Piracy staying legal in Switzerland - "Pirates still contribute"

Recommended Videos

Luke5515

New member
Aug 25, 2008
1,197
0
0
I try to say this, but every time I say that piracy might not be the anti-Christ on these forums, someone has a ***** fit.
Pirates aren't some lawless people who pirate just to stick it to the system. They enjoy music and games too, and if they like a game or album and want to support the studio or band, they'l go bye it.
It's also great for listening to something new that you're not sure if you want to put in for the whole cd if you end up hating it.

Maybe I should move to Switzerland.
 

The_Blue_Rider

New member
Sep 4, 2009
2,190
0
0
What I dont get is, If you have enough money to buy a computer powerful enough to run these games(or a console) and enough money to pay for the bandwith to download these games, how the fuck do you not have enough money to buy the games?
On another train of thought, saying that its alright to pirate a game because you werent going to buy it anyone is one of the stupidest excuses i've ever heard, if you spend time to download and play it, then you have interest in it, and therefor theres no reason to buy it.
 

Redweaver

New member
Apr 1, 2009
96
0
0
Aris Khandr said:
Maleval said:
Why do people keep calling piracy "stealing"? It's stupid really.
Last time I checked, taking something without paying for it IS stealing. Any nonsense about how you "didn't take a physical thing" and "data is infinitely copyable" is just justifying it to yourself, and a thin justification as that. Taking something without paying for it is stealing.
I take multiple breaths every day and have never paid a penny for them. Who am I stealing from? Your definition is flawed.
 

Rude as HECK

New member
Feb 24, 2011
222
0
0
Ah, the "stealing" card. Always fallacious. Never in the history of anything has "taking something without paying" been the definition of stealing.

The problem is, sometimes people want to apply a normative definition of stealing rather than a legal one. But they do so in the context of a necessarily legal argument.
 

Redweaver

New member
Apr 1, 2009
96
0
0
Luke5515 said:
I try to say this, but every time I say that piracy might not be the anti-Christ on these forums, someone has a ***** fit.
Pirates aren't some lawless people who pirate just to stick it to the system. They enjoy music and games too, and if they like a game or album and want to support the studio or band, they'l go bye it.
It's also great for listening to something new that you're not sure if you want to put in for the whole cd if you end up hating it.

Maybe I should move to Switzerland.
Much like the conservative delusion of the "welfare queen", then entire argument agaist the massive population of pirates who don't ever pay a penny to the entertainment industry is beyond re-donk-u-lous.

These people don't exsist, yet the industry and thier anti-pirate supporters make all their actions and decisions focusing on this huge group of people...who aren't real.
 

Shrike Malakim

New member
Oct 29, 2009
2
0
0
Darkmantle said:
MelasZepheos said:
The facts do not reflect this viewpoint.

Since downloading became a thing, legitimate sales of music have dropped by half

http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news/companies/napster_music_industry/

and PC game sales crashed at exactly the same time.

http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/PC_gaming

... (snipped for brevity)

I'm personally hoping for another 1983 crash caused entirely by piracy.
maybe I'm missing something, but those websites don't entirely back up your argument.

http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/PC_gaming
"It's important to keep in mind, however, that this NPD data concerns retail data only and does not include sales of digitally downloaded games, micro-transactions, online subscriptions
"
(Some irrelevant nesting removed due to quote tags failing)

And even better than that. From his own link, http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/PC_gaming :
"Nonetheless, in 2005 consumers spent $1.4 billion on video games for PCs in 2005," ... "The worldwide PC-based game market is worth as much as $10.7 billion as of 2008."

While music sales may have tanked since downloading started, that's in large part because of the actions and blindness of the recording industry alienating their customers. If the RIAA shows no respect for fans of music, why would those fans give them money?

At the same time, PC sales never "tanked" like most DRM-advocate idiots and execs claim, they've in fact increased significantly. Retail PC sales have dropped because of the advent of digital distribution.

Moral of the story: Never trust the word of someone trying to sell you something (increased DRM for PC games because of "loss of sales").


PC sales have increased.
 

Heaven's Guardian

New member
Oct 22, 2011
117
0
0
Therumancer said:
Heaven said:
Push the issue with the military? Against Switzerland? You cannot possibly be serious.

1. Switzerland quickly proceeds to freeze all US assets in its banks, shattering the American economy.

2. The entire international community unites against the US, destroying the last hundred years of economic and military power the country has developed.

3. A male population entirely trained with the use of assault rifles obliterates anything less than a full strength ground invasion, so you've killed off hundreds of thousands of American soldiers.

4. If that were to even happen, because any government stupid enough to launch that attack would face a military insurrection and a coup.

The military is a very limited tool, that is only useful to prevent active threats to a country's security. I'm not sure if you're trolling here, but you need to realize that A) America is not the overlord of the world, and B) NOBODY is the boss of Switzerland. Ever.
That's comedy gold.

Understand something, economics are meaningless to war, always have been, and always will be. Indeed obtaining money for a nation in trouble or that owes a lot of debt is one of the classic reasons for a war, after all if you kill the people that you owe money to, or take direct control of their assets, it solves a lot of problems.

I mean, I understand why liberals and the peace at any price movement have convinced themselves of this, but it's not true, and never has been.

Given the reasons for it, there would hardly be any kind of unification behind Switzerland if such a thing did happen, once the lines were drawn you'd probably find a lot of people wanting a piece out of making an example out of them, in hopes that it trickles down to nations like China and other countries that actually represent a threat.

Also do not confuse a real war with the crap you see in Iraq or Afghanistan, that's a police action run by morons. The entire principle of the US military is based on technology and to eradicate entire nations and cultures without even giving them a chance to fight back. We went in there with assault rifles for moral reasons (despite what anyone wants to think) and pretty much fought contrary to the entire development of our technology and engagement doctrine. The US military is designed to simply inflict devestation and use troops for little more than clean up, Even without WMD we have bombs and missles that can wipe out entire towns and cities more or less instantly. We just choose not to use them (despite all peacetime hype) because of collateral damage, which is one of the reasons so few people take the US seriously even if they understand the power we represent. Basically you can seriously hamstring the US by QQing where you can't defeat it militarily.

If the US comes for you, and REALLY means it, unless you happen to be China your pretty much doomed. Even if the entire world came at the US, it wouldn't work. We have something like a 20% chance of being able to simultaneously defeat/kill everyone else on the planet and remain something resembling the nation we are now after the enviromental fallout. The odds of the rest of the world are 0%, the US has the firepower to destroy the world 10x over without batting an eye.

A "war" between the US and Switzerland would probably amount to the US actually putting it's foot down for once and saying "we've decided you will do this, no diplomacy, do it or we'll make you regret it" followed by Switzerland laughing it off because the US usually backs down. This would be followed by guided missles simultaneously blowing through swiss air defenses like they aren't there and taking out every swiss leader not currently hiding in a bunker, and a few large bombs reducing a major city or three to rubble... after which the interim goverment would concede to whatever we demanded. There would of course be a lot of QQing both in the US and from the international community, but oddly a lot of those doing the QQing would also be overjoyed at the example we made and covertly start pointing thumbs at it when it comes to questions of IP rights.

See, right now it's hip to treat the US like it's not the dominant world power, or is in trouble for any reason other than we have allowed it to be for moral reasons. Barring a world unity, we will probably eventually be replaced due to our own choices, or someone else developing something we can't stop that is a game changer, but that's not today, and probably not tomorrow, or even next year... and right now is when we're being dealt with. Never, ever forget that most of what happens occurs because of what the US chooses to do, not due to us being forced to or having limited options. We choose not to invade and level countries, even against our own interests, not because we can't, or anyone could stop us, or because the world would "unify against us" (which is a big joke, some countries might, but a lot wouldn't care what we were doing but jump on our coattails for their own interests and because they would want to back the likely winner for their own benefit...)

Of course the funniest thing is that I was speaking in generalities which should have been obvious. But really, the swiss are a country whose survival strategy has been to declare neutrality to limit how badly they get steamrolled, and it's hilarious for people to act like they are a military power that would have everyone running to their aid. Honestly given how many people they have pissed off with their banking practices and how a lot of the politics have played out I think there are plenty of nations who would be cheering to see them decimated for any reason. Global "dirty finance" (the Swiss specialty) has been moving increasingly to places like The Caiman islands due to the Swiss pissing people off and already having guns put to their head to force reforms that made them far less attractive
to their clientele of choice. Heck, due to their handling of finances for terrorists and such under the pretensions of neutrality people have argued (beyond the context of this arguement) that they could be considered complicit in a lot of the worst crimes of the last few centuries through knowingly enabling these groups.

Don't worry however, I don't think the US will go in and slap the Swiss around over this policy. We generally don't do things like that despite the rumors. Besides it would never come to an actual war of the level I mention if we decided to. We'd probably just have to make a few subtle displays that we were actually serious for once and willing to go to
that point and the Swiss would back down despite what a lot of people might want to think.
Of course we won't for moral reasons, not because we can't. In general the big left wing arguement prevails that by doing that kind of thing we'd actually become the empire everyone treats us as. While I personally don't care if we are or not, the nation is polarized on issues like that.
Well, your first error was assuming that anything in my post had to do with liberalism, as I am most definitely one of the most conservative posters on the Escapist. You can't refute arguments by attacking an ideology, which appears to have been your primary goal here. Quite frankly, I'm embarrassed that someone like you could ever be on my side of the divide.

Next. Do you honestly believe that the world's interests would not involve immediate retaliation against the United States for such an action? Any military strike, whether by ground or air, against a country that is not an imminent threat immediately signals to the rest of the world that America is run by nutjobs who could attack at the slightest provocation. China and Russia would absolutely look out for their own interests; their interests would be in ensuring that they, their allies and neutral countries don't get destroyed because Americans decide to launch an attack. America is so dependent on Chinese financing that all they would have to do is refuse to purchase bonds and recall debt. They don't even have to attack militarily; there would be riots in the streets. Hundreds of millions of people, overnight, realize that the United States has no money and can't pay salaries or benefits. The economy collapses leading to a bank rush and a spiral of devastation.

And it's not as if Switzerland would ever back down on such a blatant invasion of their sovereignty. Remember that this is the country that pretty much blew off German threats in WWI and WWII, because for the Swiss, independence is of the utmost importance. The "no, really, we're serious this time" threat gets blown off without a second thought, and we're back to the American destruction again.

Face it; America is only a truly dominant superpower in one area: naval force. If you think that America only restrains itself for moral reasons, you have deluded yourself. The American government is nowhere near all-powerful, and is at all times dependent on the people accepting its authority. Even the most vociferous anti-piracy crusaders would first assassinate the entire government than allow it to knowingly destroy the entire American economy over such a trivial reason. Like I said before, the only way America ever launches genuine assault on a country is if the country itself is on the precipice of destruction. And if you believe for a second that there are actually people out there who would cheer the destruction of a country over some admittedly shady dealings, you need to be committed.
 

LiquidSolstice

New member
Dec 25, 2009
378
0
0
jedizero said:
Exaggeration or not, its still a strawman argument, therefore the entire argument is flawed. It is not an intelligent discourse, its simply trying to imply that 'Rape' and 'Piracy' are on the same level, somehow.
No, it's not trying to imply that at all. Maybe you want to think it is so that you can toss around the word "strawman", but it's not. It's implying the ridiculousness of "If you can't beat it, adapt to it", at least the way it's used in the phrase I quoted.

The thing is, you truly *can't* fight piracy. Its going to happen, whether you like it or not. You can come down as hard as you can on people, but its not. going. to. stop. Do I personally agree with piracy? No.
And no one cares whether or not you think it can be stopped. As long as there is piracy, there will be DRM and stuff that you don't like about the industry.

Am I going to throw money and time away trying to combat it when all its going to do is waste everyone's time, and ruin the lives of people like that mother of three who downloaded 10 songs and got sued to the point of bankruptcy? No, I am not. Because that is stupid. Ridiculous.
Yes, I'm sure you would do nothing were it your product on the line. One that you had invested tons and tons of money and time. Then again, I doubt most people who ***** and whine about DRM/copyright have actually produced their own content. (This is the part where you bring up Radiohead or the Humble Indie Bundle to try and prove some sort of point of success).

Your best bet to deal with piracy? Its just like what the Extra Credits guy said. Give better services.
You see, a lot of people don't seem to get the cycle.

Piracy causes DRM.
DRM causes more piracy.

But then, we need to stop and wonder where the issue began. Did we have any of this BEFORE piracy took off? No, we didn't.

But it's so much easier to blame every single company in the industry anytime THEY do anything to protect their investment.

Pathetic.
 

jedizero

New member
Feb 26, 2009
221
0
0
LiquidSolstice said:
No, it's not trying to imply that at all. Maybe you want to think it is so that you can toss around the word "strawman", but it's not. It's implying the ridiculousness of "If you can't beat it, adapt to it", at least the way it's used in the phrase I quoted.
Shall we look at this again?

LiquidSolstice said:
So if an army of rapists came to your country and overwhelmed the population, you'd work around them, right? That's basically what you're saying.
You are stating that we should have the same reaction to rapists, as we do to pirates. This is like saying 'We react to murder with the death penalty, so we should give litterers the death penalty too'. Which is dumb.


LiquidSolstice said:
Yeah, it's an exaggeration, but no, just because there's many pirates out there doesn't mean you have to succumb and adapt to it.
'Yeah, it's an exaggeration.' No, it is not. It is a strawman argument, through and through. And you should be ashamed of using a strawman argument.

LiquidSolstice said:
And no one cares whether or not you think it can be stopped. As long as there is piracy, there will be DRM and stuff that you don't like about the industry.
Well you certainly seem to care, otherwise you wouldn't be busy trying to find a way to insult me, when I believed we were having a discussion. And if nobody cares what I think, why should anybody care what *you* think?

LiquidSolstice said:
Yes, I'm sure you would do nothing were it your product on the line. One that you had invested tons and tons of money and time. Then again, I doubt most people who ***** and whine about DRM/copyright have actually produced their own content. (This is the part where you bring up Radiohead or the Humble Indie Bundle to try and prove some sort of point of success).
I'm sure I'd be annoyed, but I'd also tell myself "I might as well rage at the heavens about an accidental fire, for all the good it will do." I might ask people to please stop pirating my game, but ultimately there's jack shit I can do about it. Any 'unbeatable' DRM is just lying, or hasn't been made public long enough. And if you're going to make such good points against yourself, why are you even arguing against this, on the HIB?

LiquidSolstice said:
You see, a lot of people don't seem to get the cycle.

Piracy causes DRM.
DRM causes more piracy.

But then, we need to stop and wonder where the issue began. Did we have any of this BEFORE piracy took off? No, we didn't.

But it's so much easier to blame every single company in the industry anytime THEY do anything to protect their investment.
Yes. Yes we did. And in fact if the companies had their way, we wouldn't be able to own just about any medium that didn't come straight from a factory. VCRs? The movie companies had a bitchfit. "WHY BUY OUR MOVIES? THEY JUST RECORD THEM!"

The music companies had a bitchfit over tape recordings "WHY BUY OUR MUSIC IF THEY CAN JUST HEAR IT ON THE RADIO AND RECORD IT?"

Radio waves are sent out for free. People listen to the music on it, and can even record it. Are these 'pirated'?

Movies on the TV are sent out for free (unless on cable or something.), and we can record them. Are these pirated?

We didn't pay for them. And yet now we have a copy of our own. How about that.

LiquidSolstice said:
Pathetic.
*toggles on childhood playground comeback mode*
"I know you are, but what am I?"
*toggles off childhood playground comeback mode*
 

LiquidSolstice

New member
Dec 25, 2009
378
0
0
jedizero said:
You are stating that we should have the same reaction to rapists, as we do to pirates. This is like saying 'We react to murder with the death penalty, so we should give litterers the death penalty too'. Which is dumb.
No, although you're infernally convinced that you know what I'm saying, you really don't. The fact of the matter is that the moment you let the opposition control your moves, you've failed as a player of the game.

'Yeah, it's an exaggeration.' No, it is not. It is a strawman argument, through and through. And you should be ashamed of using a strawman argument.
Yes, it's a bloody exaggeration. If I didn't think it was anything but an exaggeration, I wouldn't have said it. Your really love the word "strawman", don't you? I didn't change his original point and attack that instead. I'm saying exactly what I said above, it is retarded to allow your opposition to control your moves.

Well you certainly seem to care, otherwise you wouldn't be busy trying to find a way to insult me, when I believed we were having a discussion. And if nobody cares what I think, why should anybody care what *you* think?
And yet again (you seem to enjoy this), you're taking what I said out of context.I didn't say I cared, and I didn't say you cared, I said no one in the industry cares what you as an individual thinks about piracy and whether it can be stopped. You are not part of their equation, ergo what you think about it has no weight on their efforts. They will not stop adding in DRM to their products just because you think they should not be.

Try to keep up with me, will you? You seem to keep deciding you know what I'm saying, it's getting a bit boring.


I'm sure I'd be annoyed, but I'd also tell myself "I might as well rage at the heavens about an accidental fire, for all the good it will do." I might ask people to please stop pirating my game, but ultimately there's jack shit I can do about it. Any 'unbeatable' DRM is just lying, or hasn't been made public long enough. And if you're going to make such good points against yourself, why are you even arguing against this, on the HIB?
I sincerely doubt your reaction would be so complacent. DRM is doing something about piracy. Whether or not it's the proper move, whether or not it's effective, whether or not you think it's right or wrong, the point is that it is a move, and it's a move they're making as a result of piracy.

Yes. Yes we did. And in fact if the companies had their way, we wouldn't be able to own just about any medium that didn't come straight from a factory. VCRs? The movie companies had a bitchfit. "WHY BUY OUR MOVIES? THEY JUST RECORD THEM!"

The music companies had a bitchfit over tape recordings "WHY BUY OUR MUSIC IF THEY CAN JUST HEAR IT ON THE RADIO AND RECORD IT?"

Radio waves are sent out for free. People listen to the music on it, and can even record it. Are these 'pirated'?

Movies on the TV are sent out for free (unless on cable or something.), and we can record them. Are these pirated?

We didn't pay for them. And yet now we have a copy of our own. How about that.
I'm so glad you brought up that retarded arguement, which pirates often use in their trademarked Pirate Defense Mechanisms? (PDM for short).

Because doing any of those is the same as circumventing a game's protection system. Last I checked, games are never "publicly broadcasted", now are they? Try again, that was just sad.

*toggles on childhood playground comeback mode*
"I know you are, but what am I?"
*toggles off childhood playground comeback mode*
While you're at the playground, why not try going back into the classroom and improve your reading skills? You seem to be lacking in that area.
 

jedizero

New member
Feb 26, 2009
221
0
0
LiquidSolstice said:
No, although you're infernally convinced that you know what I'm saying, you really don't. The fact of the matter is that the moment you let the opposition control your moves, you've failed as a player of the game.
And we come to the problem of the discussion. You view anyone 'pirating' as the opposition. Thing is, they aren't the 'opposition', I'm not the 'opposition', I'm a person. Living and breathing. Just like you. I have wants, I have dreams. I have faults, I have vices. Just like you. I an not your opposition, I am just here to discuss and debate. You however seem to be here to insult and belittle.

LiquidSolstice said:
Yes, it's a bloody exaggeration. If I didn't think it was anything but an exaggeration, I wouldn't have said it. Your really love the word "strawman", don't you? I didn't change his original point and attack that instead. I'm saying exactly what I said above, it is retarded to allow your opposition to control your moves.
Those who cannot adapt are doomed. Mother Nature has 'opposition', and animals have to adapt to it. And again, to go so far as to deem other people solely as 'the opposition' is just wrong. Can you honestly read this article

http://www.slashgear.com/riaa-wins-first-lawsuit-against-file-sharing-mother-057808/

And tell me 'the ***** deserved it'?



LiquidSolstice said:
And yet again (you seem to enjoy this), you're taking what I said out of context.I didn't say I cared, and I didn't say you cared, I said no one in the industry cares what you as an individual thinks about piracy and whether it can be stopped. You are not part of their equation, ergo what you think about it has no weight on their efforts. They will not stop adding in DRM to their products just because you think they should not be.
I *AM* part of their equation. I am a consumer, as are you, as is everyone else. Where my money goes, they follow. My one little contribution to their overhead may be small, but it *is* a contribution that goes where I intend for it to go. We are all part of their equation.

LiquidSolstice said:
I sincerely doubt your reaction would be so complacent. DRM is doing something about piracy. Whether or not it's the proper move, whether or not it's effective, whether or not you think it's right or wrong, the point is that it is a move, and it's a move they're making as a result of piracy.
Do you know what DRM is doing? Its making it take about a week for people to be able to crack their game. It is useless, it is a waste of time and money, and it just pisses legal consumers off. I wanted to play GTA4. I got it off of steam. But now only do I have to connect to GTA's dumbass 'social' system, I also have to connect to Windows Live, which is failure in programmed form.

LiquidSolstice said:
I'm so glad you brought up that retarded arguement, which pirates often use in their trademarked Pirate Defense Mechanisms? (PDM for short).

Because doing any of those is the same as circumventing a game's protection system. Last I checked, games are never "publicly broadcasted", now are they? Try again, that was just sad.
http://www.cracked.com/article_18513_5-insane-file-sharing-panics-from-before-internet.html

please read. Thank you.

As a hint as to what it says:
The counterpoint to this alarmism, that sharing music on cassettes was a good way to gain exposure for up-and-coming acts and would increase sales (sound familiar?) was dismissed as the mere attempt by criminals to justify their crimes.


Oh, and at one point when video games were held on tape cassettes, there were actually a few games 'broadcast', where you'd record the signals sent to the tape via radio, and it'd let you play a video game.

LiquidSolstice said:
While you're at the playground, why not try going back into the classroom and improve your reading skills? You seem to be lacking in that area.
Only if you'll go back and listen to your Mom and hear her 'Be nice with the other kids' speech again.
 

LiquidSolstice

New member
Dec 25, 2009
378
0
0
jedizero said:
And we come to the problem of the discussion. You view anyone 'pirating' as the opposition. Thing is, they aren't the 'opposition', I'm not the 'opposition', I'm a person. Living and breathing. Just like you. I have wants, I have dreams. I have faults, I have vices. Just like you. I an not your opposition, I am just here to discuss and debate. You however seem to be here to insult and belittle.
Don't try and inflate this specific discussion. This is about media companies versus pirates, ergo, the pirates are the opposition to the media companies. I never said you were part of the opposition, maybe you should double check how I used the word "you", because you somehow seem to think I keep referring to you


Those who cannot adapt are doomed. Mother Nature has 'opposition', and animals have to adapt to it. And again, to go so far as to deem other people solely as 'the opposition' is just wrong. Can you honestly read this article

http://www.slashgear.com/riaa-wins-first-lawsuit-against-file-sharing-mother-057808/

And tell me 'the ***** deserved it'?
I don't feel bad for that woman at all. I really don't. It's pretty fucking obvious that article is trying to gloss over a few details, when it's obviously talking about Limewire, especially when they say "which can be used for completely legal purposes". Yes, in the same way that torrents can be used for compeltely legal purposes. That's why we all use Bittorrent. To download Linux ISOs and nothing else. I have no doubt in my mind she knew damn well what Limewire was for and what it is used for. Everyone just wants to trump up the fact the RIAA got her on the sharing aspect instead of thinking about why she had the software in the first place.

I *AM* part of their equation. I am a consumer, as are you, as is everyone else. Where my money goes, they follow. My one little contribution to their overhead may be small, but it *is* a contribution that goes where I intend for it to go. We are all part of their equation.
Strange, I don't remember using the word "money" anywhere in that part of my post. But then again, we've already established that A) you can't/don't want to read what I write or B) you like to decide what I'm "really" saying instead of what I've actually said.


Do you know what DRM is doing? Its making it take about a week for people to be able to crack their game.
And that's a week longer that the game can't be pirated, vs a week that it could be. That would be how the publishers and developers see it.

It is useless, it is a waste of time and money, and it just pisses legal consumers off.
It's not useless, it's not a waste of time or money (because you're not spending any money specifically on funding their DRM), and it doesn't piss off legal consumers because legal consumers will purchase the game, activate it, and play it. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Yes, there are certain annoying DRM mechanisms, but the only reason you think they are a big deal is because the media outlets blow any story that paints DRM as bad completely out of proportion. I have no doubt in my mind the percentage of people that don't have technical issues with DRM is much, much greater than the "apparently huge" population of gamers that take issue with it.

I wanted to play GTA4. I got it off of steam. But now only do I have to connect to GTA's dumbass 'social' system, I also have to connect to Windows Live, which is failure in programmed form.
Oh no. You have to make another online account (if you don't already have one). We must tell the king. How incredibly inconvenient (not to mention has fuckall to do with DRM).


http://www.cracked.com/article_18513_5-insane-file-sharing-panics-from-before-internet.html

please read. Thank you.
Ahhhh. So this is where you get your "factual information" from. It's all so clear to me now. Actually, what isn't clear is where in any of that satirical editorial it says anything about video games. Oh wait, we've established you can't/don't want to fully read much, and now it seems that extends to your own "source" links. Come on, try and stay fixed on what topic at a time now? We were talking about how video games are not publicly broadcasted, ergo, the only way to obtain them without paying a penny is to pirate them. (Renting doesn't count as it involves money, however small and relative it may be)


As a hint as to what it says:
The counterpoint to this alarmism, that sharing music on cassettes was a good way to gain exposure for up-and-coming acts and would increase sales (sound familiar?) was dismissed as the mere attempt by criminals to justify their crimes.
...ok? "Exposure" is one of the biggest scapegoats of piracy. Along with "they've made plenty of money" and "I can't afford it, it should be free, ergo I'm going to get it for free".

Oh, and at one point when video games were held on tape cassettes, there were actually a few games 'broadcast', where you'd record the signals sent to the tape via radio, and it'd let you play a video game.
Your proof for your statements is really impressive! Oh, wait.....unless you want to cite another article from Cracked again? I have to thank you for showing me that site again. They give us equally informative and factual journalism that is worth of the New York Times, such as this incredible article: http://www.cracked.com/article_15070_the-10-best-animated-movies-traumatizing-kids.html

By the way, even if your ridiculous example was true (I'm not even compelled to Google it seeing as you couldn't be bothered to yourself), it holds absolutely no water whatsoever for today's games. (Unless you're telling me I can play Battlefield 3 using nothing but an FM radio?)

LiquidSolstice said:
Only if you'll go back and listen to your Mom and hear her 'Be nice with the other kids' speech again.
No, my parents taught me not to bother helping people that won't even help themselves.

You know what's hilarious about all of this? I'm not a steadfast honest consumer. I have and still do occasionally pirate. I don't feel happy for it, I don't feel pride about it, and I don't think it's right.

But you know what I'll never try and do? I'll never justify it. I'll never claim it's in protest of DRM. I'll never say that the greedy media companies deserve to not be paid. I'll never say that I'm entitled to it. I'll never say "they make plenty of money".

I will say the truth: I can't/don't want to pay for it. Ergo, I shall be a cheap bastard. Trying to justify it any further would be the same as punching someone in the face and then telling them you only did it because there was a bug on their face and you didn't want it to hurt them.

At the end of the day, that's all there really is to it. Convincing yourself there is any other reason people pirate is just naive and stretching the truth.

This has been fun, but it's getting boring.
 

jedizero

New member
Feb 26, 2009
221
0
0
LiquidSolstice said:
But you know what I'll never try and do? I'll never justify it. I'll never claim it's in protest of DRM. I'll never say that the greedy media companies deserve to not be paid. I'll never say that I'm entitled to it. I'll never say "they make plenty of money".
*blink*

I honestly agree with you there. If you like the game enough to want to pirate it, you should like it enough to pay for the game.

I am not trying to say piracy justified, I am trying to say its not as bad as everyone says it is.

I pointed out what I thought was a logical fallacy (We treat X like this, so we should treat Y like this too.) That's it.

I guess I did misread your messages then, I apologize.
 

Rude as HECK

New member
Feb 24, 2011
222
0
0
So uh. It's 6 pages in. No one has cited any form of evidence of the harm this policy has so far inflicted.