Poll: Let's Discuss Piracy

[Flying-Emu]

As for the infinite copy thing; too fucking bad. If they decide that they want to give lines of 0's and 1's a price, and they coded those lines, you pay it, and you pay what they want. If you don't want to pay it, don't buy it. It's that simple. It's capitalism. Get used to it.

It's not theft.

Get used to it.

Actually, it is. Theft is defined as taking something that doesn't belong to you. Ergo, taking a game that you haven't paid for is theft.

but they're not taking it, they're copying it. There's a clear an appreciable difference between the two.

If you seriously believe that, then I have nothing to say to you.

that's great, then why the fuck did you bother to post?

Why the fuck are you trying to troll me after I told you that I have nothing to say to you? You believe that piracy isn't theft, which it is, which makes your opinion invalid in my eyes. Especially since your main argument is bullshit. Piracy is theft. Get over yourself.

 

[Flying-Emu]

Actually, No [http://www.cracked.com/article_18513_5-insane-file-sharing-panics-from-before-internet.html]

Am I saying that piracy will destroy the industry? No. Am I saying that I think it's wrong to pirate a game, song, or movie? Hell yes. I think you're getting me confused with some sort of DRM-Nazi.

 

[oranger]

You can click agree/disagree all you want, its still meaningless because the disc is now your property.
A nice example: you buy a house, and just before you go to enter the house after your name is on the deed, there's a contract taped to the keyhole. get it?
were you making an agreement with another human being, it would be binding.

 

[Seldon2639]

It's time to discuss piracy, ladies and gents.

The question of piracy (as a whole) is not a simple one to address, as different moral viewpoints (or even similar moral viewpoints) can end up at completely different conclusions to how to solve the problem of piracy and whether or not it IS a problem.

Let's address piracy as a crime:-

• [li]It doesn't count as theft, as there is no theft of a physical product. You are merely copying a product over.[/li]

• 
  
  Yes and no, for a given definition of "theft". Many would argue (and the law is unclear) about the theft of intellectual property. But, it's a distinction without a difference.
  

  [li]It is a breach of copyright law.[/li]

  Yes
  

  [li]Numerous bodies are attempting to place highly invasive anti-piracy laws into our day to day lives. Including, but not limited to, internet services being cut off without any advance warning or warrant required and hacking and constant monitoring of suspected PCs involved in piracy. Even for downloading a single illegal file. I think you could do that by accident.[/li]

Kitchen, heat, natch. If you don't want to be suspected to be a pirate, don't do things to draw attention to yourself. If it's an accident, you can talk to your ISP, you can be on the straight and narrow from that point forward, you can do a bunch of different things to keep things right.

The paranoia that these companies what to do something more untoward than stop illegal activities is of questionable validity.

Let's address what economists / consumers usually think of piracy:-

• [li]It's a natural part of consumer behaviour. It's a way to test the waters of a product. Attempting to shut it down doesn't do anything useful.[/li]

• 
  
  I'm curious whether any significant body of economists have weighed in on this, much less categorically defended it as a method of appraising new products. Given no major studies exist (to my knowledge) which show that DRM hurts sales (or that a lack of DRM boosts them), I find this claim questionable vis-a-vis economists writ large.
  

  [li]The vast majority of people who have access to the internet have done an act of piracy on the internet (something like 90% of teens had over 700 illegally downloaded songs on their portable music players). Making piracy an arrestable crime under law would mean a lot of people would be criminalised for it. See American prohibition, which created organised crime.[/li]

  Organized crime existed prior to prohibition. And, is a defense against keeping an activity illegal really saying "it makes more criminals"? We'll have fewer criminals if we decriminalize burglary, as well. Or Heroin.
  

  [li]More anti-piracy stuff = Fewer sales and more piracy. See Spore as an example of serious DRM getting the game into a piracy whirlwind.[/li]

  See The Humble Indie Bundle as an example of "this argument is bunk". People are pirating the HIB in huge numbers straight off the group's site, even when they only have to pay a penny to get it. They're literally not willing to pay a penny to the developers. This, despite there being no DRM, and it being a hell of a deal. This argument holds no water.
  

  [li]Wares are generally of a better quality than the product itself.[/li]

  For a given definition of quality. A lack of DRM does make them "better", but only in the sense that you're avoiding a bad thing you yourself created.
  

  [li]Consumers don't really consider it a crime, simply because it's not causing anyone any real harm.[/li]

Except the developers, the designers, the programmers, and (oh, yeah) the publishers and consumers. Piracy does a shit ton of people harm. The fact that they're outside your monkey sphere doesn't make it not "real".

Let's address what games publishers / most governments think of piracy:-

• [li]It is a crime, unquestionably. Equal to theft, and should be tried as such.[/li]
  [li]Piracy must be stamped out at all costs. Ignoring statistical evidence and claiming it funds child abuse and terrorism [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTH62P7fFJo] is for some reason necessary.[/li]

• 
  Wow... You're not even trying for fair representation of their arguments, are you?
  

  [li]All negative backlash against anti-piracy methods must be ignored, despite the fact they often lose sales because of it.[/li]

  See: Humble Indie Bundle. Pirates steal whether DRM is there or not. Gamers, by and large, seem corrupt, greedy, selfish, and all-in-all jackasses. Defending this by claiming that it's a fight against DRM is pure crap.
  

  [li]A person's privacy doesn't matter as long as long as they aren't using pirated software. The irony is, of course, that people using pirated software won't have their privacy invaded.[/li]

Out of curiosity, what are we defining as "privacy" here? Because as far as I know as part of the legal world, there's no privacy that exists either in public places, nor against private entities. We're using the property and provisions of ISPs to access the internet. There's no privacy there. There's no privacy if I go into your home and start telling you about my plans to kill the president, either. Privacy doesn't exist here, so please stop citing grand ideals which are simply false.

( Feel free to add to any of this, it isn't comprehensive, and it's probably pretty strawmen, but I think it sets the basis for the argument. )

If you understand you've made a hash of any kind of reasoned, neutral, discussion, why do you continue to try to argue it?

Here is where my opinion comes in. My reasons for disliking this anti-piracy trend is two-fold:-
[list type=decimal][li]Piracy is a natural way for a consumer to weed out the terrible products from the good ones. This scares the executives and publishers, as it means they can't make terrible products and make money from them.[/li]

Ehh... If the gamers eventually bought the game if they pirated it and liked it, I would agree with the "piracy as a demo" argument. But I've seen nothing which demonstrates that tendency to me (aside from anecdotes and stories, neither of which are sufficient to the claims)

[li]Piracy is being used as an excuse to invade our privacy. It's not about anti-pirate versus pirate (that battle is unwinnable for the anti-pirates and they know it since all current anti-piracy methods are useless against pirated software), it's about privacy versus surveillance. If pretty much any of the anti-piracy acts go through, people in that part of the world will be royally fucked. Both the companies and the governments are attacking our liberty under the pretence of defending us.[/li][/list]

AFAIK, there's no provision of any current anti-piracy statues (or proposed statutes) which would invade privacy where it exists as a right. It would invade privacy where it exists as "something we'd like" and even "something we falsely believe ourselves entitled to", but that's not quite the same thing. They're going to use the fact that there is no privacy in these areas to their ends. They're not invading privacy, there is no privacy to invade when it comes to this. Nothing short of actively hacking into an existing computer would be even close. Monitoring all outgoing and incoming internet communication is well within the rights of any ISP.

I suspect these are the ONLY two reasons (or, at least, the root reasons) why there's such an anti-piracy trend going on in the corporate and political world. Anything about it being a crime is an excuse for these two things. I can only assume this from the utterly retarded anti-piracy methods that've been made lately. And I can only assume those anti-piracy methods were made to force more people to start doing piracy in an attempt to inflate the problem to get these two goals done. I can think of no other reasons other than this and the DRM designers being utter morons.

Ehh... Conspiracy theories are fun, but not useful. Your claims are without backing. This is simple lunacy to believe that there is some grand attempts to remove your rights in the guise of limiting piracy.

So, think about it like this. Piracy is a natural consumer method (equal to getting a taster of a product at a shop, except the product can be made through Star Trek-esque production machines) to testing out a product. Companies and governments want to (for whatever reason, probably making more money and being authoritarian) be able to control and monitor your every move, as well as stopping you from being able to test a product before you buy it.

The analogy, as I have said before, doesn't work. We're not talking about someone testing or demoing a product with the permission of the developer; subsequently either deleting the program after a set number of days, or buying it full and clear. We're talking about them taking the full game without paying for it. They want to stop you from "testing" it, because as much as we "demo" these games, we never get around to the "you buy it" part. That's what is objectionable. If the majority of pirates eventually bought the games they demoed (even some of the games they demoed), this would be a different discussion.

People can claim that piracy is a crime, but I know which one of these I think is the bigger crime.

How about all of you?

I think that privacy doesn't exist when we're talking about information traveling over privately-owned and maintained lines, dwelling in private servers, or being accessed through private ISPs. The information of what information I send and retrieve is not private. Period.

I believe that theft is theft, and taking something without paying for it is taking something without paying for it. It's no different from stealing a game for a console from a store, and that's the simple reality. I believe that pirates (myself, oft included) do not eventually buy the games they "test", and rather disguise their greed and selfishness behind a facade of "protest against DRM" and "demoing". That's how I believe.

 

[Kagim]

You can click agree/disagree all you want, its still meaningless because the disc is now your property.
A nice example: you buy a house, and just before you go to enter the house after your name is on the deed, there's a contract taped to the keyhole. get it?
were you making an agreement with another human being, it would be binding.

Alright, i see what you mean. To avoid confusion on that point state that you have to accept BEFORE the purchase. Which you are of course right. But...

Regardless the point is moot due to not being able to create or possess reproductions of virtual products you do not physically own in Canada.

As well when it comes to music and movies the freedom of copyright only applies to people doing free performances and events. Reproductions in any other way shape or form still constitute copyright infringement. So unless you sing the song yourself and record it on a disk for yourself or re-make the film your still breaking the law.

 

[Gindil]

Actually, No [http://www.cracked.com/article_18513_5-insane-file-sharing-panics-from-before-internet.html]

Am I saying that piracy will destroy the industry? No. Am I saying that I think it's wrong to pirate a game, song, or movie? Hell yes. I think you're getting me confused with some sort of DRM-Nazi.

Haven't read the entire thread, but there's a few times that I would see someone "pirate" a game.

Piracy part of argument:
1) Price is too high - Happens in Europe a lot when the cost is ~$120 US and a person has to make a choice between food and entertainment

2) Old game not found in stores - Xenogears comes to mind in its older form as well as I'm STILL looking for Dragon Force to this day.

3) Long term experiment - This one's iffy. But who on the site could afford the $400 Photoshop? *looks around* Something like Photoshop is really overpriced IMO. Unless you happen to either live in the country you want to learn a language from or piracy, there's no accurate to see if RS is worth the asking price.

BUT, like Adobe learned long ago, even though people pirate their products, it doesn't necessarily mean a lost sale. As has been the case, the students or young people get accustomed to certain things then build licenses to various places to use the service. Link [http://www.devlounge.net/column/piracy-adobe%E2%80%99s-best-friend]

Theft part of argument
Saying piracy is theft is rather limiting. Nothing about the definition of either correspond since I'm not taking a physical copy away and it can still be sold. However people feel about the economics of it, that's an entirely different matter.

 

[oranger]

But I do physically own the "virtual product"...or the guy who gave me it does, and when he did, he game me a pattern of electrons that do a similar thing to the object that guy owns, and thus the chain of ownership is not broken.
Sorry about snapping.
As for the law, like the bible, its entirely possible for the it to be contradictory.
Oldest stuff takes precedence until rescinded, I believe.

 

[Kagim]

But I do physically own the "virtual product"...or the guy who gave me it does, and when he did, he game me a pattern of electrons that do a similar thing to the object that guy owns, and thus the chain of ownership is not broken.
Sorry about snapping.
As for the law, like the bible, its entirely possible for the it to be contradictory.
Oldest stuff takes precedence until rescinded, I believe.

If you physically own the game, movie, or music then yes your are not committing copyright infringement. As long as you purchase the product or receive the product legitimately then you can legally have a backed up copy of the product in question.

Now, in your example your taking the virtual form of the product in question. Now unless the person you copied it from destroyed all forms of the product after giving it to you, and only you, your committing copyright infringement. Both of you.

So unless the person you copied the game, movie, or song from only gave it to you and he immediately deleted and destroyed every form of it in his possession. Your committing a crime by Canadian law.

 

[Sikachu]

This topic will not end well. Let me just say that piracy, no matter how you see it, is stealing. I don't care how people try to sugar-coat it by claiming 'try before you buy' or other such bullshit, because you know full well it's stealing.

Whether this stops you doing it or not is another matter, but just don't try to call it something it's not. Admit, and accept that you're a thief who steals their games.

The base of 'stealing' is depriving someone of the enjoyment of their thing. Copying a game isn't denying anyone anything. Unjust enrichment? Certainly. Stealing? No.

Yeah yeah yeah sugar-coat it all you want. I don't know why you can't admit that you're STEALING the game from the developers. If you made things to be sold, and someone made a cheap digital copy and gave it away for free, would you be okay with that?

"Yeah yeah yeah sugar-coat it all you want" isn't an argument in favour of your position, and neither is the fact that if I was a developer I would have a massive problem with digital piracy. I didn't say it wasn't wrong, or even not unlawful, I just said it wasn't stealing. The same way it isn't murder or rape.

 

[Sikachu]

As for the infinite copy thing; too fucking bad. If they decide that they want to give lines of 0's and 1's a price, and they coded those lines, you pay it, and you pay what they want. If you don't want to pay it, don't buy it. It's that simple. It's capitalism. Get used to it.

It's not theft.

Get used to it.

Actually, it is. Theft is defined as taking something that doesn't belong to you. Ergo, taking a game that you haven't paid for is theft.

but they're not taking it, they're copying it. There's a clear an appreciable difference between the two.

If you seriously believe that, then I have nothing to say to you.

that's great, then why the fuck did you bother to post?

Why the fuck are you trying to troll me after I told you that I have nothing to say to you? You believe that piracy isn't theft, which it is, which makes your opinion invalid in my eyes. Especially since your main argument is bullshit. Piracy is theft. Get over yourself.

you have nothing to say to me yet you're still talking. And piracy isn't theft, it's copyright infringement. Is it still illegal? yes. Is it still immoral? yes. But it's NOT theft, and you declaring it as such is a false equivocation.

I find it funny that your post and my post ended up one above the other, both of us seemingly responding to people who insist that piracy=stealing without so much as a second thought about how they justify their position and whether it might be beneficial to put some of that justification into their posts.

 

[child of lileth]

I'll say the same thing i say in the other thousands of these threads over time. It's not something that should be allowed, but no one is going to stop it anyway, so who cares? One way or the other, people are going to keep doing it forever.

A few months ago, someone actually put a hidden virus in game downloads that can only be removed by contacting someone at the company that made the game. So they found a ton of pirates that way, until the news got out about it. The only way piracy would ever come close to stopping is if everything did that. And even then, it won't stop.

 

[Sikachu]

Piracy is theft, it's theft of intellectual property in the same way as scanning a book and posting it online is clearly theft. It's the same crime, just easier to commit with a dvd.

That doesn't sound much like theft to my ears. Maybe if I'd taken the book from a shop, or out of a library without permission, or from someone's house...

 

[Kagim]

you have nothing to say to me yet you're still talking. And piracy isn't theft, it's copyright infringement. Is it still illegal? yes. Is it still immoral? yes. But it's NOT theft, and you declaring it as such is a false equivocation.

I think the problem is...

Ultimately the act of Copyright is Theft of an intellectual property depending on who your asking or which dictionary you are reading. It is honestly the splitting of a hair. Theft and piracy are essentially the same type of crime but in a different form.

While theft is classified legally distinct from the copyright act both crimes are conceptually similar and terminology can be used in either way. Referring to Copyright Infringement as theft on a terminological level is grammatically acceptable. Unless we are in a court room together no chops should be busted.

Sort of like how Sexual assault is treated different then aggravated assault. They are, at there roots, inflicting physical harm on another, yet both are treated and punished different.

Both of you however need to take a deep breath. Drink a cold glass of water. And stop fighting over words.

 

[Gindil]

I only want to add a few points here, but the argument doesn't really hold up to real-world application.

Piracy is theft, it's theft of intellectual property in the same way as scanning a book and posting it online is clearly theft. It's the same crime, just easier to commit with a dvd.

Photoshop is designed for business use and isn't normally for sale for people who just want to dick about with it. There's also a number of free applications that do exactly the same job so there really is no justification to steal Photoshop, in the same way as there's no justification in stealing a CAT-scanner because you want one. It's a specialised tool that you only buy if you need it, businesses rarely need the latest software so the high price tag is literally hurting no one.

Anyone who has limited money and argues that there's a choice between food and entertainment is clearly either insane or living somewhere where basic food is provided. With so many free games available and on good deals if not there's no reason to steal it. I'd love a full set of Deathnote manga, the full run of FMA Brotherhood and Hellsing ultimate and I'd love Just Cause 2. I'm a student and can't afford it but I won't steal any of these things, though I'm sure I could. I won't steal them because t is wrong to steal. They're out of my price range but I don't need them and I have no right to them. A game can be sold for whatever the company wants, they still operate within the rules of capitalism and will try and make as much money as possible. One copy sold for £500 is worse than 12 sold for £50, which is worse than 30 sold for £25. They price the way they do because you're paying a premium for having it NOW.

Does anyone need the latest game the second it comes out? No? Didn't think so.

Finally, in the case of old/rare games I can see more of a legitimate lure. It's still wrong and more importantly you're depriving yourself of a fantastic joy. Xenogears on emulator is fun, but it's fucking worthless compared to when you find it in a bargain bin in some old indie gaming shop, the joy of snatching it up, taking it back and savouring the moment is half the fun to owning rare games.

I'm at odds on that one. There's been quite a number of musicians and concerts that I've gone to simply because of the music I've found on Youtube, Veoh, or Piratebay. I've come to enjoy a number of artists and become a fan of quite a few places of note. Keiko Matsui [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keiko_Matsui] comes to mind when she was in the Japan area. Granted, now she's on the west coast where I'm not, but I first heard of her through Napster.

And let's remember, I can go to a library, check out a book, retain the knowledge and return it. Basically, it's supposed "legal theft" and robbery, depriving a publisher funds as well as the writer. Sure the library pays a fee, but I don't.

GIMP is one of those alternatives. But coming from people using it, it's technically "Not Photoshop" but carrying the same features. In the end, this again blurs the line. Yes I can use it and carry over my knowledge of it to my next job. But again, it is something to deprive Adobe of a supposed sale to an individual consumer.

Yes, going into a Barnes and Noble and taking the physical copy is wrong. Not arguing that part. But if I can read manga online, or I decide to translate it myself and share it with other lovers of anime and manga, I doubt I'm going to destroy the industry in any way, shape or form. I find the argument against this sharing ironic in the anime industry. Oddly enough, it started when you had people sharing Dragonball, Ghost in the Shell, and Akira in the 80s with the Japanese creators having few if any intention of spreading it outside of their native country. Now look at it. Because of mass production, these fields have been able to influence the US and spread anime and manga like wildfire. Still love One Piece btw.

The high prices part is meant for Europeans who have to make those choices. It's why the used market is larger as well as claims of piracy. I usually refer people to the Brazilian [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_201/6059-A-Nation-of-Pirates] article here the claims of piracy and government interaction can make even a legal place go bad.

IMO, Napster did a lot to make filesharing larger, which I won't doubt. But it's also freed up this belief that we need to believe every corporate line that they know what's best for their industry. Napster was HUGE as the first example of being able to download. If it were that they charged a fee of no more than $10 for being able to download music. Oddly enough... [http://www.rhapsody.com/welcome.html] To try to mire the millions of people in this world with outdated practices is the main point of contention here. I'd love it if people gave a lot less stick and more carrot. You have the copyrights? Fine. Figure out a way to make money that includes the technology. Otherwise, I go elsewhere. (consumer talking)

Latest games? Sadly, I believe this generation of gamers and people have a really bad sense of entitlement. I was truly disappointed in what happened to the Humble Indie Bundle [http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/05/Saving-a-penny----pirating-the-Humble-Indie-Bundle]. But what can I do?

I paid what I could and I'm definitely going to look at them for more games and donations whenever I can.
--------------------------------------------------------

TL;DR
In the end, I can't stop piracy. It's not going away. Feeling that it's morally reprehensible isn't going to change the opinions of the thousands that visit sites for almost anything that is copyrighted materials. Perhaps, the best remedy is to use it until the industries at large figure out that the best thing is to do as Wolfire did: Focus on making your product better and turning a profit without a cockamamie scheme.

 

[Sikachu]

Piracy is theft, it's theft of intellectual property in the same way as scanning a book and posting it online is clearly theft. It's the same crime, just easier to commit with a dvd.

That doesn't sound much like theft to my ears. Maybe if I'd taken the book from a shop, or out of a library without permission, or from someone's house...

But it is theft. Basically you own the physical copy of a book but the author owns the ideas and the particular arrangement of words within. You can sell your copy of the book, burn it, hey you can even take a shit on it. But you can't give away or sell new copies of the idea within. It's theft because if it wasn't no one would devote their time to writing anything new. The idea can only be replicated by the people authorised to do so, if you replicate the content without permission you are stealing their idea and distributing it to people without their permission.

it's important to understand the difference between the book and the writing. The book can be physically stolen or owned, but the writing isn't ever yours.

See, I think that you're missing out on defining 'theft' there. I agree that the author has rights over the text regarding distribution and profits (i.e. you aren't allowed to make copies and distribute them) but I fail to see how this possibly fits into the definition of theft, which in England is defined thus:

A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it

I recognise that by copying and redistributing the information (text, music, whatever) you are dishonestly depriving the copyright owner of the opportunity to profit from selling it, but you really aren't appropriating any of their property. I do think there is certainly a crime in selling pirate copies of things, and also in downloading them where they are freely shared, the crimes being copyright infringement and unjust enrichment, but I don't think it is really analogous to 'theft' in any traditional sense.

"It's theft because if it wasn't no one would devote their time to writing anything new."
^ is, in my opinion, wrong because there are other crimes that regulate the type of behaviour you're calling theft, that do the job that you want theft to do in this area. I certainly don't think that the definition of 'theft' needs to be stretched to include software piracy to fulfil the goal of criminalising pirates when we can use other, better suited laws.

 

[Kagim]

And let's remember, I can go to a library, check out a book, retain the knowledge and return it. Basically, it's supposed "legal theft" and robbery, depriving a publisher funds as well as the writer. Sure the library pays a fee, but I don't.

If your a legal resident and a tax payer you do. Part of your taxes goes to fund libraries. That's why libraries don't charge you for renting books. Its your right as a tax payer.

GIMP is one of those alternatives. But coming from people using it, it's technically "Not Photoshop" but carrying the same features. In the end, this again blurs the line. Yes I can use it and carry over my knowledge of it to my next job. But again, it is something to deprive Adobe of a supposed sale to an individual consumer.

Legally if you reproduce ANYTHING from scratch and use or distribute it for free its not a crime. If you were to say program your own Dead Space from the ground up your haven't committed a crime unless you sell it or use code you directly referenced from the game. This isn't blurring a line. Its a fact of law. Otherwise i could be sued by Jynx(a furniture outlet) for that wicker chair i made with my dad as a kid.

Yes, going into a Barnes and Noble and taking the physical copy is wrong. Not arguing that part. But if I can read manga online, or I decide to translate it myself and share it with other lovers of anime and manga, I doubt I'm going to destroy the industry in any way, shape or form. I find the argument against this sharing ironic in the anime industry. Oddly enough, it started when you had people sharing Dragonball, Ghost in the Shell, and Akira in the 80s with the Japanese creators having few if any intention of spreading it outside of their native country. Now look at it. Because of mass production, these fields have been able to influence the US and spread anime and manga like wildfire. Still love One Piece btw.

Concerning anime and managa thirty years ago you might have a point. Today though your shit out of luck. Anime and Managa is readily available in Canada and the USA. Since this is the current condition what your doing is wrong. The deeds of the past do not validate the deeds of the present.

The high prices part is meant for Europeans who have to make those choices. It's why the used market is larger as well as claims of piracy. I usually refer people to the Brazilian [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_201/6059-A-Nation-of-Pirates] article here the claims of piracy and government interaction can make even a legal place go bad.

IMO, Napster did a lot to make filesharing larger, which I won't doubt. But it's also freed up this belief that we need to believe every corporate line that they know what's best for their industry. Napster was HUGE as the first example of being able to download. If it were that they charged a fee of no more than $10 for being able to download music. Oddly enough... [http://www.rhapsody.com/welcome.html] To try to mire the millions of people in this world with outdated practices is the main point of contention here. I'd love it if people gave a lot less stick and more carrot. You have the copyrights? Fine. Figure out a way to make money that includes the technology. Otherwise, I go elsewhere. (consumer talking)

Latest games? Sadly, I believe this generation of gamers and people have a really bad sense of entitlement. I was truly disappointed in what happened to the Humble Indie Bundle [http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/05/Saving-a-penny----pirating-the-Humble-Indie-Bundle]. But what can I do?

I paid what I could and I'm definitely going to look at them for more games and donations whenever I can.
--------------------------------------------------------

TL;DR
In the end, I can't stop piracy. It's not going away. Feeling that it's morally reprehensible isn't going to change the opinions of the thousands that visit sites for almost anything that is copyrighted materials. Perhaps, the best remedy is to use it until the industries at large figure out that the best thing is to do as Wolfire did: Focus on making your product better and turning a profit without a cockamamie scheme.

Nothing to really comment on the rest.