications that could for example, assist in cheating.

You can crack the DRM to modify files or modify files that are not monitored by the DRM (video drivers for example). Client-side DRM can be cracked to allow the client to run - removing the whole reason for the DRM to be created. Also, you can have all the cheating prevention tools that you want while still allowing the client to run (and connect to servers that have cheating prevention disabled or run in single player mode). For a single player game DRM cannot be used like you describe (since the game is single player) and should be completely removed.

Re:Inevitable posts blasting this...

[Ash-Fox]

You can crack the DRM to modify files or modify files that are not monitored by the DRM (video drivers for example).

VAC2 in Steam actually does monitor those driver files too, so poor example.

Client-side DRM can be cracked to allow the client to run

Which has been relatively unsuccesful when it comes to VAC2 in Steam.

The protections offered in Steam is actually working, so while there is the possibility, the fact is, they are updating it enough to make it unviable for the majority of cheaters, hence I'm happy with the DRM provided.

For a single player game DRM cannot be used like you describe (since the game is single player) and should be completely removed.

Several single player games I have installed in Steam don't have it, three more just require you to have logged into the account at some point in the past to verify you own it - since I had to do that to download it, it's a none issue. I have a few other single player ones, but I haven't cared enough to check those out. There is three that employ a form of Steam's VAC2 checking to ensure that you aren't cheating to get achievements while online (you can only get the achievements if you play online, even though it's single player) - Personally I have no problem with that, forces fairness.

The DRM in Steam is liberal enough to be a none issue in my opinion, there are many good uses for DRM which Steam employs, to the point that I don't really feel that removing all the DRM (as you put it so bluntly and blandly) would deliver the same experiences I have grown to enjoy in Steam. There are things I find a bit annoying, which is the fact that publishers are free to include their own DRM on top of the game it self on Steam, but fortunately the additional DRM is clearly labelled on the store pages.

There is something nagging at me though, I get the feeling that you never really investigated how Steam's DRM really worked, without such invesgiations, why do you feel you can give objective opinions on the matter?

Re:Inevitable posts blasting this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's have a look at your points:

1) Copyright isn't bad per se, but the copyright laws of 2010 are. They're bad because they have deviated much too far from the purpose for which copyright was created, namely to promote creativity. Copyright should last exactly long enough to let good creators earn a decent living, and then leave the creator hungry for more to ensure that they won't stop creating. Copyright that lasts more than a century doesn't fulfill that criteria, which is why it is bad.

2) Doing something for profit is generally seen as more immoral and worse than doing something for other reasons. Which one is worse/more evil: the paid assassin or the guy beating someone to death because he's mentally unstable? Yes, the law punishes people who do something for profit more harshly than others, so why would you have a problem with peoples' morals agreeing with this?

3) Yes, morals != laws. There are many things that may be immoral, but nevertheless it's not a good idea to make it illegal. Prohibition is one example that happened to pop into my head just now, but it's just one example among many.

4) Yes, there are of course greedy people that just want things for free. Why do you care? Trying to punish them to teach them morals is like pissing into the wind. You're not likely to change them, and even if you do you're not likely to get any profit from them changing. About the only reason I can see to be fanatical about punishing dickheads around the world is because you're a dickhead yourself that gets off on disciplining people you dislike. A fanatical crusader. That's not something the law should assist you with. The law should be crass and cynical; if you can't show that some real harm is being done, the law should not assist you with your crusade.

Re:Inevitable posts blasting this...

[Pentium100]

There is something nagging at me though, I get the feeling that you never really investigated how Steam's DRM really worked

Well, it works well enough for me (and I don't want to cheat) that I did not have to investigate how it works in detail. However, if I ever run into problems with Valve, they can disable/delete my account and I will lose all my games. They could, in theory, start charging a monthly fee and I would either have to pay it or lose my games.

I bought those games, I paid for them, so I should be able to play them regardless of what the store does after my purchase. If I go to a store and buy a CD (with music) I can continue to use it even if the store goes out of business or if the store starts hating me for some reason.

Re:Inevitable posts blasting this...

[Ash-Fox]

Well, it works well enough for me (and I don't want to cheat) that I did not have to investigate how it works in detail. However, if I ever run into problems with Valve, they can disable/delete my account and I will lose all my games.

If you cheat, you would just get locked out of the anti-cheating enabled servers (VAC protected). You wouldn't lose access to games, although, there are two titles where this is a bit of a gray area. With modern warfare 2 and black ops, they both use a match making system which only has VAC enabled - you have no choice to not use a VAC enabled server and in those instances, it will make multiplayer useless if you're caught on that engine. Oh, I forgot to mention that if you're caught cheating, you're only 'banned' from using that specific engine on anti-cheating servers, so if you were caught on say, counter strike, you would not be banned from half life 2: death match.

They could, in theory, start charging a monthly fee and I would either have to pay it or lose my games.

I would go about suing them if this happened honestly - bait and switch.

I bought those games

In reality, you licensed them.

If I go to a store and buy a CD (with music) I can continue to use it even if the store goes out of business or if the store starts hating me for some reason.

VALVe on a few occasions has hinted on a few occasions that they would 'unlock' games should they ever go out of business. Whether or not they'll live up to that promise I don't know, but I already have enough knowledge to remove the executable wrappers on Steam games, so, even if they fail to do so, I have a feeling 'unlockers' will be available.

Re:Inevitable posts blasting this...

[Pentium100]

If you cheat, you would just get locked out of the anti-cheating enabled servers (VAC protected). You wouldn't lose access to games, although, there are two titles where this is a bit of a gray area.

I meant other problems, not cheating, for example:
http://rockpapershotgun.com/rpsforum/topic.php?id=3394

The crux of it is, if the payment you make via Paypal for anything you buy on Steam doesn't go through for any reason, routine or not, Steam will think you've stolen the game and your account will be banned, along with all the games you've purchased on it. And according to this man's account of events, Steam are not very open to allowing you to rectify the situation.

So if it turns out that I do not have enough money in my "internet-enabled" card I can lose my games, nice.

In reality, you licensed them.

How nice of the content creators - when it's piracy they all talk about it like I stole a physical item ("You wouldn't steal a car..."), but when I buy something it turns out that I only licensed it and actually do not have it.

Re:Inevitable posts blasting this...

[Ash-Fox]

The crux of it is, if the payment you make via Paypal for anything you buy on Steam doesn't go through for any reason, routine or not, Steam will think you've stolen the game and your account will be banned, along with all the games you've purchased on it. And according to this man's account of events, Steam are not very open to allowing you to rectify the situation.

Actually VALVe are following merchant agreements with payment processors, you're not going to find much different with any service provider.

If a transaction is reversed, you don't give the product for free regardless, it's removed and for non-refundable charges (steam automatically assumes it's not a refund unless you request it from support), the agreement requires them to suspend an account until the balance has been paid and that is exactly what they are doing. If your payment doesn't go through normally on your card or such, it doesn't cause a reversed transaction on payment systems it just fails to pay initially - this is specifically the case with reversed transactions.

It's like reversing a transaction from a real life store, it's going to piss off the store who will refuse to deal with you until you pay the balance owed as you essentially stole back the money you paid them.

How nice of the content creators - when it's piracy they all talk about it like I stole a physical item ("You wouldn't steal a car..."),

That is the concept of copyright however, making something non-tangible into a tangible form via licensing to promote creation of new literature by making it a viable business - So I don't really see the problem with this analogy they use.

but when I buy something it turns out that I only licensed it and actually do not have it.

Ownership of works would mean you get exclusive rights to decide what happens with the copyrights, it is highly unlikely someone is going to sell that to you for $15.

Oh no!

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone monitoring torrents on public trackers? Unheard of! The PirateBay is doomed!

Honestly?

[flintmecha]

If you care at all about video games in general, why would you pirate this game in light of the amazing treatment CD Projekt is giving gamers? Absolutely no DRM, play-anywhere, and an astounding pre-release bonus package.

I'm normally opposed to devs going all vigilante and hunting down pirates, but I think in this particular situation, I think Wither 2 pirates really deserve some sort of punishment, whether legal or physical.

If you pirate this game, you are a dick, plain and simple.

Re:Honestly?

[cheekyjohnson]

Why are the pirates always blamed for the shortcomings of a broken system? Don't you think that it's sort of odd how people who don't even take anything or harm anyone are being blamed for stealing (potential profit or otherwise)? Don't you think that it's sort of odd how artists (and others), in order to (presumably) make a living in said system, must introduce artificial scarcity through the use of scare tactics? I certainly do. It's not pirates that are the problem, it's the broken system which doesn't allow people to truly fulfill their dreams unless they have the object known as money, and instead of fixing said system, everyone in existence is blamed for its shortcomings.

Re:Honestly?

[totally bogus dude]

And how would you propose fixing this system? What shortcomings are you talking about?

I like free stuff as much as anyone else, but really, what's so difficult about the concept of paying whatever arbitrary price someone asks for? If you think the price isn't worth it, then don't pay and don't play/watch/listen to whatever they created. It's hardly the end of the world.

Re:Honestly?

[cheekyjohnson]

And how would you propose fixing this system?

As I already said, I myself do not have a perfect solution to this. However, that does not change the fact that the current system is broken.

What shortcomings are you talking about?

Don't you think it's a shortcoming with the system if artists have to introduce artificial scarcity for products that would otherwise be in an infinite supply just to make a profit so that they can continue participating in said system and continue doing what they love? Don't you think it's a shortcoming when people who logically aren't doing any harm (not giving someone money isn't doing harm) are blamed for not giving someone money (which is a category that nearly everyone in existence fits into)?

If you think the price isn't worth it, then don't pay and don't play/watch/listen to whatever they created.

You could also go another route. You could merely get the media for free whilst not harming anyone.

Re:Honestly?

[totally bogus dude]

Don't you think it's a shortcoming with the system if artists have to introduce artificial scarcity for products that would otherwise be in an infinite supply just to make a profit so that they can continue participating in said system and continue doing what they love?

It's interesting to consider that concept: "infinite supply". So far as I can tell, there isn't an infinite supply of resources to provide to people in order for them to work on video games (or films, music, theatre, etc.). Since creating these things takes quite a lot of time (especially if you factor in time required to give people the skills and creativity needed to be able to produce them, in addition to time required to actually produce them) it seems pretty straightforward to prove that there isn't an infinite supply of anything creative.

You could merely get the media for free whilst not harming anyone.

How do you define harm? Producers of content feel harmed when they don't receive what they feel is just reward for their efforts. Just like you'd feel harmed if your employer decided to pay you less than you'd agreed to work for them for. When they decided to create their game, they did so with the understanding that society would allow them to be the only one to sell it, and to dictate the price that it would sell for. So when people pirate it, that "social contract" has been violated.

The fact that you can duplicate bytes at near-zero incremental cost doesn't really matter; that's only the very tail-end of a massive and complicated production process. The price is set by the producer; the consumer decides whether or not they're willing to pay that price. If they're not, the producer generally adjusts their expectations downward until they're selling enough to make themselves happy. This is the fundamental mechanism that decides the value of a product to society.

Ultimately, when the final price of an item is no longer under the control of the producer, but of the consumer, then society as a whole is harmed by disrupting one side of the scale that determines price. I don't think the argument that downloading something for free "doesn't do any harm" really holds water. It is a conscious and deliberate violation of a construct which forms the very fabric of our system.

Re:Honestly?

[Ash-Fox]

As I already said, I myself do not have a perfect solution to this.

So, what is your less than perfect solution that is supposively better than the current?

However, that does not change the fact that the current system is broken.

Got a better system, I'm all ears.

Don't you think it's a shortcoming when people who logically aren't doing any harm

I disagree here. I have seen the difference in profit based on succesful DRM schemes used, so logically, these people are doing harm if you take the observed difference into account. Perhaps the solution is better DRM schemes the way consoles do it (fully locked down, code signed platforms), but in a way that can verify individual copies too? Wouldn't that fix "the system"?

Looking at the current generation of consoles, it's very visible that the amount of hacks, piracy methods that were previously available on older generations of consoles aren't as rampid as before. With some more trusted computing technology, they could in theory reduce the numbers of people doing "bad" things to insignificant numbers.

I'm not advocating this technology, but I can see this as a viable solution and wanted to know what your viable solution is.

Re:Honestly?

[oobayly]

I won't ask you to provide a solution for the copyright system as at least you've been honest and said you have none. However whining about the system being broken is getting a bit repetitive.
As for continuously bitching about artificial scarcity, please enlighten us, where is the artificial scarcity in this case? It's DRM free, what more can the publishers to to make it better for you?
Finally, can you please explain to us why it is ok to make use of a product that has take real time and money to produce without ever giving the makers the a cent? And no "the system is broken" is not a reason, especially in this particular case.

Re:Honestly?

[Anonymous Coward]

so, what exactly is your suggestion for fixing this "horrible" system AND keeping artists/developers/allotherpeople remunerated for their work under our current system of government and economy? unless you propose overthrowing capitalism and democracy, I think there is no viable alternative to the current "system"...

Re:Honestly?

[cheekyjohnson]

It's interesting to consider that concept: "infinite supply". So far as I can tell, there isn't an infinite supply of resources to provide to people in order for them to work on video games (or films, music, theatre, etc.).

Obviously, I am speaking of the digital media itself and not of people who produce it.

How do you define harm?

If someone steals something from someone else (as in, the other person was actually deprived of something that they originally owned), the other person is harmed.

If someone physically harms someone, obviously the other person was harmed.

If someone uses up someones time with promises of payment but then decides not to pay them, that person was harmed. Pirates differ from this because they use their own time and resources to copy data.

Producers of content feel harmed when they don't receive what they feel is just reward for their efforts.

So, we should disallow people from choosing whether or not to buy a product or disallow people from telling others not to buy a product because it could hurt sales?

Just like you'd feel harmed if your employer decided to pay you less than you'd agreed to work for them for.

The difference here is clear. Pirates, again, use their own time and resources to copy the data, not interacting with the artists at all (or depriving them of anything).

In this scenario, someone was promised a certain amount of money and used their time to work to get it. They didn't get it, and so they wasted their time.

So when people pirate it, that "social contract" has been violated.

Merely violating a social contract by itself doesn't hurt someone. In order for it to be harmful, you have to either deprive someone of something, use their time, or use their resources.

Also, be aware that I'm not saying that it's a bad thing to pay artists, just that piracy can't logically be equated to stealing.

Re:Honestly?

[cheekyjohnsun]

Got a better system, I'm all ears.

As I said, my inability to think of a better system does not mean that the current one is not broken. It merely means that there are currently no viable alternatives (at least of my own).

I disagree here. I have seen the difference in profit based on succesful DRM schemes used, so logically, these people are doing harm if you take the observed difference into account.

Again, merely not giving someone money whilst also not wasting any of their time or resources does not hurt them because they've been deprived of nothing.

Wouldn't that fix "the system"?

No, that would merely introduce more unnecessary artificial scarcity and worsen the situation and flaws that I am speaking of. Note that I am not against paying for media and that I think that it's nice when someone rewards an artist for their efforts, but it's just that I'm against the notion that piracy somehow equates to theft.

Re:Honestly?

[totally bogus dude]

Obviously, I am speaking of the digital media itself and not of people who produce it.

That makes about as much sense as saying that since it only costs a dealership a few hundred (thousand?) dollars to ship a car to their yard, you should be able to get it for about that price. The end product, be it digital media or an object in a shopfront, is a miniscule part of the production and supply chain. Pretending that should have any significant effect on the objects price or value is silly.

So, we should disallow people from choosing whether or not to buy a product or disallow people from telling others not to buy a product because it could hurt sales?

No, as that is an expected part of the "contract" between consumers and producers. Enjoying a product without paying for it is not part of that contract, and it's that erosion of trust that is harmful. Also note that spreading incorrect information about a competitor's products, or someone you dislike, etc. is actually illegal, so there are limits as to how much you can go around telling people not to buy a product, for example.

In this scenario, someone was promised a certain amount of money and used their time to work to get it. They didn't get it, and so they wasted their time.

Copyright laws and such provide a "promise" to people that, if they spend their time producing creative works (or really, producing anything), that they alone get to dictate the sale price. The success or failure of their endeavour is therefore largely in their own hands. By reneging on that promise, the framework that provides the very incentive to be creative is eroded. Or to put another way: you think that if someone labours to create something, and then sees it being pirated all over the place with comparatively few sales, the creator doesn't feel like they've wasted their time? I mean, they could've been doing many other things that couldn't be trivially copied and made more money; but just because the thing they've created happens to be able to be able to be represented by a binary stream, they should settle for whatever people deign to offer them?

Merely violating a social contract by itself doesn't hurt someone.

Of course it does. When a serial rapist starts stalking women who use the train system, then it's not just the women who are raped that are harmed. Everyone who uses the trains, or knows someone who does, is harmed, because they no longer feel safe doing something which society has put enormous amounts of effort into allowing them to do while feeling safe.

If looters start routinely looting shops down main street, those shops will sooner or later close, and everyone who benefited from those shops will no longer have access to them, and the economy as a whole suffers.

If consumers start ignoring the right of producers to set their own price, and decide that instead of just deciding whether or not to buy at that price they're going to exercise a third, un-agreed upon option of obtaining the item at zero price, then much of the incentive to produce in the first place is removed.

Let's say an item retails for $15. You know for a fact that the store selling it pays $1 wholesale cost to receive it, so they have a pretty big markup of pure profit on it. You want it but think it's only worth $5 to you. If the item is commonplace, you can probably get it elsewhere cheaper. If it's unique, you might tell the storekeeper that you'd buy it $5, but $15 is too much. They might say plenty of other people are willing to pay $15, so they're not going to reduce the price for you. Do you expect to be able to just take the item and leave them the $5 you think it's worth? After all, it's not harming them - they'd still profit from it.

just that piracy can't logically be equated to stealing

I don't think it's stealing either; I just don't think it's justifiable.

Re:Honestly?

[Ash-Fox]

Again, merely not giving someone money whilst also not wasting any of their time or resources does not hurt them because they've been deprived of nothing.

But the person has wasted their time and resources, they worked on the product and then someone has essentially just used the time and resources that was put into the work without the legitimate compensation.

No, that would merely introduce more unnecessary artificial scarcity and worsen the situation and flaws that I am speaking of.

As it would help prevent the issue of piracy, there is no issue with piracy anymore. After all, these people don't have a right to obtain people's work for free if these people wish to charge for it. And since there is no piracy, there is no "innocent" pirates to accuse.

it's just that I'm against the notion that piracy somehow equates to theft.

I don't consider it theft, I consider it copyright infringement. Since words, pictures, movies, digital 1s and 0s don't have a physical form, this law introduces the concept to it to make it possible for artists/writers (whatever you want to call them) to have limits on reproduction just like physical items, it's a different thing all together. The idea of introducing artifical scarity resolves the problem you have mentioned, because that is essentially how you enforce people purchasing products in real life. You don't see people duplicating Philips HD TVs, they have to buy them if they want it.

I think in order to fix this problem, the solution is introduce the actual limitations that a physical product has with regards to it's duplication. One of the best ways I can think of doing this is by introducing trusted computing systems that lock down a system substantially to running trusted code (like consoles), depend up on services to be fully functional and unique identitifiers that can be validated. This is what "innocent" pirates seem to pushing the industry to do, to resolve this problem of "innocent" pirates, which in my opinion, resolves your issue of "innocent" pirates being persecuted, since it removes the problem of pirating.

Re:Honestly?

[cheekyjohnsin]

However whining about the system being broken is getting a bit repetitive.

Sorry, I've gotten so many similar replies that I've found myself repeating the same thing over and over again.

where is the artificial scarcity in this case?

They are trying to stop people from copying a product that is essentially in an unlimited supply. Here's an article that pretty much talks about what I'm saying.

Finally, can you please explain to us why it is ok to make use of a product that has take real time and money to produce without ever giving the makers the a cent?

Nothing is being specifically taken from them. Not time, not money, not property, and not resources. Absolutely nothing. If you argue "potential profit," then again, this includes people who have merely decided not to buy the product.

Re:Honestly?

[cheekyjohnsin]

No, as that is an expected part of the "contract" between consumers and producers.

But I'm saying that that doesn't make sense because logically, they aren't taking anything from them. Not time, money, property, or resources. They aren't even directly interacting with the author at all. Similar to people who don't buy the product at all.

Of course it does.

The action of violating a law or contract by itself does not do harm. The harm done depends on the situation. As for your examples, if you're saying that pirates are hurting everyone by choosing not to spend their money on media, then again, you're also including people who merely choose not to buy the product. What if they don't have enough buyers and have to close down, leaving the people who did want more products disappointed? In reality, if the pirate wanted more media, they should have paid. The pirate has hurt themselves in this regard, but not anyone else.

Re:Honestly?

[cheekyjohnsin]

But the person has wasted their time and resources, they worked on the product and then someone has essentially just used the time and resources that was put into the work without the legitimate compensation.

Yes, but they only did so once. The pirate also did not specifically request that they do so, nor did they use up any of their time or resources.

Again, this basically boils down to people who merely didn't buy the product. Whether they wanted it or not is irrelevant. If you think the action of someone not giving the author money harms them (which it doesn't) because they spent time and effort on the product, you are either directly or indirectly including these people as well.

After all, these people don't have a right to obtain people's work for free if these people wish to charge for it.

Taking every point that I've made into account, my question is: why? What harm does it do? How does merely not granting someone money when they didn't interact with them (therefore they didn't use their time or resources) or deprive them of anything harm someone?

You don't see people duplicating Philips HD TVs, they have to buy them if they want it.

Of course not. But they would if they had the ability to. If it was possible, I'm sure that they would try to restrict that too. This is why I don't like artificial scarcity.

I think in order to fix this problem, the solution is introduce the actual limitations that a physical product has with regards to it's duplication.

The solution is not to introduce more artificial scarcity, but to figure out a way in which it will no longer be 'needed'. Capitalism has failed in this regard. The least that could be done is attempting to find a solution, but the ones in power do not even acknowledge the problem (likely due to the existence of money and bribery in the first place). The people must therefore be the ones to do so.

Re:Honestly?

[oobayly]

They are trying to stop people from copying a product that is essentially in an unlimited supply.

But as somebody else has said, to break even they need to sell a certain amount of copies. Are software writers expected to make a loss on everything they do. We could of course introduce a system where they are allowed to restrict copying of their products until they make a profit of say 5-10%. After that everything is allowed to be copied, would that satisfy you?

Nothing is being specifically taken from them. Not time, not money, not property, and not resources. Absolutely nothing.

I never said anything about "taking" something, just making use of something. What I was asking was whether you personally feel it's ok to make use of something that you have not paid for. As far as I can tell you have absolutely no concept of personal effort. Either you expect everything to be handed to you on a plate, or simply believe that people should only receive payment for a tangible object.

Out of interest, if 100% of people decided to download a game, play it but not pay for it, would you still believe that this is ok?

If you argue "potential profit," then again, this includes people who have merely decided not to buy the product.

I couldn't care less about the people have decided not to buy the product. It's those who make use of the product which is being sold and still don't pay for it.

If it disgusts you so much that somebody is charging for something that is effectively free to copy once it has been produced, why don't you simply pretend it doesn't exist and make no use of it. If people are willing to pay, it's up to them. Don't however delude yourself that you're partaking in a "Braveheart" cry for freedom. If you're duplicating copyright content you're being cheap, end of.

Re:Honestly?

[Hatta]

Suing people isn't going to stop them from being dicks. In fact, it's likely to encourage people to be dicks. Once you start throwing around threats, we're not playing by the honor system anymore, and people will feel less obligated to actually act honorably.

Re:Honestly?

[totally bogus dude]

The action of violating a law or contract by itself does not do harm.

Violating social contracts does, generally. The simple test is this: what would happen if everyone did it?

If everyone just downloaded the media they wanted without paying for it, then ... there'd be very few people creating media, and certainly not of the quality we enjoy today. Your claim that it's doing no harm can only withstand scrutiny if it's a minority of people doing it. But what gives you, or me, or anyone else, the right to be part of that minority that gets to enjoy the media without contributing to its creation?

Re:Honestly?

[cheekyjohnsin]

Violating social contracts does, generally. The simple test is this: what would happen if everyone did it?

People would hurt themselves (and only themselves) by not giving the author a reward for their effort, and in the current system, the author wouldn't be able to produce more media. Again, the mere action of not granting someone money does not harm them. In order to harm them, they must have had the money in the first place and then have it taken away. Other possible ways to harm a worker would be to waste their time directly (and not have it be of their own choice), waste their resources, or actually steal something that they previously owned.

When will people learn...

[Anonymous Coward]

...not to use public Bittorrent swarms for illegal downloading. If you must use one, then for god's sake don't connect to any public trackers - all you need is 1 peer to discover hundreds more within minutes (this is only marginally more secure, but anything counts).

Language, language...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I must object to the use of the term "fine". A "fine" is a monetary penalty imposed under color of law as punishment, or part of a punishment, for a violation of the code of laws, demonstrated in a court of law according to due process.

Calling a private party's essentially extortionate demand to pay up or face (ruinously expensive even if innocent) legal action a "fine" is acccording it far too much legitimacy.

Sure, as a matter of probability, not all the threat letters will miss their mark, and some percentage will in fact be sent to people who downloaded and/or uploaded the game in violation of applicable law in their jurisdiction; but even those cases will hew to no established standards of evidence or due process. Given the known sloppiness(and clear perverse incentives involved) of these sorts of things a fair few won't even be accidentally correct, they'll simply be pure extortion without even coincidental overlap with justice.

No matter how much you hate copyright infringement, conflating vigilante 'justice' with process of law is dangerously sloppy. I don't know whether the CD Projekt spokesweasel is simply internally sloppy, or engaged in deliberate spin; but it is unacceptable.

Re:Language, language...

[pookemon]

A similar discussion is currently before the courts (or will be soon) in Australia where by a "class action" (populist term, not sure if that's an applicable term for Oz law) has been taken against our banks for imposing "penalty fees" for a wide range of reasons (like overdrawing your account - which the bank could just stop you from doing, but instead they make you pay a penalty "fee"). IIRC the argument is that these amount to "Fines" which the banks have no right to impose as they aren't allowed to "fine" anyone.

Re:Language, language...

[hat_eater]

I suppose Mr Iwinski used this term without realizing its implications. That's because I believe he has a tendency to slightly overrate his command of the English language. He gives interviews in English and if they are not edited afterwards, things like that happen.

Re:Language, language...

[Hatta]

If it's not a fine, then it's not subject to the constitutions prohibition on excessive fines. I think I'd rather it be a fine. Perhaps this settlement isn't a fine, but the judgment you'd get if you took it to court would definitely be a fine.

Re:Language, language...

[vakuona]

Banks will just call them "overdraft arrangement charges" and happily go on their way.

Re:Language, language...

[Anonymous Coward]

The sign said "Fine for parking" so I parked there. That's totally fine, right?
*rimshot*

Re:Language, language...

[Tuoqui]

+1 Awesome

Really if the legal letters include the term 'fine' I'd argue the same thing in a court of law. They'd be guilty of impersonating an officer of the court.

Usenet

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, I mean... nothing.

torrent sneaking?

[intellitech]

What the hell is "torrent sneaking?"

Re:torrent sneaking?

[eudas]

something that brings up vastly different search results than expected.

Re:torrent sneaking?

[pookemon]

"Look behind you!"

Too late.

Re:torrent sneaking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Evidently, it is a term made up for this article. I wondered the same thing. Perhaps it is a honeypot offering... ? Once you download it, they watch you "distribute" it?

Maybe I'm missing the point but...

[Rivalz]

I know I'm off based but shouldn't the only person that receives the fine be the one who posted the copyrighted content on the torrent site?
The internet is about sharing content if you put your own copyrighted content out on the web I would assume you are granting the public access to it unless stated in a disclaimer attached to the link to the file.
Since most torrent sites have a disclaimer saying DO NOT UPLOAD THIS UNLESS YOU OWN THE RIGHTS TO IT. Doesn't it mean that either the person who uploaded the file is acting on behalf of the owner with their knowledge and permission or they are violating the copyright of the item? And since I cannot issue a court order to get the persons name of the ip address of the person who originally seeded the torrent how am I to determine if the file is legally there or not? And even if I did have the original seeders name how am I suppose to know he doesnt own the copyright of the file?

I've got a idea. I will make a music cd rip it and let my (friend) have it for free... but he might not be the friend i thought he was and uploaded it to the torrent servers.
Now since he is somewhat still my friend but i'm pissed at him I will take him off my friends list on facebook.
But any dumb fuck that dared download my audio cd I will find you and sue you into the ground.
Btw did I mention every month I will have my name legally changed to whatever the current best selling artist is?

Re:Maybe I'm missing the point but...

[lilrobbie]

Your argument would be plausible *if* there was more possible confusion between what is able to be legally torrented and what is not. However, it would likely be difficult to argue that you didn't realise the game was not being given away for free. If isn't like someone browsed through a store and thought "that looks nice... I think I might get it". The downloader (probably) deliberately went out and searched for the game after hearing about it, so it seems a bit ridiculous to claim that it never occurred to the downloader to check who owns the copyright.

The suing of the people who downloaded it can be argued to be relevant for just this reason. People do get punished for purchasing stolen materials (even unknowingly stolen, such as a car) by having the material taken away. In this case where there is no physical material to remove, what would discourage people from knowingly downloading games that are being illegally given away? Assuming the fines are reasonable (i.e., twice the game price or something, just to make up for the extra trouble the company went to to track down the person), it seems like a worthwhile activity to me.

Re:Maybe I'm missing the point but...

[paziek]

Maybe a few don't know that they are downloading illegally distributed software, but I'm pretty sure most know what they do. While in Poland it might be legal to download music or movies that way, for software its not.
If you need analogy, then perhaps this might be good:
Someone binds another person and puts him on street. Said person got glued to him message on paper saying its okay to "do anal" to him/her, with is obviously not true. Now you can guess that what is written there is a lie put by some criminal, what only dumb/not_from_this_world people wouldn't notice, but either way it doesn't make it legal to pretty much rape said person, just cause someone wrote something. Common sense applies, I'm pretty sure thats what would be pointed out in court.
Besides, there are cases where someone gets convicted to something, just cause he done harm to someone, even if unintentionally. It makes sense, cause people need to take responsibility for their actions.

Re:Maybe I'm missing the point but...

[mark-t]

Technically, when you rip a CD for your own private use, you void the concept of your own private use by giving the copy to your friend, thus violating the terms of the original permission being afforded to copy it in the first place.

Of course, tracking this is virtually impossible... but nevertheless, that's where the initial infringement lies.

Your friend, in turn, then proceeds to share his copy indiscriminately with others, which is already an infringing copy by your actions, and any copies made from that copy, whether or not they were for private use, could (theoretically) be automatically be considered as infringing, since the source was infringing.

Because your friend is dealing with infringing material more publicly than you were, he is simply more likely to get caught doing it than you are, which is why he is more likely to pay for it than you. You both were doing something illegal, however.

Re:Maybe I'm missing the point but...

[DrEldarion]

Nobody is getting sued for downloading things. They're getting sued for uploading them. When you download torrents, you're simultaneously downloading and uploading, which is what gets you into trouble.

DRM-free means no excuse

[Totenglocke]

I understand pirating games with DRM (why pay a company to screw you over), but since the game is DRM-free, there's no excuse to pirate it. I just bought a few games from GOG.com the other day and seeing as how their most expensive game is $9.99, that eliminates the "but it's expensive.." argument too.

Re:DRM-free means no excuse

[Totenglocke]

Update on price - I just logged into GOG.com and saw the pre-order information, it's $44.99 (I thought $9.99 seemed insanely low for a new game, but you never know).

Re:DRM-free means no excuse

[Anonymous Coward]

Aside from the fact - which you have already realised - that it costs full price, I can give you a good excuse: the publisher demands the same price in € as he does in $, thus making it over 30% more expensive here.

"We are totally fair" my ass ... fuck you CD Projekt, you can keep your overpriced crap! I'm not going to bother torrenting it. I'll just spend my money on games from publishers/developers that don't try to screw me.

Re:DRM-free means no excuse

[shutdown -p now]

GoG stands for "Good Old Games", hence the price tags such as $4.99 and $9.99. But this is a brand new release, and priced according to the market.

Re:DRM-free means no excuse

[Anonymous Coward]

So I'm a pirate that has suddenly got a case of the guilties and I want to come clean. How do I get my restitution letter that I am sure was delivered to Starbucks and Hooters whose wireless connections I use to do all of my torrenting?

Will I need to bring proof to court to show it was in fact me connected to that Hooters' wireless, or they will be okay taking my word for it? Since I'm not sure if my office mate torrents, or not but I do know he likes to surf while drinking a beer at Hooters.

Re:DRM-free means no excuse

[Narishma]

That's not entirely true. You'll have to pay the same price in € as in $ but the difference is added to your GOG account so you can use it to buy other stuff. At least that's what I understood from the email they sent me.

Re:DRM-free means no excuse

[Anonymous Coward]

So... it's expensive! :)

Re:DRM-free means no excuse

[Anonymous Coward]

True, and it's a nice gesture - from GoG, not the publisher - but that's still something like 16$ for me. Money that would effectively be lost since I already bought all the games I want from GoG, at least for now. Even worse, I would still be supporting the publisher who discriminates against me.

Make better games!

[Anonymous Coward]

the way I see it, torrenting is a way to let people play your game. If you actually make a good game that last longer than 1-2 days I feel inclined to buy it. If it sucks after that why should I spend upwards to $60 on that?

Re:Make better games!

[Liam Pomfret]

To me, that's not an argument for torrenting full games, it's an argument for the return of shareware as a prominent tool in the marketing of games. Dead Rising: Chop Till You Drop is a perfect example. It's not full price, it's additional content and story to the actual game, and it gives you more than enough of a taste to actually make a decision on if you want it or not.

Re:Make better games!

[Liam Pomfret]

Whoops, wrong one. I meant Dead Rising 2: Case Zero, not Chop Till You Drop.

Farewell, gog.com

[macraig]

I hope they get wads of ill-gotten fines from allegedly guilty thieves. They'll need it to compensate for the loss of legitimate sales they now won't be getting at gog.com from disgusted people like me. I only learned about the site recently and was moderately impressed. Now I'm disgusted. There were two games I was planning to buy from the site next month; I haven't decided if I'll simply get them somewhere else or just not buy at all. The bad taste in my mouth has made me lose my appetite.

Re:Farewell, gog.com

[Liam Pomfret]

You're angry at them for...what exactly? Demanding reasonable out-of-court settlements from those who downloaded illegally (as opposed to the unreasonable out-of-court settlements commonly placed on people who've torrented music by the RIAA), and releasing their game without DRM. Seems fair enough to me. The only real concern is how many "false positives" they might get from people who never downloaded a thing, or whose internet connections were used illegally and/or without their knowledge.

Re:Farewell, gog.com

[Yosho]

I hope they get wads of ill-gotten fines from allegedly guilty thieves. They'll need it to compensate for the loss of legitimate sales they now won't be getting at gog.com from disgusted people like me. I only learned about the site recently and was moderately impressed. Now I'm disgusted.

Why are you disgusted? I fail to see what's so bad about releasing a game without DRM and then going after criminals who pirate it. That seems to me like the way companies should be doing it, rather than treating customers like potential criminals and loading their games with DRM.

And "allegedly" guilty thieves? Explain to me, how do you download from a torrent of copyrighted material without committing copyright infringement?

Re:Farewell, gog.com

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the few games in recent memory to be DRM-free, and you are *disgusted*?

Huh?

Re:Farewell, gog.com

[0123456]

And "allegedly" guilty thieves? Explain to me, how do you download from a torrent of copyrighted material without committing copyright infringement?

I take it you missed the story a couple of days ago about some British lawyers apparently sending out threatening letters to 'downloaders' when they knew that some significant fraction were completely innocent?

The simple reality today is the the legal systems in the West are so corrupt and expensive that someone who's completely innocent simply cannot afford to pay the legal fees to prove their innocence.

Re:Farewell, gog.com

[Anonymous Coward]

A bad taste because you can download it from GOG anytime you want all you want and back it up how ever you want? They are going after people freely sharing their work with others.

Re:Farewell, gog.com

[Yosho]

I take it you missed the story a couple of days ago about some British lawyers apparently sending out threatening letters to 'downloaders' when they knew that some significant fraction were completely innocent?

Let me make sure I have your argument right. Some British guys screwed up going after some criminals, therefore the concept of some Polish guys going after criminals who committed the same type of crime is disgusting. Is that right? So what's your suggestion, that nobody bother to enforce the law at all?

Re:Farewell, gog.com

[0123456]

Let me make sure I have your argument right. Some British guys screwed up going after some criminals, therefore the concept of some Polish guys going after criminals who committed the same type of crime is disgusting.

Again, these lawyers reportedly sent threatening letters to a group of people when they apparently knew that at least some of them were completely innocent.

Is that right? So what's your suggestion, that nobody bother to enforce the law at all?

Enforcing the law would be fine. What I have a problem with is innocent people being sent threatening letters by lawyers who have no proof that they ever broke the law, when they can't afford to pay the hundreds or thousands of pounds required to prove their innocence. In what universe can that possibly be right?

What are you going to do when one of these letters arrives on your doorstep?

Re:Farewell, gog.com

[Derosian]

Explain to me, how do you download from a torrent of copyrighted material without committing copyright infringement?

Well if you already bought a copy for one.

Re:Farewell, gog.com

[damnbunni]

Then redownload it from the site you bought it from.

After all, you never know if a torrent might be full of viruses, right?

And since the game's being sold without DRM, you can back it up however you like.

Extra hard drive. DVDs. Cloud storage. Floppy disks, if you're a masochist.

Re:Farewell, gog.com

[Ash-Fox]

And since the game's being sold without DRM, you can back it up however you like.

Like bittorent!!! Many other people will back it up for me too!!!

Re:Farewell, gog.com

[shutdown -p now]

If you think that "information wants to be free", and are disgusted with the idea of anyone being sued for copyright infringement, then why do you even bother with GoG today? In your ethical value system, it should be perfectly okay to just go torrent things.

If you do find some value with GoG, enough to actually give them money for the services they provide, then you should understand that those services aren't free to implement, and that freeloaders (like those who torrent) make the price go higher for you, and others who don't freeload. In light of that, why would you be opposed to using the law to prevent such freeloading?

Re:Farewell, gog.com

[gmhowell]

So what's your suggestion, that nobody bother to enforce the law at all?

When it's him breaking it, of course!

None of these people have a consistent, rational, moral argument in favor of piracy. It always boils down to greedy little shits. Hell, I've had plenty of pirated software on computers over the years. Know why? I'm a greedy little shit too. Difference being I'm not afraid to admit it.

(Truth be told, I have FAR less than I did while younger. Just deleted CS5 the other day, figuring I can use Gimp, iPhoto, and Pixelmator.)

Re:Farewell, gog.com

[gmhowell]

What are you going to do when one of these letters arrives on your doorstep?

Tell them to eat a dick, I didn't download their software. And unlike most slashdotters, I have pretty much done this to an attorney before.

You still haven't illustrated how some British lawyers fucking up is justification for software piracy.

Re:Farewell, gog.com

[Anonymous Coward]

And you haven't illustrated how a few folk pirating justifies a carpet-bombing of lawsuit threats that will hit many innocent targets due to woefully inadequate targeting methods and what essentially amounts to blackmail by offering them a 'fine' that will prevent them from using the courts to bankrupt you, regardless of the actual judicial outcome.

It's an abuse of the system and an abuse of the innocents that will be hit. Any lawyers than continue this practice should have to pay 100 times the amount that they earn from any infringement in court, to each innocent person they target - you know, as a deterrent.

Re:Farewell, gog.com

[nedlohs]

Why do you assume they will send letter sto people they know didn't do anything? How do you know what standard of evidence they will require before sending a letter?

Seriously, because one group of people did one something wrong, you think all people will do the same wrong thing?

I know of a guy who drove drunk once. I guess everyone should be barred from driving.

Re:Farewell, gog.com

[nedlohs]

Yes it is disgusting that someone would actually try and enforce the copyright on their work.

What do you expect them to do?

* Just ignore it entirely, information wants to be free and all?
* Stuff as much DRM as they can into it to and inconveniance the paying customers dramatically?

Re:Farewell, gog.com

[makomk]

If you do find some value with GoG, enough to actually give them money for the services they provide, then you should understand that those services aren't free to implement, and that freeloaders (like those who torrent) make the price go higher for you, and others who don't freeload

You say that, but it's not obvious that it's the case. Part of the reason GOG is so popular is that it offers good-quality games and a good service at prices people are willing to pay. It's far from clear that they'd be able to do this unless piracy existed. Without piracy they'd be the only place to get some games and could probably charge far more, which means they'd almost certainly have to. This would reduce the number of buyers and the benefit to society as a whole, but increase their profits. With piracy, they're not the only option anymore - raising the prices carries the risk that many potential customers will pirate the games instead, aligning their incentives better with what benefits society.

Think about it. Have you ever seen a lack of piracy result in lower prices? Have you compared the pricing of difficult-to-pirate console games against the far easier to pirate PC equivalents?

Re:Farewell, gog.com

[shutdown -p now]

Have you ever seen a lack of piracy result in lower prices?

I haven't seen the lack of piracy (at least for games) to begin with, so it's hard to say anything beyond that.

Have you compared the pricing of difficult-to-pirate console games against the far easier to pirate PC equivalents?

Console games have more hidden costs, since authors usually have to get a rather expensive license from the console manufacturer (who have historically done that to recoup the costs from consoles themselves sold at a loss, but today simply treat it as another profit streams). So a direct comparison is meaningless.

By the way, what's hard about pirating console games?

Re:Farewell, gog.com

[lehphyro]

Why are you disgusted?

I think they should just sue everyone they think is pirating their game instead of sending a threat first. This way justice will decide what should be done and there will be no blackmailing.

Re:Farewell, gog.com

[Anonymous Coward]

? Explain to me, how do you download from a torrent of copyrighted material without committing copyright infringement?

The form of the torrent is absolutely not relevant to copyright infringement, which is done by making and distributing copies of a copyrighted work without consent of the copyright holder. By definition, downloading is not copyright infringement. Uploading without permission from the copyright holder can be copyright infringement, when done for commercial purposes. Uploading can easily not be copyright infringement, when done for educational non-commercial purposes, or under fair use (such as time-shifting a television program using a dvr that isn't from your cable company so you can watch it when you want).

Re:Farewell, gog.com

[mcvos]

Explain to me, how do you download from a torrent of copyrighted material without committing copyright infringement?

When you download, you don't make a copy. It's the uploaders who make the copy. Well, that's what Dutch law says anyway. Only not in the case of games, for some odd reason.

Re:Farewell, gog.com

[juhaz]

Just ONE false positive is enough to turn it from "yeah, well, fine" into "pure evil", and there WILL be false positives. There's a reason vigilantism is illegal, this is no different.

Re:Farewell, gog.com

[rahvin112]

There isn't a justification for software piracy, but I'll be boycotting the game while they run this campaign for the very logical reason that they are going to be sending threats to innocent people. The reason those British lawyers screwed up is because they were doing legal work for so little money that they were sloppy. The promise is that in this case the "fine" will be small, in which case they will again be hiring legal and investigative work for a very inexpensive amount. That low dollar value means there will be mistakes. You simply can't investigate, subpoena evidence and collect a case file, serve the letter, etc.. against a pirate and then recover less than several thousand because it wouldn't pay for the work already done.

The only way to settle for less than a thousand is to skip part of the investigative steps and send letters to innocent people. This is EXACTLY what happened in Britain. The lawyers in question were asking for 500 pounds settlements. They were using minimum wage employees to do the work and it was VERY sloppy (bad investigations, no documentation, legal threats served improperly, etc). The reason they are being censured is because the governing board is arguing that they should have KNOWN that minimum wage employees doing investigative work will make mistakes if someone with experience isn't checking the work. The problem is that when you put that experience person in there and follow all the investigative steps your accumulated man-hours will equate to several thousand dollars. The average person simply doesn't realize how much labor costs (a typical employee costs the business 2-3 times their salary). So if they are offering small settlements they are undoubtedly going to make mistakes because there is no way they can complete a real investigation that quickly.

When the RIAA was doing this they were doing a pretty thorough investigation (and asking for $5k to cover their costs) and they still broke the law in several states and sent letters to innocent people. I have no doubt in my mind that several dozen innocent people are going to be sent letters and that's WRONG. I'm also offended that they think they can fine anyone, they can offer a legal settlement and pursue a legal case if it isn't settled, they can't fine people. His use of the word fine implies that they won't go to court against people that refuse to pay, again trying to keep costs low, meaning that they probably won't care if someone is innocent and try to use debt collection tactics against them. It's very slimy and I'll vote with my dollars against it. I liked the first game but won't be playing the second.

Re:Farewell, gog.com

[makomk]

I haven't seen the lack of piracy (at least for games) to begin with, so it's hard to say anything beyond that.

There was for the PS3 until recently, but don't limit yourself to a total lack of piracy. Some of the nastier recent DRM schemes have significantly curtailed piracy, especially around the initial launch of the games in question. Has this lead to reduced prices?

By the way, what's hard about pirating console games?

It requires special hardware if it's even possible at all - which it wasn't for the PS3 until very recently. The hardware manufacturers also tend to send down software updates that both block piracy and lock out consoles that are suspected to be running pirate software from online services.

Console games have more hidden costs, since authors usually have to get a rather expensive license from the console manufacturer

OK, compare the cost of games for the PS3, which until recently had no piracy, with the Xbox 360 that's had it for a while. Alternatively, compare the cost of games for both with the previous-generation disk based consoles at various points in their lifespans.

Re:Farewell, gog.com

[Liam Pomfret]

I disagree. False positives aren't intrinsically bad in and of themselves. What matters is how they handle those false positives. You're assuming that they'll handle them like the RIAA, but at this point there's no reason to assume it'll go that way except for cynicism and anti-corporatism. At this point, it seems that this company is trying to give people a fairer go, and that it's certainly a vast improvement over RIAA style tactics, so I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. I also disagree with the idea that this is similar to vigilantism. It's more similar to that software you can put on your mobile phone or laptop to trace it when it's stolen. While as a Pirate Party member I do feel there are fundamental problems with copyright as it's currently employed, in particular the length of copyrights, that doesn't change the fact that companies do have a right to protect their copyrights and their (intellectual) property. In fact, one could say they have a legal responsibility to protect their copyright as well. The fact is that if companies don't defend their copyrighted properties from these sort of things, it can be considered as legally the equivalent of them abandoning their ownership over it. No company, even one which thinks it could stand to gain from illegal downloads (ie. through word of mouth, goodwill, development of brand loyalty, etc), is willing to risk that.

Keep it

[Anonymous Coward]

I still cringe remembering the HORRIBLE voiceovers.

Penitent pirates?

[ArundelCastle]

What if the offender posts a video wearing a monk's robe begging forgiveness for the misunderstanding?

Oh, that's also stealing their IP? Shucks.

GOG not the only place to get The Witcher 2

[Aurien]

You can also get it on Steam and D2D also with the 10% pre-order discount. The big deal about GOG having it was that it's the first time they've had a brand new game available first day in their store. Although CD Projekt owning GOG helped that. http://store.steampowered.com/app/20920/ http://www.direct2drive.com/10030/product/Buy-The-Witcher-2:-Assassins-of-Kings-Digital-Premium-Download

Re:GOG not the only place to get The Witcher 2

[Rallion]

It's not the only place, but it's almost certainly the best place. A completely stand-alone version of the game with no external software or DRM, exclusive pre-order bonuses, and the pre-order is really just a declaration of your intent to possibly purchase the game when it comes out and involves no commitment and no payment until the game is actually available.

Re:GOG not the only place to get The Witcher 2

[AnttiV]

Also, for EU customers, it is DEFINITELY the best place to purchase it.. quote from GOG.com: "Since the EU price is almost $16 more than the price in USD, we’re giving our EU customers a $16 credit to purchase anything on GOG.com." You'll have to pay the same bloated price as everyone else in the EU, but they give you the difference in other good games (which GOG.com is full off anyway). So, you'll essentially get a lot more out of the same price than if buying from somewhere else in the EU.

Don't do the crime

[JDmetro]

If you can't do the time.
The Most illegal thing I downloaded was the dvd codec but the way I see it is that I paid for it when I bought my optical drive the it came windoze stuff and I can't use the soft ware so I think its fair.

Send me your letters.

[Charliemopps]

I remember getting a letter from Direct TV years ago because I had supposedly pirated their satellite signal. Their sole evidence was that I had purchased a USB smartcard writer. Because, as everyone knows, Direct TV invented smart cards and were the only company on earth to ever use them for anything. They promised to forget about the whole thing if I coughed up the small sum of $10k. My lawyer found it very funny and sent them a letter in return asking for contact information for our counter suit. Strangely they never replied.

Re:Send me your letters.

[houghi]

The problem is that you did not give them a reason NOT to send others a letter. You still wasted money (or your layer wasted time) on their false threat and they did not loose anything, except the time to print and mail the letter.

And no, I have no idea how to get out of this, because the one with the most money wins.

Re:Send me your letters.

[jwhitener]

How did they find out that you bought a smartcard writer?

Hey...

[bmo]

If I turn the chair 'round and use the neighbor's wifi (because it comes in spectacularly if I do that), who gets the letter?

Not like I'll do it (and really, i have better things to do).

--
BMO

Re:Hey...

[mark-t]

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure it would be your neighbor. If he then argues that someone was hijacking his wifi connection, he *might* be able to avoid prosecution if he can somehow prove that it wasn't him (which may or may not be possible). Even if he was able to get off, however, he would probably be expected to secure his own wireless connection after that point. If it continued to happen even after that, he would probably be less likely to avoid prosecution in the future as he could no longer argue that he was not in any prior position to prevent it.

Oh noes! Whatever will I do?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess I'll just download it via Encrypted password protected rars from Megaupload

So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you gonna pay us, or not? My kid needs to eat.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

My kids will eat your kids so that your kids wont need to eat.

Ambiguous reaction

[gringer]

property is thief.

I'm not quite sure where you're going on this one. Did you mean one of the following?

• Anyone who possesses property is a thief
• Some/All properties are themselves thieves
• Posession of property is theft
• Pirates are thieves
• The property of interest is a game called 'thief'
• You currently have a thief in your posession
• It's a somewhat cloudy, but otherwise fine day in Wellington, New Zealand

Hahaha

[X.25]

Ok, so all those people still think they can change human nature using laws and papers...

Re:Hahaha

[shutdown -p now]

so all those people still think they can change human nature using laws and papers...

They don't have to. They just have to make sure that enough people will steer clear of torrents in this particular case to keep it profitable.

Re:Hahaha

[DrXym]

Ok, so all those people still think they can change human nature using laws and papers...

I doubt that's their plan at all. I expect if you broke down pirates by category that maybe 10-20% of downloaders of any particular game could be incentivized / threatened into purchasing the legit copy. Carrot and stick so to speak. So while you'll not change human nature, you can certainly persuade more people to buy the game than who would do so otherwise.

Exclusively?

[Barny]

Or are you sure it won't be released via steam as well?

http://store.steampowered.com/app/20920/

Re:Exclusively?

[CodeNameSly]

The only DRM-free version will be from GOG. Steam is technically DRM, despite providing many useful (to the consumer) services.

Re:Exclusively?

[__aatgod8309]

I believe they mean that only the version sold on gog.com will be DRM-free. The versions from other distributors will have some form of DRM.

Re:Exclusively?

[damnbunni]

All games on Steam have Steam DRM. It's the way the platform works; as far as I know you can't have a Steam game that doesn't require Steam.

I think what's meant is that gog.com has the exclusive on a no-DRM version.

Re:Exclusively?

[Ash-Fox]

All games on Steam have Steam DRM. It's the way the platform works; as far as I know you can't have a Steam game that doesn't require Steam.

You can, it's just an executable wrapper that launches Steam to get it to verify that the game can launch, it's not included on games like star trek online, doom, heretic etc.

You cheer because you don't understand

[Anonymous Coward]

You cheer because you don't understand.

These firms will go after people armed only with an IP address, which most trackers have been adding randomly to torrents for a while now. Also you can be counted as being in the swarm for simply clicking on an a link containing the announce URL for the torrent tracker with the torrent hash in the url. This is probably doable by loading an invisible frame with the announce url as the target. So you wouldn't even know that anything funny was going on and continue playing the free flash games or whatever got you on that site in the first place.

I wonder if you still cheer when they come on your footsteps with silly threats and very flimsy evidence based on something that is not at all reliable.

Re:You cheer because you don't understand

[Elbereth]

What the fuck, dude?

In what paranoid world do people do that?

Re:You cheer because you don't understand

[RsG]

No, I cheer because the jurisdiction I'm in doesn't go along with that kind of bullshit. Hereabouts, you need more than just an IP address to get the lawsuit rolling.

Your concern is valid for people living in the United States and a number of other jurisdictions that have acceded to American demands regarding copyright enforcement. Doesn't apply to me.

You recall I mentioned that I had an "Ideal World" where copyright law was concerned? My ideal would be for all jurisdictions (particularly the US) to favour a rational, technologically savvy approach to the law. I dislike seeing people sued unjustly over alleged copyright infringement. Ideally, the courts would be staffed with people who don't fall for the argument that an IP address is conclusive.

Also, as a final counterpoint, your argument is built around fear mongering. "Oh sure, you say that now, but wait until the eeevvil lawyers come knocking", that kind of bullshit. I don't consider arguments framed around attempted emotional manipulation to be compelling or valid. I'm not saying your underlying point (that not all lawsuits are correctly targeted) is wrong, I'm saying that your chosen way of phrasing that argument undermines your point.

Fuck em.

[santax]

Serious. I can understand they want to protect their games. But when they make a business model out of threatening people who tried a really bad game that has no demo, I say, fuck em. They just want money. More money than their product is worth. I suggest that everybody takes note and never ever buys another product from this developer. If you do buy this game, you are facilitating so called legal theft from a fellow gamer. Don't do it!

Re:Fuck em.

[Anonymous Coward]

You, sir, are an as^H^H^H^H^Hmistaken. They are releasing the game DRM-free. There will be a demo. The preorder price is $44.99. Having played the previous game in the series, I can safely bet that it is going to be worth it. So after doing all that, if they are trying to protect their interests, you say fuck 'em?

I say, sir, with respect, fuck YOU.

Re:Fuck em.

[santax]

Come back with your real account. Or stfu.

Re:Fuck em.

[Anonymous Coward]

A pirate complaining about theft? LOLZ. Since when is merely protecting your work a buisness model?

I'm sure you would have bought Witcher 2 had the CD project promised to ignore the warez outlets.

* rolls eyes

Yes, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

TSA agents actually get PAID to diddle your little tot through their diaper!

Fuck all of em

[OrangeTide]

Yea and fuck department stores that use those anti-shoplifting tags.

Re:Fuck all of em

[santax]

Man, don't get me started. Those are even worst than those US fools bringing so called democracy to Iraq but instead are raping the 14 year olds there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_killings

Re:Fuck all of em

[Ash-Fox]

Man, don't get me started. Those are even worst than those US fools bringing so called democracy to Iraq but instead are raping the 14 year olds there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_killings

Only one incident? I'd hardly say they're bringing that to the whole population of Iraq.

Re:Fuck all of em

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to break it to you, but 14 year olds get raped everyday in both Iraq and the US. Focusing in on a single incident lets you forget the big picture. When you have millions of people it's not about one rape, it's about having less rape than the year before.

DRM-free is tempting...

[Anonymous Coward]

Being able to purchase a game that I might enjoy free of restrictions, is refreshing to say the least. And weighing my options, I'd really love to support a company that at least is making an effort to break away from the norm of wasting money to punish the legitimate customer. On the other hand, threatening to use that same money to more or less blackmail the "illegitimate consumer" into making a purchase and getting into bed with the same parasites working with the MAFIAA and co., makes me question this company's good will. Sure they have a right to make a profit for delivering a quality good, but threats only lead to bad PR. I'd love to support a game that's DRM-free, but I can't condone the threatening tactics. If your product is good enough that thousands of people are willing to give you a free marketing and distribution tool, then congratulations, you must be doing something right. But attempting to convert "pirates" through threats will only generate bad will in a very large potential market. They already want the product; your job is to make them want to pay for it. Connect with the people that are enjoying your game. Find out what they're willing to pay for. You're not going to convert the majority, but you'll find it cheaper and easier to focus on convincing people to buy, rather than convincing them not to share. The former will make you money, the latter will create bad publicity.
Dropping the DRM is a great carrot for the consumer, but you're carrying a very revolting stick that makes me lose my appetite for it.
No sale for me. I won't be buying the product, but out of respect for the carrot, I won't be downloading it either. Instead of a potential consumer, I am simply not interested in the product as described.

free riders with no $$

[Anonymous Coward]

nt

The right signal

[Anonymous Coward]

In these DRM laden times we live in we need to send a signal that releasing a game free from DRM is the right thing to do, as opposed to what Ubisoft is doing with Assassin's Creed 2&3 - discriminating against their PC users by releasing the game half a year later than other platforms and then instead of using the time to create additional content they waste resources adding DRM to a single player game in order to constantly phone home. No piece of software should be phoning home no matter what, unless the user explicitly allows it.

Unfortunately many people like to be treated and pandered to like children... Let's hope they wake up before it's too late. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance!

Yes, but does it run...

[TheEyes]

...on Linux?

I kinda wish it did. I really like to support people who release games DRM-free (The Humble Indie Bundle was straight awesome), but since I haven't owned a Windows box since 2007, well, will I actually be able to play it?

Re:Yes, but does it run...

[RivenAleem]

Who's obligation is it to ensure the game runs on linux (or should I say, linux can run the game)?

I'm not trying to be smart, I'm not IT savvy (I'm a chemist).

Should there not be a meeting of minds somewhere in the middle? I don't know if it's a question of drivers, standards etc. I was under the impression that the game was designed to run on directX, but linux can't run directX, so is it linux's fault it doesn't run directX, or is it the games fault for choosing to use directX and not some open source graphics driver?

Re:Yes, but does it run...

[L4t3r4lu5]

It's nobody's fault, it's market exposure. Linux has a very low home user base, almost nobody who uses Linux as their home OS plays AAA PC game titles as there are no games for it. One has to increase in order for their to be a market for the other.

I personally play PC games on Linux, and by PC games I mean any Windows game made prior to 2007 which is Gold / Platinum rated on WINE, and WoW. Saying that, I'm buying Windows 7 for Christmas so I can get back into PC gaming properly.

Linux is awesome as an OS, I love it to bits, but it's not got the user base yet to be a competitor to Windows on the PC gaming market.

Re:Yes, but does it run...

[Anonymous Coward]

seeing as the copy protection seems to be one of the major obstacles when trying to run the first game with wine, it seems that the answer would be "yes" or at least "eventually".

Justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

Going about semi-randomly (as an IP number reported by a tracker might be added there randomly, some trackers do this) going after people demanding money and threatening to sue or publicly defame. What does that sounds like?

FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU

[Anonymous Coward]

ANIME IS NOT COPYRIGHTED.

I have a hard time feeling sorry for pirates when I see youtube videos like these.

Nonetheless, these law firms are acting on inadequate evidence, which is unacceptable. Thus, I have no choice but to side with the pieces of trash whom feel they have the right to consume without compensation.
I'd call pirates leeches or maggots too, but maggots and leeches are actually useful.

Also, good on the game company for releasing without DRM. I'm sure they're also not aware of the problem with the law firms, so I will not blame them for that.

Captcha: division
Slashdot captchas creep me out.

Re:FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd call pirates leeches or maggots too, but maggots and leeches are actually useful.

http://www.undergroundthecomic.com/2010/10/pictures-help-us-learn/

I'm sorry, what were you saying about pirates not being useful?

Meh.

[Databass]

What if I don't care about The Witcher 2 enough to download it even for free? I bought (bargain bin) and played Witcher 1- for about 30 minutes.

Right now I am not over the activation energy of playing Witcher 2 even for free, let alone paying for it. If I were over that, via free demo or torrent, I'd be one step closer to thinking "Hmmm... maybe I WILL pay for it." I've grown to love and then paid for a dozen games this way. Then they face the money activation energy hurdle. $49.95? Eh, probably not. $9.95? I could be persuaded.

But hearing that they think their not-that-amazing game is so precious that they want to take money-wasting punitive actions makes me more likely to file the entire experience on the "Nah" Category, case closed. This has happened for other games I was fully willing to pay for, due to DRM, (which at least they are skipping): Spore, Command and Conquer 4, Assassin's Creed 2

Their threats of punitive letters might prevent an unknown number of piracies, but it also prevents an unknown number of legitimate sales, including mine.

Re:Meh.

[shutdown -p now]

Right now I am not over the activation energy of playing Witcher 2 even for free, let alone paying for it. If I were over that, via free demo or torrent, I'd be one step closer to thinking "Hmmm... maybe I WILL pay for it."

It's not released yet. But the first game had a free downloadable demo, and the second one probably will, too; so "but I need to try it" is not a valid excuse here.

But hearing that they think their not-that-amazing game is so precious that they want to take money-wasting punitive actions

Regarding "not-so-amazing" - I'm sorry to hear that you didn't like the first one. I didn't, either; but they have 81% at Metacritic, and, more importantly, 9.3 user score - which is pretty high.

For the rest of it, I don't understand why you have a problem with property owner using legal means to defend said property. Even if you disagree with their assessment of its value.

Re:Meh.

[Tapewolf]

What if I don't care about The Witcher 2 enough to download it even for free?

Their threats of punitive letters might prevent an unknown number of piracies, but it also prevents an unknown number of legitimate sales, including mine.

Well, taken at literal face value, they'll simply sue us for not liking it. From the summary: We are totally fair, but if you decide you will not buy it legally there is a chance you'll get a letter. We are talking about it right now.

Re:Meh.

[vux984]

Right now I am not over the activation energy of playing Witcher 2 even for free

Ok. Then don't.

If I were over that, via free demo or torrent, I'd be one step closer to thinking "Hmmm... maybe I WILL pay for it." I've grown to love and then paid for a dozen games this way.

Yeah, I wasn't all that interested in a recent movie myself. If only theatres were more open to the public and I could walk in watch it for free and make a personal cam-rip. That would get me maybe one step closer to buying it. But no they call it sneaking in and threaten lawsuits for making the copy. These heavy handed threats might prevent an unknown number of piracies, but it also prevents an unknown number of legitimate sales... including mine.

Boo fucking hoo.

If your threshold for buying content can only be reached after sampling the product without restriction for an indefinite period of time. And even then that only gets you one step closer to saying "Hmmm maybe I will pay for it"... get over yourself.

Anonymous pedant says...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing worse than an unrequited Internet connection.

(Mods, read the last sentence of the summary before marking this off-topic)

When it's entrapment, of course....

[Torodung]

And "allegedly" guilty thieves? Explain to me, how do you download from a torrent of copyrighted material without committing copyright infringement?

If the definition of "torrent sneaking company" is what I think it is, the downloader isn't committing copyright infringement when it's entrapment, that is: the copyright holder is deliberately providing a free (but supposedly illicit) copy through a shill torrent to collect addresses for legal action. You can't literally give someone your product and then claim they were infringing.

Worse, GOG.com is a download-only provider. So there's the potential for things to get muddied awfully fast.

I'm not sure what he's talking about, though. If these a "sneaking company" is a covert entity that provides a torrent just to harvest ip addresses for legal association action, what you have is wire fraud, and I think that's a good deal worse than any DRM scheme I've ever seen.

I've not run into the term "torrent sneaking" before though, and the Google fails me. The top hits are this article. Can someone else shed some light on it?

If it's anything like I think it is, the folks at GOG.com, who recently pulled a "shut down" stunt, have gone in my eyes from irresponsible to criminal. I want to know exactly what that CD Projekt rep meant before I will ever buy anything from them again.

--
Toro

Re:When it's entrapment, of course....

[Yosho]

If the definition of "torrent sneaking company" is what I think it is, the downloader isn't committing copyright infringement when it's entrapment, that is: the copyright holder is deliberately providing a free (but supposedly illicit) copy through a shill torrent to collect addresses for legal action. You can't literally give someone your product and then claim they were infringing.

Wrong. It's only entrapment if you convince somebody to commit a crime that they were otherwise not going to commit. This is why you never see undercover cops approach people and offer to sell them drugs -- they'll always wait until people come to them. Somebody who goes looking for a Witcher 2 torrent is already planning to pirate the game, regardless of who is seeding it. That's not entrapment, that's a sting operation.

(If that is what they plan to do -- I'm not sure what they mean by "sneaking")

Re:When it's entrapment, of course....

[Torodung]

Fine. Let me simplify this. You can't put bird seed in a road, with a sign reading "Free Bird Seed," for the intent of hitting who ever comes pecking at it with a boulder. Even if you are the Acme bird-seed company.

It doesn't wash. Torrents are not infringing by virtue of the transmission protocol. The relationship between a downloader on a torrent site and your "sting operation" is not as clear as you think. At the least, it smacks of entrapment, as the company must actively provide a torrent and a tracker. They have to advertise it. That is the definition of entrapment, the "sting operation" advertises instead of insisting that the target initiate illicit activity. I wonder if you are even familiar with how trackers work if you don't realize that. There has to be someone providing that torrent. They initiate by advertising. You respond and participate. Licit or illicit. Period.

If they are running a tracker, they're "Super Geniuses" and really should knock it off with the Warner Bros. tactics before the laws of physics stop working and kick them in the butt.

Ya I have trouble with sympathy in that case

[Sycraft-fu]

When games are DRM'd I can understand. DRM sucks and people want to play but don't want it. Ok, I can understand that position, if not support it. Also I can understand when you can't get a game via download. I'm lazy, I love buying stuff online. I can understand the feeling of saying "screw it" and just downloading it because it is easy.

However when it is downloadable AND DRM free? Well then you are just being cheap. They are giving you what you want and you are refusing to pay for it... That is just cheap.

Re:Ya I have trouble with sympathy in that case

[Anonymous Coward]

However when it is downloadable AND DRM free? Well then you are just being cheap. They are giving you what you want and you are refusing to pay for it... That is just cheap.

Information wants to be free!!!!1!! down with MAFIAA!

Re:Ya I have trouble with sympathy in that case

[Aceticon]

I download PC games for trying them first.

If I like it I'll buy it, full price.

I have a lot of unopened game boxes at my place because the game was already installed in my machine before I bought it.

This is a real concern of mine: plenty of games out there are buggy, sucky or plainly won't work on my machine. Game review sites are no help: they overhype games for the eyeballs, are never really critical of games from big Producers (they tick the need-some-reviews-with-low-scores box with games from the small game-houses) and barelly mention bugs, so they are part of the problem, not the solution.
Digital downloads are a problem for me since I can't return those if the game doesn't work on my PC while, in the UK and thanks to consumer laws, I can return the store bought games.
I've been bitten way too many times by one or more of those problems so nowadays I either pirate a game first and buy later or get them from the budget games box as an impulse buy.

The only companies that suffer from my pirating of games are those who make bad and/or very buggy games.

Give me a way to trial a game before I buy it and no DRM and I'll stop pirating games altogether.

Re:Ya I have trouble with sympathy in that case

[Haeleth]

I download PC games for trying them first.

If I like it I'll buy it, full price.

A lot of people say that. The problem with "try before you buy" using the full version of the game is that you really have very little incentive to buy. Even if you honestly intended to, it's easy just never to forget, or to talk yourself into believing that the game isn't quite good enough to be worth the money.

I suppose it is possible that you are the one person who actually does what you claim, but please forgive me if I am skeptical.

Re:Ya I have trouble with sympathy in that case

[mcvos]

A lot of people say that. The problem with "try before you buy" using the full version of the game is that you really have very little incentive to buy.

That's why playable demos are such a good idea.

Unless your game sucks, of course. I can imagine a world where only good games get a playable demo, and crappy games don't because it'll only turn potential customers away. Of course in that case we can tell from the simple absence of a demo that the game is going to suck, saving everybody a lot of time.

Re:Ya I have trouble with sympathy in that case

[brkello]

Eh, whatever. You are an ass. There are plenty of game reviewing sites that aren't crap. There are places like gamefaqs with user reviews. Or heck, even Amazon can give you a good idea. You also know what companies make quality games that you have liked in the past. There are plenty of ways of figuring out which game is good without pirating it. You are just trying to justify being a dick. I fully support you being a dick, just don't try to pretend you don't have other ways of determining if a game is good or not. I mean, get out of the basement and make a friend and try the games that they buy at their place. It really isn't that hard to determine if a game is crap without pirating it.

Re:Ya I have trouble with sympathy in that case

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the logic of refusing to pay for a game because of the DRM and then downloading it is shaky at best. I, for one, make no discrimination and refuse to pay for anything if I can get it for free (that means 99% of the PC games). I mean, why should I pay for data? I don't have any remorse downloading anything, DRMed or not, Copyrighted or not. And seeing the popularity of torrents sites as of late, I don't think I'm the only one. I don't feel good or bad about it, it's just common sense for me.

Free data for everyone, that's the future. Or so I hope.

legality and justice

[Tom]

Tell you what, I will stop downloading stuff when two things have happened:

a) Buying a game isn't an odds-against-you risk of buying a buggy piece of crap anymore - showing that we have a working business-customer relationship again instead of the exploit and abuse going on right now

b) Big business crime and corruption is handled with the same zeal and punished with the same relative fines as illegal copying - showing that we have a working justice system that actually has a claim to define right and wrong

Right now, the world I live in means buying a game - any game - involves a huge leap of faith. Chances are higher that it will suck, that it contains show-stopping bugs, that it won't run next year due to some DRM crap, that it is half-finished and you're planning to sell the real product to me via DLC, or any number of other nonsense that I am not willing to pay for.
So the other side is force and threat, issue via a corrupt legal system that wouldn't know the meaning of "just" if it bit it in the arse. You can destroy an entire nations economy and nobody will touch you, but if you dare to make an unauthorized copy of a handful of music songs, you pay a years wages in fines. Oh, and it's not just big business that gets off free. Pretty much any crime against the public is free, because we are governed by people who have particular interests in mind, not the common good.

Now none of that is the fault of the people who make The Witcher 2. They, like me, simply live in this environment. And we both try to get by as good as possible. They've done a good step by making it DRM-free. Maybe that's enough for me to take the leap of faith, provided that their license allows for re-selling should it suck. You have to start somewhere, but when the environment has failed, you have to build the trust relationship from the start.

Good for them

[_Shad0w_]

I'm still failing to have sympathy for anyone who uses unlicensed versions of software or music. I also see no problem with going, "Yeah, buy a license or we sue you for copyright violation. Also, pay this fee for making us have to expend time, money and effort in order to chase you up and get you to pay for the license you should have bought in the first place". This is providing the fee they choose to impose as a "fine" isn't taking the piss.

And you know what to do if you can't afford to buy it when it comes out? Save up and then buy it. It will still be as good (or bad) as it was when it came out and you won't incur the legitimate wrath of the copyright holder. It might even have less bugs, so double win.

I am going to fully admit that it would be nice if software houses who write premium value software tools did cheap(er) single user hobbyist/non-commercial licenses sometimes - some do of course, but a lot don't. Think of it as an investment, hobbyists often transmission to professionals and if they're already familiar with your software, they're more likely to keep using it. There will of course be people and companies who try to get away with using the non-commercial license when they should be using the commercial one, but you know what? They're wilfully violating their license terms, have at them.

Mod parent Informative

[mcvos]

Too bad I already posted. Parent needs to be modded up +6 Informative. Everybody knows the quote "property if theft", but nobody knows where it's from. Great to see some background.

I think DRM is a good thing, as long as it is fair

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen a lot of mistaken argument about DRM. The problem is not that DRM exists, but more it's implementation.

I think an "ideal" DRM would be something like Steam where only one person can play the game at any one time.

I say like steam because it has 2 flaws:
1) You need an internet connection or at least a better "automated" offline mode
2) If I have 10 games in my steam collection, I can only play one of them, where really I should be able to play game A and my daughter game B (as long as they are different games)

So
If they could find a way around those two, who could argue? (eg. You can play any time offline, but you must do a quick authorisation check if your computer goes online but a maximum of one check a day).

With regard to Piracy:
*) In it's pure form, where you download a game you didn't buy, it's very wrong. You are using something you should have paid for.
*) If you have bought a copy of the game and download a "pirate version" because it's more playable and you only play as many copies as you bought - that, in my book, is NOT piracy.
*) The big games companies don't help them selves these days, often releasing sub-par products with no demo and force companies to only release reviews AFTER game launch (MW2 I'm looking at you).
*) Publishers also do no favours blaming piracy on poor sales, Crysis I'm looking at you. I understand it's a great scape goat, but ultimately it damages games companies -> If they had been honest and said, great graphics, but the lousy/repetitive gameplay and high requirements are why the game tanked, then Crysis Warhead and Crysis 2 would be much much better

Ultimately then Companies should provide:
1) The ability to do what you want with your own game (as long as only one instance is played per licence bought)
2) Give demos so people don't have to "download an evaluation version"
3) Don't blame piracy on poor sales. Call of Duty sold millions of copies, yet it was also heavily pirated. If your game doesn't sell it's because people don't like it.

Here's a marketing strategy

[jlebrech]

Create a game that you intended to give away free anyways, but instead create a flashy website showing off the gameplay with a $60 price tag.

Release the torrent yourself, then later on create DLCs that must be installed via the software for a cost.

Make a decent game.

[Anonymous Coward]

If companies in general spent half the time making their games fun and reasonably priced (~70 dollars for a new game which blows) they wouldn't have to worry about pirates. Yes, some people will steal it but put it into an average gamers budget (not much money) and ill bet money that your sales will go up. *COUGH*minecraft*COUGH*

Re:Make a decent game.

[Ash-Fox]

If companies in general spent half the time making their games fun and reasonably priced (~70 dollars for a new game which blows) they wouldn't have to worry about pirates.

How about showing some patience instead of pirating? A lot of publishers lower the price on their games after a while.

*COUGH*minecraft*COUGH*

You can only reference one instance of this happening? That tells me that is a fluke rather than the rule.

Re:I think DRM is a good thing, as long as it is f

[Ash-Fox]

my book, is NOT piracy.
*) The big games companies don't help them selves these days, often releasing sub-par products with no demo and force companies to only release reviews AFTER game launch (MW2 I'm looking at you).

I'm 99% sure I saw a MW2 demo disc on a PS3 magazine.

CD-Projekt founder

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically, "CD Projekt co-founder Marcin Iwiski" was not caring so much about copyrights and was one the most famous pirates on C64 in Poland in 80s. Selling pirated games allowed him to gather quite significant capital for that time.

Re:CD-Projekt founder

[rqg]

At the time, there were no copyright laws regarding software in Poland (or more accurately the People's Republic of Poland which was controlled by the Soviets), thus pirating was legal.

It's just reality.

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck, dude?

In what paranoid world do people do that?

Do what? Would you care to specify what here doesn't adhere to your view of the world?

RIAA has sued families for copyright infringement (and gooned who knows how many) when they even haven't had an internet connection at the time of the alleged infringement.

  http://www.zdnet.com/blog/spyware/riaa-and-dmca-madness/814

Opentracker mixes in random IPs with good ones: http://opentracker.blog.h3q.com/2007/02/12/perfect-deniability/
The same page has the info on how to use a simple html element that will cause the reader of a webpage to announce himself to the tracker.

Do you know how some DDoS attacks are done? Someone with a popular website adds an invisible frame that also loads the page to be attacked once a second using Javascript.

But GOG.com was shut down!

[Mishotaki]

They DID! but when they reopened saying it was only a advertising prank, the list of blocked sites on my browser was updated by one: gog.com

I really wish they would use another service, one that has the balls to not bait it's customer with false advertisement...

As for me, i'm waiting for the normal edition, one that has no strategy book linked to it... they may think they are "giving" us stuff, but i only see it as them saying "YOU SUXX! YOU NEED THE STRATEGY BOOK LOOSA!"

You need to focus on the correct problem.

[PMBjornerud]

Rather than hurting "anyone" is actually hurts "everyone". This is just another case of what's called the "tragedy of the commons". Each person who pirates a game benefits himself or herself, but if enough people do this it's no longer tenable to make games and no one has a game to play, for free or otherwise.

Be extremely cautious when comparing information to physical property. James Boyle have written a nice book about the trap you are falling into:
http://www.thepublicdomain.org/

Instead of thinking in terms of black and white, we really need to focus on the real issue: How much legal protection is needed?

I think we can all agree that "life + 75 years" (depending on country) is vastly more protection that a computer game needs. In my opinion, this excessive protection can only lead to stagnation.

We need to create a sensible copyright law first, then people will respect it. And only then can it be successfully enforced.

Re:You need to focus on the correct problem.

[LordLimecat]

We need to create a sensible copyright law first, then people will respect it. And only then can it be successfully enforced.

True, and I dont intend to deny that the current system is ridiculous. But that doesnt excuse people who think they should be able to consume all the content they want, whatever our society's laws say. I really dont think this is a case of "sticking it to the man", rather than a childish "Ill do whatever I want" mentality.

isn't this "extortion"?

[v1]

I thought it was illegal to demand money in exchange for not reporting your illegal activity to the authorities?

though I suppose this is more in exchange for a promise not to sue. But to call it a "fine" seems to lean more in the direction of the former.

Not bad, but still problematic.

[Arancaytar]

Unlike the idiocy of the RIAA, these decisions at least make good business sense: Instead of treating your actual customers as implicit criminals by shackling them with DRM, go after people who weren't going to be your customers anyway.

However, there are still numerous problems with this:

1.) Given what we know of the practices of organizations that sue alleged filesharers, who will guarantee they won't target innocent people?
2.) Illegal acquisition of the game can still result in a future sale of services, addons, or sequels. By pursuing this path, they alienate people who have admittedly not much to show as legitimate customers, but who could have become so. In order to be sure that their fine will make up for future lost business from this customer, the fine needs to be higher. This kind of alienates them even more, and also leads to issue #3.
3.) When a company sues or legally targets individuals, there is a PR backlash even if the action is justified. (There is a sympathy for the underdog - ie. the individual - from other customers). Can they be sure that this PR backlash (plus the legal fees) will be offset by the fines?

In my opinion, the most reliable way to profit from intellectual property is to provide on-going paid, non-transferable services. This doesn't apply in all cases, but when it does, piracy will have a negligible (or even overall positive) effect, without any need for legal action.

link me pls

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone link me to a torrent pls

If people could only wait...

[gravyface]

I game, but I'm about a year behind the curve on most games, sometimes two, because I'm generally busy doing other things. However, the benefit of this is pretty substantial: my "new" tower exactly two years ago (Core 2 Duo, 4GB RAM) with video card (HD4850) was $800, and I'm just working through 2009 games now (Fallout 2, Dragon Age: Origins) that cost me less than half the price than the original retail sticker price. Not only that, but the games are fully patched, there's plenty of mods and community information out there about both games, so I can play through the story without wondering if it's going to crash, perform poorly, or hit a logic goof on some quest that ruins the rest of the game for me.

Simple solution.

[unity100]

Sell your game cheap. you wont have piracy. If you make the cost of legally buying the game much higher than the cost of downloading it illegally, people will pirate. And this cost also includes any hassles they have to go through to buy the game - going to store, or drm, or whatever.

and no. you wont be able to deter them through legal action, lawsuits fines etc. for every one of them you fine, there will be 10 more still downloading. because, people will tend to take the more economical route whenever they can.

death penalty didnt even stop smuggling back in mercantilist era. people smuggled at the cost of their lives. they smuggled so much that, even in the authoritarian and heavy handed spanish main, the spanish colonies, trade with the countries spain was in war with was at times nearing the volume of trade with spain. 'trade' is an ironic word there, because, there shouldnt be any trade with any country other than spain at all, according to mercantilist laws. but people did it.

its the same. if you try to push a game from $39 a pop, despite the cost of reproducing that game is close to nil per copy if you offer it digitally, they are going to pirate it.

probably one may pop the issue of 'production costs is millions'. yeah, right, its millions, but its an overhead. its a one time cost. ironically, you would be selling less copies from $39 apiece, than you would, say $5 apiece, and this would make it harder for you to recuperate your production costs. there is no difference in between selling multitudes of digital downloads from cheaper price, or boxes, cds from $39 apiece. even, when you sell from $5 apiece, people who lose their installation may just buy the game again, in case they lose it in a few years. with cds, that wont happen.

if you are planning to sell a digital download from $39 apiece however, dont, instead just shove it up your ass. those who have no inclination to sync with the desires of the market, deserve to be pirated.

If you hadn't been caught...

[shovas]

I'm interested in the nuances of your story. You're so candid about being caught and reforming. Would you have kept on pirating if you knew you wouldn't have been caught? For what reasons? For what reasons have you now stopped pirating? Was stopping simply about realizing it could hurt you? Was there no part of your reform that realized your actions hurt others?

Re:If you hadn't been caught...

[shentino]

I was riding the anti-mafiaa rage train at the time.

Getting stung with a DMCA notice brought me to my senses.

irrelevant

[unity100]

nothing is taken when a digital copy is copied. it is a COPY. it doesnt take approx 20 seconds or so to copy an average cd's worth of game.

in the process MORE of the product is created, with NO cost to anyone.

you dont TAKE things in this case, you PRODUCE those things, as the one who is taking it. there was one copy before, now there are two copies of the game.

Re:irrelevant

[JustSomeProgrammer]

Arguments like this always strike me as strange. It is almost as if you're saying you don't believe people should be paid to produce software. Or if they are paid then the person who paid them should not be able to expect to get a profit. I think it has been a long time since the cost of the materials involved in a process have not been the primary determination of how much something costs. Perhaps it was somewhere around the time where we determined that manufacturing or craftsmen have value. Follow this line of thought. Is it worse to steal the total amount of materials that it would take to make a car or is it worse to steal a manufactured car? Both things you are depriving the original owner of something. But the second you are also depriving them from being able to profit from fruits of their labor.

Re:irrelevant

[unity100]

as if you're saying you don't believe people should be paid to produce software.

they are paid to PRODUCE the software. but, the selling value of something that can be reproduced in seconds, should NOT be as high as a household appliance.

the ONLY thing that is enforcing expensive rates of the software compared to the household appliance manufacturing, for example, are patents and copyrights.

the manufacturing industry goes through much more hassles than programmers or authors during the processes of concept, design, prototype, production, distribution, after sale support, but, ironically, that is all good and well ...

in the latter case, the cost of producing the product is so high that, if you steal, it you deprive the owner of a real value. the owner, actually have put considerable effort to producing that 'copy' of the blender you are stealing.

in the case of software, copying a software takes seconds. it doesnt require even a tenth of a cent in electricity costs, or hardware depreciation (of the hard drive) to reproduce it. and moreover, the owner doesnt even need to handle that cost - you do. there is no ADDED value put into the REPRODUCTION of the item, by its creator.

there is only the original creation effort.

and, the 'creative' sector in the world is putting as much value into that effort, as the manufacturing industry does. actually, even more than the manufacturing industry does. and then, you are allowed to resell your used blender too !!

its the creative industries' fault for the piracy woes they are having. software, digital products, have the potential to sell to hundreds of millions of people, in no time. they arent selling as such, because creative industries are trying to force their prices onto market, as if we are still living in 18th century, reproducing books or whatnot by hand, or in 20th century, printing stuff in huge printing presses and distributing them with great hassles.

no. we arent. we are living in digital age, where the schmock in any place on the face of the planet can buy and download something in seconds. provided that you price them properly. ask proper prices for your software, take them out of being a consideration for people's monthly budgets when considering purchase, make it a breeze to download them, and see your sales skyrocket.

that is the key.

No, it is theft.

[unity100]

logically, if you look at through nature's laws, anything that exists on the planet, any resource, should be available to all. there is NO distinction in between a species, from nature's eyes.

but, the species, inside themselves, create a social bias, saying that 'this belongs to him, that belongs to them'. and, just like low level species pissing in their territory to mark it, they mark those resources in their minds.

so, what is available to all, now became available to few. what is the resource of the nature to everyone, has been now, 'stolen' by a few.

that is what property means. walling off things. its no different than stealing, in that regard.

marx's objection is this ; where there is no property, there is no property theft. it is right. if there isnt something, then, theft of it cant happen. but, where there is no property, claiming property becomes a theft.

Re:No, it is theft.

[Pax681]

well logically if there is no property there can be no theft. anyone can take anything as it doesn't belong to anyone.

"property is theft" is an an idiocy really... pie in the sky.. people just want "stuff" for many reasons they just "want it".

this is the real world where people want their own stuff, not some 1840's french anarchists pipe dreams......

Re:No, it is theft.

[unity100]

"property is theft" is an an idiocy really... pie in the sky.. people just want "stuff" for many reasons they just "want it".

is it ?

or is it something that has been carved into the history of mankind over 1.5 thousand years, starting with early roman empire, continuing to evolve with feudalism (ownership of entire swaths of land and even people in an organized system), and then translated into our 'modern' values through the late britain history, its colonialism and the countries that emerged from it .... by use of arms, and repression, slaughtering of countless unarmed peasants over the last thousand years ....

actually, it indeed is.

that is a conditioned behavior set. a social bias. there are innumerable species. and even a lot of species stop pissing off their 'territory' as they go up in the evolutionary ladder, and adopt a cooperative, communal behavior set.

the 'reality' of today, has been made the reality of today, by minority interests.

and, 1840's french anarchists pipe dreams was the stuff that made the ideals of 1774 and 1789 revolutions, the VERY ideals which you take as 'modern' principles, a reality. actually, the very people who created that complicated property system were trying to suppress those ideals in early 1800s, and the 'pipe dreams' of the 1840s french anarchists and the following riots that followed them were precisely the things that saved your grand grandfather's ass from again becoming a subject in a feudal or feudalized property. thank those pipe dreamers for changing the course of history.

Re:No, it is theft.

[Pax681]

erm....species..eh? and what happens IF you try to invade of threaten "their territory"??? their will bite, sting or carve yer ass because you have invaded "their space". animals are territorial..... they need their space... i could go on... but tbh i cannot be bothered

i hope you find comfort in your cloud cuckoo land...

just because you might think an idea is how it should be bears no reflection on the cold hard facts of reality that day to day life is lived in.

why don't you give me access to your bank accounts and i shall redistribute it amongst my friends as beer and weed? no? didn't think so.. as that's YOUR stuff....

Re:No, it is theft.

[unity100]

erm....species..eh? and what happens IF you try to invade of threaten "their territory"??? their will bite, sting or carve yer ass because you have invaded "their space". animals are territorial..... they need their space... i could go on... but tbh i cannot be bothered

first, that depends on the species. second, that doesnt happen with most of the advanced species, in between their species.

i wish you comfort in your ignorance land. or alternatively, you can take up reading history as hobby, incuding development of species. the missing l in the preceding including is intentional, maybe it will stir you and wake you up.

i would gladly give you access to my bank accounts, and, actually would deliver them to your friends as beer and weed myself, had each of us not been forced to not to do that, by the societal mechanism we are being coerced into. the day the possibility of not having to oblige with self centered format of this manufactured society ends, a possibility of living by sharing comes up, will be the day i will be doing what you speak of, myself.

Re:No, it is theft.

[oliverthered]

read you citation, duh.

"this is the real world where people want their own stuff,"

your presupposing property.

Re:No, it is theft.

[oliverthered]

insanity is measured by how attached to something you are.

Steam

[leuk_he]

With steam online DRM you have a bigger problem: YOu think you bought the game. But STEAM can take it away from you whenever they want.

-Steam (/valve) goes out of business or gets bought?
-They think you cheated?
-Someone steals your account. (And you never get to find out how...)

In all those cases it becomes clear you never bought the game. YOu licensed it (with a long text most never read or fully can understand)

That is why i don't buy from steam, you never truely sure you will get to keep what you bought.

I like GoG

[Anonymous Coward]

I liked how they said simply: please don't pirate these games, it really isn't worth your time given the cost of these games ($10).

Now they have a game that is actually of some significant cost, I can understand needing to take a stronger stance against piracy.

Honestly though, at $45 (cheaper than the common $50) and with no DRM they are being pretty darn reasonable, I just hope that when they send out notices it is done responsibly (ie. low false positive, and actually considering that any case may be a FP). If they do that, I have no complaints against them.

News?

[Type-R]

We've actually gotten to the point where a company selling a game that isn't DRM laden crap is news? I mean I get the whole "it's not good enough to stand on it's own so lets make money from the lawyers" jig (well, I don't agree with it, but I understand that some game companies are thinly veiled law firms). But someone selling something that isn't just a license to follow an agreement that can be changed at any time, is news? Ick!

Deploy my copy

[Sp3cial_K]

If I can install it on number of computers, then what if I got computers all across the world? can I use torrents to deploy it to all those computers?

Evidence

[phorm]

Just out of curiosity, how did they get their "evidence." If a retailer handed over my purchase info and tipped them off, I'd be pretty pissed (and imagine it might have violated some consumer privacy laws as well)

I'm downloading it.

[earls]

Try to stop me, cocksuckers!

Well done!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should freeloading parasites get to enjoy what others (rightfully) make sacrifices for?
No lengthy bullshit arguments are necessary. Use it, pay for it. Don't pay for it, don't use it.

Somebody else made the software, it doesn't belong to the freeloaders. They should be grateful they are even able to enjoy it for a 2-digit price, less than a day's wages for something which takes months or years to develop! These people are of 0% use to us developers, those who say "let them enjoy it, they're not potential customers anyway" are pushing it. We work hard to pay for the things we enjoy, so it HURTS our work ethic and productivity when we see others enjoying nice things without giving back (much like the way everybody hates disgustingly rich people). The only reasonable reactions are to want to join them in being freeloaders, or, crush them. We know, deep down inside, that these people with the freeloading attitude, values and message are a threat to our livliehood and survival. There's NO REASON TO TOLERATE them! The only people pushing that message are a) freeloaders b) stupid.

outspoken anti piracy is a failed stance

[shnosifaj]

Apparently the trials of Gene Simmons went unheard by the team at Witcher 2. When companies make a public anti piracy stance it typically ends badly for them. Alas this game doesn't even have much support from the gaming community and that is probably the reason for the public outcry of "HEY PAY ATTENTION TO US!" I can't believe they would be serious about this silly statement, it's challenging the truly 1337 to make fools out of them, and that has never seemed to be too difficult.

Doesn't stop pirates

[Cito]

won't affect us in the slightest... they seem to not understand trackerless torrents, DHT, TOR etc... I'll enjoy my copy soon :)