Slashdot Mirror
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."
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 :(
'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.
The game is sold digitally, drm free.
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!".
Going after people who bootleg the thing isnt going after customers; its going after freeloaders, and generally thats substantially less bad for business.
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... : )
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"....
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
You aren't a customer if you steal the product.
What the hell is "torrent sneaking?"
vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
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?
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.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
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.
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?
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
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.
I like that you included "consumers," meaning all that enjoy the product, including torrenters.
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.
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
Whoops, wrong one. I meant Dead Rising 2: Case Zero, not Chop Till You Drop.
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.
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.
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
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?
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
property is thief.
I'm not quite sure where you're going on this one. Did you mean one of the following?
Ask me about repetitive DNA
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.
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.
Ok, so all those people still think they can change human nature using laws and papers...
Or are you sure it won't be released via steam as well?
http://store.steampowered.com/app/20920/
...
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?
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
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.
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
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.
Yea and fuck department stores that use those anti-shoplifting tags.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I couldn't agree more.
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
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.
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
...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?
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.
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
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.
I remember you too.
Sorry, but "damages I caused"? Are you admitting that the behaviour in my examples are damaging?
Oh, so you can identify analogous situations. Can you identify the analogy with piracy?
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.
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.
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.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Like bittorent!!! Many other people will back it up for me too!!!
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
"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.
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.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
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.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
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?
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.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
He didn't rape; her he showed her goetse and two girls one cup. That steals anyone's innocence.
who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
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.)
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
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.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
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.
who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
Innocent pirates, they didn't do nothin'
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
What the fuck, dude?
In what paranoid world do people do that?
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.
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
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.
How about showing some patience instead of pirating? A lot of publishers lower the price on their games after a while.
You can only reference one instance of this happening? That tells me that is a fluke rather than the rule.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
I'm 99% sure I saw a MW2 demo disc on a PS3 magazine.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
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.
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!"
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?
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.
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.
I lost my sig.
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.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
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.
body massage!
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.
Read radical news here
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?
Selah.ca. Pause, and calmly think on that.
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.
Read radical news here
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.
Read radical news here
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
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)
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.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
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?)
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.
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.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
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.
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
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.
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
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..
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.
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
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.
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
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).
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
won't affect us in the slightest... they seem to not understand trackerless torrents, DHT, TOR etc... I'll enjoy my copy soon :)
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.