On the morality of copyright.

[Pecoros7]

In a moral sense, I liken copyright law to patent law. Patents were created as a means to enable an inventor to profit from his or her work in developing a new idea for a device or method of producing such a device. For twenty years after the first filing date for the patent, the filer has the exclusive right to produce, sell and distribute his invention. This law does not protect the physical good, but rather it protects the idea of it.

The notion of copyright is similar, but applies to purely intellectual creations. When I buy a book, it is understood that I am not paying $35 for paper, glue and ink. I can buy that for $1 in the stationery isle at my local supermarket. I am paying for the non-material content. Because this non-material content can be reproduced at little or no cost, it is easy for anyone with no involvement in its creation to duplicate and distribute it with almost no front-end investment.

It is seen as important to protect the inventor's ability to profit from this work as the invention process is often expensive and time consuming. If an inventor has no assurance that a business entity won't immediately mass produce the product being developed more cheaply than he can, he has no incentive to invent. Similarly, the creator of intellectual property has no incentive to create something if absolutely anyone can distribute the work without any effort. Unauthorized distribution does no direct harm any more than selling patented products, but does do indirect harm by subverting the creators ability to profit from their work and recover their investment.

Even if we accept that the notion intellectual property is an economic necessity, we must ask if intellectual property deserves the same protection as physical property. With physical property, if I create a thing, that thing is mine and mine alone. It will remain mine until such a time as I die or willfully transfer ownership to someone else. A physical thing, however, exists in only one place; it is finite. In order to have two of that thing, I must create another one. Giving that thing to someone else deprives the creator of the thing he created. Conversely, intellectual things are only made one time. They require only one initial investment of time and resources. The creator of the property can duplicate it an endless number of times without further investment, just as the "pirate" does. Distribution of the property does not deprive the creator of his original work.

With patent law, we grant the right of a person to make use of an idea for a strictly defined length of time, but do not apply the notion of property to that idea. I propose that legally and morally, it makes sense to model copyright law after patent law; a person does not own an idea they created and cannot dictate its use, but is granted the right to profit from it for a fixed length of time by controlling its distribution. Media, be it a game, music or anything else, could not include an EULA; copyright law would restrict users from distributing the game rather than an agreement made, essentially, under duress ( I can agree or simply forfeit my $60; this is not an agreement made freely by both parties). Media creators could not impose further restrictions on how I use the property I paid for.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Another Pirate thread?

Free access to more media allows artists to rise, eh?

Stealing should be a basic human right?

Nope.

It's just selfish, greedy, the world revolves around only you type of ideals.

Get a job. Pay to play.

You claim you can't buy old games?

Name the game, I will give you a link since you are lazy.

But the universe does revolve about me. Why? Because for all I know, the universe won't exist anymore once I die. It's the same for every person that exists. For each of us, we are the most important person in our lives because without ourselves we wouldn't exist.

 

[incal11]

It will keep getting longer if you keep answering point for point like that. Let's try not to repeat the same arguments over and over again, now.

Spoiler

1. There are enough demos, screen shots and INDEPENDENT reviews as well as online videos out there to make an informed decision. There are hundreds of sources that make a living reviewing video games in great detail. Your stretching.

It is never as good as playing the games yourself, never will be.

1. Just because you can't afford something that doesn't mean your entitled to it.

When it's something that for everyone's sake, I brought proof of that, should already be in the public domain, yes it means I am entitled to it. Sooner than 50 years after the death of the author anyway.

Gamers ***** incessantly that publishers are rich greedy bastards that don't take risks for fear of losing their precious money. Yet at the same time they are afraid of taking any risks with there own personal money.

It's a truth, but it's not the whole truth.
While there are greedy bastards on both sides, we have indie developers who make great profits taking risks and we have people who pay for more works because they have been exposed to more :
http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/04/study-pirates-buy-tons-more-music-than-average-folks.ars

If companies are making so much money hand over fist yet MOST of the world can't afford the games.... Hmm, does that the minority of the world is just buying many many copies of the same game?

Could be, I don't know. If prices were lower more people would buy, though.

Copyrights were made to protect a dead authors IP from there relatives.

I do not understand the logic there, are you that convinced that an idea should be chained to one person even after death ?

That seems to be what so many people miss. X creator took the easy route and took a loan from Y company. Y company has certain terms and conditions that X has to agree to. Just because you think it's unfair doesn't mean Y should be punished. Everyone is so quick to castrate Y company for upholding copyright laws when its X who agreed to trade the rights to there IP for cold hard cash.

Well, Y company is being abusing with it's conditions, and since everyone like Y does the same because of copyright X does not really have a choice. I never denied that X and Y need to be paid, its a fact that other systems, like in the once copyright-less Germany, worked better than the one that has been so deeply rooted in our culture.

Currently a site could barely last a month trying to hand out copies of MW2 off there site directly. yet there are literally hundreds of site where you could nab Nes and Snes games. Even with the online marketplace Nintendo does shit all to stop them.

Shows that someone at Nintendo shares my opinions

Not being able to play the original Zelda isn't destroying anyone's culture. The sky is not falling. I assure you, it is only an acorn.

It counts, every small bits count, or it's gradually forgotten. Did you know that at least 90% of the first movies are lost forever ?

They put up the capital, they deserve the money. That's like saying my dad doesn't earn the money he gets from selling groceries because he merely purchased them for sale, not grew them himself.

I know they deserve the money, but you miss the point by going back to likening it to shoplifting again...

Even if it was one year your arguing over works that are technically owned by companies.
If you want to blame someone for that, blame the people who sell there products to companies in the first place.

Companies that use copyright to set abusive condition, and make everyone believe it's the only possible way (maybe if I insist hard enough you will end up reading the first link in my OP).

This also implies that random strangers have more of a right to my works then my own grand children.
No.

That animal-like dynastic and self centered attitude disgusts me. If your work can benefit everyone by being shared, your grand children will also benefit from everyone else doing the same.

my point is if i want to sell my works to a company who wishes to use my work well after my death that's my right.

Irresponsible and cynical, but yes that's your right, I wasn't questioning that.

Just because you, the consumer, thinks it sucks for you well, that's life.

Humanity is much like rats, there are dominants and there are dominated, because you feel I am a pathetic and helpless underdog doesn't mean I can't bite, even if it cost me my life.
Like I said to Rockerfly, the top dogs can be beaten, else we'd still be living in a feudal society, that's life

You not what sends a strong message? Not buying, not downloading. Not touching. That sends a message. If you don't like it, don't come in contact with it. At all.

People who download pay for what they like, I just gave you a link about that. If this goes against the logic of the publishers maybe it means they are being wrong.

Didn't say stealing. I said taking.

It's not taking either, it's copying.

It's realy easy to share when it's not your shit your sharing isn't it?

Not everyone think that way :
http://sc2.sourceforge.net/
There would be no shareware whatsoever either if you were right.

Also, i call sharing my IP that i didn't give you permission to share detrimental to me. In that it would piss me off and make me feel violated if people were spreading my work without my permission.

You are wrong to feel that way, more exposure means more support for you. the ones who don't pay are a constant, but not the ones who do pay, especially if your work is any good.

"Games are only feeding them greedy companies" it was overtly proven that for all the pretty words people say lots of it is bullshit. No matter how much X person on the internet says these things there is no way to call them on it, and they know that.

Because often they don't know how amoral most copyrights are in the first place.

If i expect a kid to only make $20 off the lemonade stand and they make $30 have they made more then i thought they would? Does this make them rolling in the fat cash? No.

Yes then, he did make more than you though he would, and he can use that money to make better lemonade and build a clientele.

Seeing as how most people gave themselves a nice 50% discount on the retail price of the games Can you really see that working on AAA games. Of the $60 Publishers get roughly $28. Now imagine if people started giving themselves that nice 50% discount on top of all the people snatching it for free. You think games are bland now? Imagine it in a world where not a single publisher will touch video games.

Looks to me publishers are being abused themselves by the distributors. The discounts the players gave themselves buying online from indie studios isn't relevant there, it's still the fact that the indie studios made more than expected.
Games are bland now because of the senseless franchising, if big companies crash down it'll hardly be a loss, the indie studios will always be there with new ideas.

Just because it's the only fact you like doesn't mean it is the only relevant one.

You failed to point any other relevant fact there.

Unless the current copyright holder has made that choice, no. Once again that copyright holder has put up a lot of money for said product. They have a right to distribute it as they wish.

If they keep the work on a tight leash to the detriment of everyone's culture, it's not a right, it's an abuse based on abusive copyrights, invented to abuse everyone.

you do not have the right to tell how other people should use there IP's.

There is a point where some abuse their own IP, that's where I gain the right to step in.

Does that mean it's alright to take a dime from him? No.

Again you somehow come back to shoplifting, if you are from a family of merchant I can understand why this is all so hard for you to grasp. Ideas on the internet are not groceries.

because the loyal fans make the company enough money its alright for the non loyal ones to have it for free. No. It's not.

You don't have to pay the non-loyal fans any attention, they don't deserve it, at least they had a chance of becoming true fans. Ideas are not treasures to be kept only for the "worthy", that belief held humanity back through the ages. At least more people being exposed to what you like means there will be more loyal fans among them.

Movies used to be something for the rich. Then it became something for the poor. Over the last what, two decades? The rise in cost largely comes from inflation. You do realize in the times where a trip to the movies was 3-5 bucks that was roughly the same as movies being 10-11 now right? Lets also no forget a movie costs way the hell more then it did in the past and employees many many many more people then they ever have.

You have a very poor grasp of the history of cinema (hint: don't just think "Hollywood"). The number of people seeing movies augmented a lot faster than inflation or even the costs of blockbusters.

Want to know why the cost of movies are so high? The lowest grunt on a set makes triple my paycheck.

Yes, and maybe they are being greedy too.

Because they make more money then you? Why is it greedy? If i put up 50, 100, 200 Million dollars it's greedy for me to want that money back and then some? No. What IS not greedy then Hmm?

What is not greedy is making profit without hurting Humanity's culture in the long run.

its all that extra money that gets put into the next movie. Not to mention most movie companies use there extra funds to fun there independent branch companies. You know, the ones that help make all those small times movies that without would barely get past a film festival? Many big name bran companies have off shoot indie film companies.

Next to the money they put into advertising or just for themselves, it's all meaningless. I'll give it to you, the sums are so huge it's hard to keep a sense of scale, but you get the idea.

You right, having to pay Ten bucks for three movies over ten years old at HMV is just Hideously over priced. How can that stand... 3.33 a movie... How dare they...

I should have the right to haggle, but if I want the box because the old movie is that good I'll pay, whatever the price.
If it's in the public domain and I'm happy with the numerical version there shouldn't be a problem, and maybe I'll donate money to the author or even the studio anyway.

Few, done !

 

[incal11]

I think "life + 70" is absurd, because assuming I live to the 72.5 years I'd expect to live based on my LE at birth, that means anything I created wouldn't go public domain until 2120. C'mon. That's just ridiculous.

Glad to see an author realise that.

That said, I've created work. I've had work published. I've been paid for creative work. And the idea that someone would steal the product of my work without giving me credit or my fair share just makes me think "what the fuck is wrong with you, punk?"

Ah but the absence of copyright does not mean the absence of credit, even if what you used is in the public domain you should mention it. Other than that, plain plagiarism is stupid, the ones doing it needs slapping.

So copyright's broken. Way too pro-business, and this is speaking as a published writer. But c'mon, guys. Piracy hurts people who work hard for your entertainment. Stop it.

Not really ,no :
http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/04/study-pirates-buy-tons-more-music-than-average-folks.ars
Since you're a writer the first link in my original post should be particularly interesting for you. (what do you write btw ? )

Anyways, it's still a very tricky thing. You've got the people wanting it all shared and such on on hand, and then the businesses who want to make a profit on the other, and then the pirates, the indie companies, and many other factors on the fingers.
Either way, it's a societal standard or what-not, and bitching about the morality isn't going to do much.

Agreed, a tricky subject, that is.
You know that it's standard based on lies and abuse. This thread isn't just for bitching, if/when I find myself before the judge (unlikely since I don't pirate recent stuff much) I will have tons of razor sharp arguments that should force everyone in the room to understand why I don't feel guilty, even if I am condemned .

Morally it's a grey area. While it might actually hurt the odd indie dev with a meh product, on the whole it's no more 'wrong' than the next person you ask thinks it is. For big name outfits you aren't harming them at all.
Do I do it? Nah. But I'm not going to look down on someone else who does either.

Legally it is grey, maybe not so much morally, but that depends on what you download and why.

What I wish you could do is pirate something, then send the developers money directly so there is literally no middle man.

Me too, a problem there is that putting a stable self suficient system without middlemen might be extremely complicated. I'm not saying it's impossible tough.

It's taking a sale off of someone who has spent time, effort and money on creating a medium for you. (...)It is still stealing, whatever way you look at it

You're like a barnacle on it's rock during a typhoon with this.
The way *I* look at it it is not proper "stealing". Legally it may be called stealing, but the law is wrong and need changing. You just should not be unquestioningly using the law to judge the actions of others, because the law is full of imprecisions and made by faillible human beings. From there you should try to prove how the law is so perfect about copyrights that I should not question it.
Maybe you believe that if you don't pay for it you don't deserve it, actually someone answered this for me on this thread :

Ouch! Ethically this is the only leg we have to stand on. But this is all sorts of weird to use as an ethical basis for anything. What someone deserves is a completely subjective concept. Do you not deserve the free handouts your parents give you? What about anything provided by the state like education? If you argue that your education is paid for by taxes.. man that takes it down an even more complicated route by saying that the population at large can cause you to deserve something and.. eesh, let's not go there.

 

[cameron1124]

Another Pirate thread?

Free access to more media allows artists to rise, eh?

Stealing should be a basic human right?

Nope.

It's just selfish, greedy, the world revolves around only you type of ideals.

Get a job. Pay to play.

You claim you can't buy old games?

Name the game, I will give you a link since you are lazy.[/quot Master of magic for free?

Another Pirate thread?

Free access to more media allows artists to rise, eh?

Stealing should be a basic human right?

Nope.

It's just selfish, greedy, the world revolves around only you type of ideals.

Get a job. Pay to play.

You claim you can't buy old games?

Name the game, I will give you a link since you are lazy.

uh master of magic for free?

 

[incal11]

Actually, ironically enough, the correct term is "easy".

But the universe does revolve about me. Why? Because for all I know, the universe won't exist anymore once I die. It's the same for every person that exists. For each of us, we are the most important person in our lives because without ourselves we wouldn't exist.

uh master of magic for free?

What are you 3 on about ? quoting the troll who first answered.

 

[The Rockerfly]

You're like a barnacle on it's rock during a typhoon with this.
The way *I* look at it it is not proper "stealing". Legally it may be called stealing, but the law is wrong and need changing. You just should not be unquestioningly using the law to judge the actions of others, because the law is full of imprecisions and made by faillible human beings. From there you should try to prove how the law is so perfect about copyrights that I should not question it.
Maybe you believe that if you don't pay for it you don't deserve it, actually someone answered this for me on this thread :

I might just change my DP for the first time in almost 2 years to a barnacle

Okay in the traditional sense, it's not stealing because you aren't actually stealing something you can touch but that is a very old fashioned way of looking at it

Granted there are parts of the law that don't make sense (You can go to war at 16 but buy a violent video game at 18, lolwut?) But you can see why this law exists and why it is illegal. Doesn't mean you have to obey it but if ever the governments decide to go ape shit and prosecute everyone for ever stealing anything, philosophy will not matter to them because it is still illegal

Until then

 

[Danzaivar]

Sharing should be a human right? The day some homeless guy demands that it's his right to half of my cheeseburger is the day that I punch a homeless man for demanding half of my cheeseburger.

It's more like you have a cheeseburger and a homeless guy wants one, so you create an exact replica out of thin air and give him it.

 

[incal11]

Okay in the traditional sense, it's not stealing because you aren't actually stealing something you can touch but that is a very old fashioned way of looking at it

Some kind of concession at last!
The "new" way of looking at it is not an improvement, as the only real way to steal an idea is through plagiarism, presenting someone else's work as your own (scientists do that all the time). Sorry, I'm kinda stubborn too.

if ever the governments decide to go ape shit and prosecute everyone for ever downloading anything, philosophy will not matter to them because it is still illegal

Then the people would go apeshit on the (doomed to not be reelected) governments, that's why what people think and why is usually taken into account before considering anything drastic. If your country is a democracy, anyway.

 

[TheLaofKazi]

1. Reviews, demos, and millions of videos online to show what game is about.

2. Funny how in a world where gamers expect publishers to take tens of million dollar risks gamers are not willing to take a $60-$100(depending on where you live) risk even when they have almost limitless sources of reference to decide if they like a game.

Sure, there are plenty of avenues one can go about to see if they like a game. But the fact remains that none of them are as good as simply playing the fucking game yourself, and not being limited to a slice of the game that's designed with a biased presentation to get you to buy the game.

And the fact still remains, that millions of people out there pirate games all the time, but when they have money, they buy things. You will meet very few people who will simply pirate everything despite having plenty of money to buy things. Generally, when people have money, they buy things. When they don't, they illegally download. Now, you could argue that "if the person doesn't have the money, they don't deserve that media," but what's the point of even fucking arguing about that, internet piracy or no internet piracy, for the most part the same amount of money is spent on media, except with illegal downloading, people get to experience far more art then they could ever afford.

If we can prove that illegal downloading doesn't hurt the industry significantly, then what's the point of clinging to all of these "rights" when all they really achieve is limiting someone's access to art and culture based on their wealth, with no substantial benefits

I will admit, more research needs to be done, but so far, I haven't seen any convincing proof that illegal downloads are significantly damaging the industry, the industry is still doing fine, some of the most pirated games out there are some of the most successful. Just look at Starcraft 2 [http://www.ripten.com/2010/08/09/starcraft-2-the-most-pirated-game-of-2010-so-far-sam-n/], Modern Warfare 2 [http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10422892-17.html] and Spore [http://news.cnet.com/8301-13846_3-10116502-62.html]. Extremely widespread piracy, with no apparent effect on sales. In fact, all three of those games were extremely successful, EA even admitted that piracy didn't hurt the sales [http://news.cnet.com/8301-13846_3-10054438-62.html] Here's some more links:

People who illegally download buy more then those who don't:
http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/04/study-pirates-buy-tons-more-music-than-average-folks.ars

Net piracy doesn't harm record sales:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4831-net-music-piracy-does-not-harm-record-sales.html

Here's one that I haven't read yet (it's pretty long) that's arguing that piracy is harmful.
http://www.gamepro.com/article/features/215976/the-cost-of-piracy/

So before we all start pulling these assumptions out of our ass, let's do some research. I know there's a chance of what I've been saying is untrue, that's why I try to read articles like the anti-piracy one above to know the truth.

 

[SturmDolch]

People like the OP really grind my gears. I'm sick of seeing arguments for piracy. My Computing Science department has a couple of people that are all about piracy and how it is great. Stick to open source if you believe software should be free. If not, you are stealing.

Get it? Stealing. It's not sharing. Sharing a movie or game would be lending the original copy to them. Putting up files on the internet so that millions of people can download exact copies is completely different and not even comparable. Think of it like if some random guy bought a BMW, then figured out how to make it, built a factory, and started giving out exact replicas, down to the BMW logo. You don't think they'd get pissed off?

If everyone believed as the OP did, the artist would be the one that suffers. Since everyone believes as the OP does, only one person ever buys the original work. Then it goes onto the internet, for free. The artist dies of starvation.

What is your argument for the artist? He is the one that suffers. The band that made the music, the crew that made the film, the team that made the game, the author that wrote the book. How do you argue that not paying for their creative labours is justifiable?

 

[NotSoNimble]

Another Pirate thread?

Free access to more media allows artists to rise, eh?

Stealing should be a basic human right?

Nope.

It's just selfish, greedy, the world revolves around only you type of ideals.

Get a job. Pay to play.

You claim you can't buy old games?

Name the game, I will give you a link since you are lazy.

But the universe does revolve about me. Why? Because for all I know, the universe won't exist anymore once I die. It's the same for every person that exists. For each of us, we are the most important person in our lives because without ourselves we wouldn't exist.

You are right, I am so sorry I posted that thread. Thank you for showing me the truth.

You and the OP are truly awesome.

 

[Atmos Duality]

...and that's why these rules are amoral, anyone with a shred of independant though should not feel bound by them. At this point it is not social cooperation, but social exploitation, in truth we are stuck only if we believe ourselves to be.

We are stuck. Period.
Changing these concepts isn't a simple matter of making people change their mind; it's about changing how they act, how they must live.

Copyright laws in principle were about providing an incentive to stay in market; otherwise, someone else comes along, figures out your methods, and undercuts you before you can really become established.

Copyrights are abused by powerful companies today? Imagine what they could do without such restraints. Actually, you don't even have to imagine it: look at the Hong Kong Black Market. They sell knock-offs of everything from Calloway Golf Clubs to stuffed animals to handheld game systems. It's wildly profitable to sell inferior copies of a an established product.

So pardon me if I don't buy the "artistic expression inspired by freedom of ideas" nonsense, because it's been proven time and again that the human being will put forth as much effort as s/he has incentive to do so. More competition, more incentive. The higher the necessary quality to enter a market, the better your product must be.

By eliminating the concept of piracy, you will accomplish nothing in practice. Games would suck, because nobody would want to put the effort in to do better. Why? Because they have no assurance that they will get anything out of it because any asshole with more power can come along and take it from them. If not, they must become incorporated into one of these powers to have any assurance of profit, and thus, are still subject to the same profit-driven standards companies use today to produce this bland, mediocre garbage.

Now, I do agree that something must be done about the rampant abuse of franchises and how these huge video game publishers are slowly eliminating every right the consumer had in the past. But no-holds-barred-legal-piracy will solve nothing. Period.
Therefore, I cannot agree that Copyright Laws, by nature, are immoral.

 

[Something Amyss]

Just want to focus on these for a moment:

Principal arguments:
-sharing still is very usefull, and counterbalance centralized media that would have you concentrate on a small number of work.
-Publishers get you to concentrate on a small number of works by stigmatizing file sharing, thus limiting your own ability to create.
-Freer access to more media would allow more artists to rise from their state of passive consumers, making for a richer culture, and an even more profitable entertainment market.
-Sharing should be a basic human right. I know how this last one looks, but you should think about it this way: if you want to share something that is yours, you should have the unquestionable right to do so. Obviously copyrights are there to limit or take away this liberty, is it right ? is it wrong ? and how ?

Sharing is still very useful: Yes, but shouldn't it be the right of the artist to determine if and how a work is shared? Further, does it really operate as a counterbalance since most media "shared" is of the popular variety?

Stimgamizing file sharing: If we're talking versus copyright, that sounds ridiculous. You still have the right to create.

More artists: Unlikely, but okay.

Sharing as a basic human right: Ummm...What? I write music and fiction. Not only can file sharing diminish my ability to be paid for these things, but it can actually destroy it. Hear me out before you think this is simply a "file sharing is stealing" argument, because it's not. Say I send out a book to one of my friends which then gets put up online. Just the fact that it's out there reduces my chance of being published on the grounds that there is little to no interest in already published material. That includes self published or published online.

Since this is "On the morality of copyright," not "should certain types of file sharing be okay," it looks like you think I should have no right to my own intellectual property. You complain that "sharing" is being stigmatized by authority as part of a campaign. Couldn't it have more to do with the fact that you're using the word "sharing" as a euphemism for "illegally distributing things you have no right to?"

Nah. Down with the man.

On the one hand, I've always written and performed music freely. On the other hand, the very notion that you have more right to distribute my music than I do is offensive and disgusting on principle alone.

I'm not supporting corporate measures to attack piracy or particularly fond of their attitude. But where I loathe the greed present in their arguments I also despise the entitlement in yours. I have my right to create, something one of your articles argues is stifled. You are trying to take away my right to my own material.

I'll tell you what I do believe is immoral: The slow death of the public domain. The idea of the public domain is a solid one, meaning that a work cannot be held in perpetuity. This makes sense, since neither you or I need copyrights 100 years after we're dead. But things have gotten out of hand for decades now, and it's limited the field of songs which are public domain through extension of copyrights. It's kind of ridiculous that Happy Birthday isn't public domain.

Meanwhile, the UK is set to start seeing Beatles music in the Public domain come 2012. That's a far more reasonable term. The 50 year copyright affords more than enough time to serve the purpose of protecting one's intellectual property.

But on the morality of "sharing," there really isn't a lot to say. Even without going down the asinine "piracy is stealing" route, you are still limiting the rights of the author by bypassing their rights and you seek to remove those rights?

Wow.

 

[bdcjacko]

I agree with that Zach fellow above.

 

[Kagim]

-snip-

1. I enjoy your use of the words art and culture to justify wanting free stuff. If you really were one of the honest ones you probably would have read everything i said and noticed that I am not talking about the honest people, and the only people I am annoyed by are the ones seeking sympathy or praise as though they are victims or champions.

2. I never said that it was hurting the companies. Only that i understand peoples desire to protect there investments. If you read my whole post you would know that people like the RIAA and methods such as DRM piss me off. Just because i understand them doesn't mean i approve of what they are doing. However people who scream that File sharing is the way to stop DRM, or people who act like if they couldn't play video games there life would be in shambles. Those are the people i am telling to fuck off.

Downloading games for free doesn't make you a hero. Not being able to play the latest and shiniest games as soon as they come out doesn't make you a downtrodden victim. That's the shit i was, and still am, calling out.

3. The main point in the quote you so lovingly misinterpreted was that gamers have this fun habit of bitching out of one side of there mouth about how Companies are big greedy monsters trying to squash creativity because making the same thing is cheaper and there cowards for not taking risks....

While out of the other side of there mouths desperately trying to justify never taking a single risk with there own money. For some reason when big business doesn't want to take a risk with 20 million dollars they are greedy evil bastards destroying our 'culture'. However when YOU don't want to take a risk with 60-100 dollars. Well fuck that's just common sense.

All the Rolodex crap you just said? It had nothing to do with me OR my position.

 

[TheLaofKazi]

1. I enjoy your use of the words art and culture to justify wanting free stuff. If you really were one of the honest ones you probably would have read everything i said and noticed that I am not talking about the honest people, and the only people I am annoyed by are the ones seeking sympathy or praise as though they are victims or champions.

My apologies for misreading your point, after dealing with countless arguments regarding illegal downloading all the time they all tend to blur together and sometimes I go on a sort of autopilot, which only fuels all the heat in these debates.

I agree, committing internet piracy doesn't make anybody a hero.

But it's not free stuff I want, it's just stuff. When I have the money, I buy things. The same goes for many other people out there.

2. I never said that it was hurting the companies. Only that i understand peoples desire to protect there investments. If you read my whole post you would know that people like the RIAA and methods such as DRM piss me off. Just because i understand them doesn't mean i approve of what they are doing. However people who scream that File sharing is the way to stop DRM, or people who act like if they couldn't play video games there life would be in shambles. Those are the people i am telling to fuck off.

Downloading games for free doesn't make you a hero. Not being able to play the latest and shiniest games as soon as they come out doesn't make you a downtrodden victim. That's the shit i was, and still am, calling out.

I agree. Although I strongly disagree with a lot of the things the corporate world does, I understand why they are doing it, they have a business to run, and there are a ton of other factors that play in. They aren't evil or anything, nobody out there really thinks what they are doing is evil, their methods are genuine, but extremely misguided.

3. The main point in the quote you so lovingly misinterpreted was that gamers have this fun habit of bitching out of one side of there mouth about how Companies are big greedy monsters trying to squash creativity because making the same thing is cheaper and there cowards for not taking risks....

While out of the other side of there mouths desperately trying to justify never taking a single risk with there own money. For some reason when big business doesn't want to take a risk with 20 million dollars they are greedy evil bastards destroying our 'culture'. However when YOU don't want to take a risk with 60-100 dollars. Well fuck that's just common sense.

All the Rolodex crap you just said? It had nothing to do with me OR my position.

You make a good point, there is a distrust between the companies and consumers, both are afraid to take risks with each other, and in order for a healthy industry to exist, that needs to happen.

The only thing that is really going to have an impact is for the consumers to reward the industry for doing good with their money, which I think is largely happening. If people like something, they will generally buy it. Sure, there will always be people that don't want to pay a cent for an indie game, but is that really so widespread? I mean, look at the companies that have tried to innovate, such as Valve, they have been quite successful. People like what they do, and so they support them. And even the innovative marketing models of indie developers have been pretty successful, to my understanding.

 

[Kagim]

My apologies for misreading your point, after dealing with countless arguments regarding illegal downloading all the time they all tend to blur together and sometimes I go on a sort of autopilot, which only fuels all the heat in these debates.

I agree, committing internet piracy doesn't make anybody a hero.

But it's not free stuff I want, it's just stuff. When I have the money, I buy things. The same goes for many other people out there.

Then I am sorry i went off on you. When it comes to this topic my words get twisted. Often. The idea someone legitimately misunderstood me and isn't just altering what i said to fit there opinions rarely happens.

While i don't agree with downloading things at all, I do realize that it's none of my business whether anyone does it or not. If you would like an example of the people I despise in this never ending flame war topic read the post i quoted at the start. Those are the people who piss me off.

I agree. Although I strongly disagree with a lot of the things the corporate world does, I understand why they are doing it, they have a business to run, and there are a ton of other factors that play in. They aren't evil or anything, nobody out there really thinks what they are doing is evil, their methods are genuine, but extremely misguided.

Thats where you'd be shocked... And if your me kinda disgusted. People act like Publishers are these big drooling monsters. Forgetting that developers make the choice to work with them, and the only reason why they work with them is because gamers today demand everything is super shiny to hold there attention. Case in point the Alan Wake crap where people where hissing and screaming because magnification showed that everything wasn't 1080p i think?

Don't get me wrong, i'm not throwing that wet blanket on everyone. However three words that irk the shit out of me are "Fuck the man!" or "Fuck the Corporations!".

In my dads age people fought by rioting, pickit lines, and protesting facing physical harm for there beliefs.

In our age? A 16 year old who has never worked a day in there life downloads Avatar while raging on an internet forum about injustice they have never experienced from there cushy suburban home.

Christ our age is full of pussies...

You make a good point, there is a distrust between the companies and consumers, both are afraid to take risks with each other, and in order for a healthy industry to exist, that needs to happen.

And honestly it does happen. There are many games that come out that are more then just space marine shooters despite how everyone wants to believe it is. Hell i have two space marine shooters. Killzone 2 and Dead space. I also own about 20 games, no two are really alike.

*aside*
Wow, i wrote like two pages of crap that was utterly off topic... Come on Kags.. focus...

The only thing that is really going to have an impact is for the consumers to reward the industry for doing good with their money, which I think is largely happening. If people like something, they will generally buy it. Sure, there will always be people that don't want to pay a cent for an indie game, but is that really so widespread? I mean, look at the companies that have tried to innovate, such as Valve, they have been quite successful. People like what they do, and so they support them. And even the innovative marketing models of indie developers have been pretty successful, to my understanding.

My rage at the indie section is mostly at the people who keep screaming "If games were cheaper illegal file sharing(They say the P word but honestly that word is like acid in my mouth. I honestly can't bring myself to type it.) wouldn't exist!" While we both know this is bullshit you wouldn't believe how often people state that as fact. That the only reason illegal file sharing exists is because of prices, because of publishers, because of DRM. When all that was stripped away people still took it for free. Yet even with that people still stoically announce that those three things are the ONLY reason file sharing is around.

As well no, it's not wide spread. Both sides seem to love to exaggerate. The only reason i can say i side with the Anti Illegal file sharing side is because i hate undeserved entitlement a hundred times more then the weepy exaggerations from corporations.

So once again, sorry if i went off on you. I am starting to rant meanderingly so I'll spare you and any poor fool reading this.

 

[TheLaofKazi]

Then I am sorry i went off on you. When it comes to this topic my words get twisted. Often. The idea someone legitimately misunderstood me and isn't just altering what i said to fit there opinions rarely happens.

While i don't agree with downloading things at all, I do realize that it's none of my business whether anyone does it or not. If you would like an example of the people I despise in this never ending flame war topic read the post i quoted at the start. Those are the people who piss me off.

It's alright, this stuff happens all the time on internet forums, I've done it to other people. There are times where a bunch of people are saying things and it fucking pisses me off.

Thats where you'd be shocked... And if your me kinda disgusted. People act like Publishers are these big drooling monsters. Forgetting that developers make the choice to work with them, and the only reason why they work with them is because gamers today demand everything is super shiny to hold there attention. Case in point the Alan Wake crap where people where hissing and screaming because magnification showed that everything wasn't 1080p i think?

Don't get me wrong, i'm not throwing that wet blanket on everyone. However three words that irk the shit out of me are "Fuck the man!" or "Fuck the Corporations!".

In my dads age people fought by rioting, pickit lines, and protesting facing physical harm for there beliefs.

In our age? A 16 year old who has never worked a day in there life downloads Avatar while raging on an internet forum about injustice they have never experienced from there cushy suburban home.

Christ our age is full of pussies...

Yeah, I see what you mean there. I mean, I have no problem with people criticizing things. Many of the political and social issues I comment on don't really have an effect on me, because my life is boring, but I try to keep that in perspective. And really, a lot of the criticism of corporations have merit in a way, pointing out the harm they have done. But that doesn't mean much if you don't strive to try to fix the problem. If we really want to fuck the corporation, we need to become independent on them. To quote some anarchist musician:

"If we can't live without dishwashers, how could we live without cops?"

I'm not an anarchist, but I must say, he has a point there. If you want to screw the corporations entirely, then don't rely on them. Do your own fucking dishes. If you want some of what businesses and corporations provide, then a compromise needs to be made, and we need to be active and take responsibility. We can point fingers all we want, but that's all we are doing, is blaming businesses for doing what they do: Making money. And if we don't like the way they are making money, then we need to communicate that message to them with our spending and voting. Right now, we really aren't. But I can understand why that's not happening as well, because corporations and businesses tend to be tricky little fuckers. It's a very complex situation.

My rage at the indie section is mostly at the people who keep screaming "If games were cheaper illegal file sharing(They say the P word but honestly that word is like acid in my mouth. I honestly can't bring myself to type it.) wouldn't exist!" While we both know this is bullshit you wouldn't believe how often people state that as fact. That the only reason illegal file sharing exists is because of prices, because of publishers, because of DRM. When all that was stripped away people still took it for free. Yet even with that people still stoically announce that those three things are the ONLY reason file sharing is around.

As well no, it's not wide spread. Both sides seem to love to exaggerate. The only reason i can say i side with the Anti Illegal file sharing side is because i hate undeserved entitlement a hundred times more then the weepy exaggerations from corporations.

So once again, sorry if i went off on you. I am starting to rant meanderingly so I'll spare you and any poor fool reading this.

I think prices, publishers, DRM and all the other stuff plays a big role in why people pirate, but like you said, that's not 100% of the case. There will always be people getting things free illegally in some way, and I don't really think that matters, because if the other reasons are solved, then I really don't think the remaining illegal downloading is going to be a big issue, I don't even think it already is hurting the industry that much, or at least not nearly as much as the industry says it is.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Another Pirate thread?

Free access to more media allows artists to rise, eh?

Stealing should be a basic human right?

Nope.

It's just selfish, greedy, the world revolves around only you type of ideals.

Get a job. Pay to play.

You claim you can't buy old games?

Name the game, I will give you a link since you are lazy.

But the universe does revolve about me. Why? Because for all I know, the universe won't exist anymore once I die. It's the same for every person that exists. For each of us, we are the most important person in our lives because without ourselves we wouldn't exist.

You are right, I am so sorry I posted that thread. Thank you for showing me the truth.

You and the OP are truly awesome.

Glad to help you out there. Philosophy win!

Actually, ironically enough, the correct term is "easy".

But the universe does revolve about me. Why? Because for all I know, the universe won't exist anymore once I die. It's the same for every person that exists. For each of us, we are the most important person in our lives because without ourselves we wouldn't exist.

uh master of magic for free?

What are you 3 on about ? quoting the troll who first answered.

I was opening his mind to the way of the universe!