Should I buy a DS?

[Monodi]

I love the Nintendo DS, is a very awesome handheld for trips and an easier multiplayer style, but well you already stated that you dont travel much but you could always use it if you are waiting for the dentist to pass you in or in long lines.

I highly recommend you to get Mario Kart DS, Brain Age, Tetris DS, Sonic Rush Adventure and if it is your taste, a Pokemon game. Also some GBA games if you got access to some. You might find in this season a lot of good titles in clearance price as they are disappearing, games like Fire Emblem are a must.

My only complaint is it doesnt have a reverse compatibility with the previous Game Boy titles, it blocks you to a massive legacy of titles, if you want to try those, get a GBASP.

 

[Same River New Water]

In other words: You don't have an actual argument so you resort to petty insults.

I don't agree with alot of laws. But that doesn't actually change the law. Theft is a legal term that is governed by specific rules. Therefore what does and does not constitute theft is determined in a court of law.

I have arguments, I've given some of them. But none of them apply to you if your philosophy is that only legality, not morality, is worth anything in a debate. Yeah I resorted to a bit of light slander, but I had a point: I don't think this discussion can have any effect on either of our opinions because you're arguing from a place that says "what the law says goes" and I'm arguing from a place that says "what is reasonable or ethical goes; if the law is wrong, change it". We can't see eye-to-eye because our foundations are built differently.

To clarify, this is my main argument: piracy shouldn't be called the same thing as theft because the actions and outcomes are different, so the meaning is different.

What I was getting at before is that having power, such as the legal power of a judge, doesn't mean everything you say is true, and to think that it does is the philosophy of totalitarianism. Fair enough, that's a bit extreme and I could have explained myself more clearly and calmly, but I was pissed off.

What pissed me off, and made me want to say things much ruder than what I actually said, was the arrogant assumption that what one judge says in the United States should apply to me. The United States doesn't own the language I speak. I'm not even a citizen of the United States! Even if I was, I don't think a judge would have the authority to change the meanings of the words I use, but it's irrelevant because I'm not. Neither is the person who started this topic, who was the one given advice on piracy in the first place. American legal terminology doesn't apply where we live any more than Brazilian tax laws do.

The legal system of most 1st-world nations decree that software piracy is a form of theft.

Prove it.

 

[theplanetmars]

I have arguments, I've given some of them. But none of them apply to you if your philosophy is that only legality, not morality, is worth anything in a debate.

The problem is that morality is subjective. I suspect that between the two of us, I might be the one to find file sharing less objectionable morally. As to the casual (non legal) definition, it's equally subjective. Eight people in a room might conclude that it means eight different things.

I don't think this discussion can have any effect on either of our opinions because you're arguing from a place that says "what the law says goes" and I'm arguing from a place that says "what is reasonable or ethical goes; if the law is wrong, change it". We can't see eye-to-eye because our foundations are made differently.

It's fine to change the laws. Laws change all the time. But until they DO change, they're still the law.

There's also a bit of confusion over whether we're debating the moral point or the linguistic one. I'm happy to stick to language for convenience. To clarify, my point is: piracy shouldn't be called the same thing as theft because the actions and outcomes are different, so the meaning is different.

Theft is a blanket term for the unlawful taking of property. The type of property, the value of property, the damages incurred by said taking and the intent behind the taking all factor in to determining the severity of a crime. If you steal a car, it's not the same crime punishable in the same manner as when you steal a stick of gum. They are judged in very different manners. But they are still both theft. So, should the theft of intangible property be governed in the same manner as the theft of tangible property? I don't believe so. But that doesn't stop the unlawful taking of intangible property from being defined as theft.

What I was getting at before is that having power, such as the legal power of a judge, doesn't mean everything you say is true, and to think that it does is the philosophy of totalitarianism.

Certainly, everything a judge says is not true (we do have an appeals process, after all). But it is enforceable.

I'm not even a citizen of the United States!

Like I said the first time you objected to this: I clarified that I was speaking only in regards to to the US in my very first post. Of course US law does not extend beyond it's boundaries. No one suggested otherwise.

Even if I was, I don't think a judge would have the authority to change the meanings of the words I use

Except there is no definitive meaning of theft that is not a legal definition. Not yours and not mine. Not universally. As we're talking about a criminal offense, only a court of law can determine if the legal terminology applies. If a judge does not have the authority to interpret the legal terminology used to punish crime, they have no power. And while I would never argue that a judge should have unrestricted power, they must still retain some form of authority.

 

[Same River New Water]

Okay. Thanks for your courtesy - really. As a side note, you might want to have a look at the forum guidelines, because splitting up the comments of the person you're addressing and answering them individually is frowned on. (I used to do it too until I read the sticky.)

Sorry I missed that you said you were only talking about the US. I didn't get that, which was aggravating. But this whole time I've been trying to defend what I think is an important distinction between two different acts, and you keep bringing US law into it. The fact that you've acknowledged it's only US law doesn't make it relevant. In my eyes it just means you've acknowledged that it's irrelevant, and makes your comments about "until the law changes it's still the law" irrelevant as well. I know they're relevant to you and many other people here, but this discussion had a clear starting point, and that was firmly not based in America, and that's what I'm still talking about.

There is a definitive meanings of theft as much as there is for any other words. Nothing in language is set in stone, but there are dictionary definitions and there's common usage. Most importantly, when I say theft people know what I mean - well, outside this forum apparently

Now the way you've defined theft is actually pretty much how I would too: "Theft is the unlawful taking of property." So now I'm starting to think that the problem is the word "taking". To me, taking means removing something and not leaving anything behind, whereas you're using it to include taking a copy and leaving the original behind. To me, theft has to have a victim who suffers loss of property - if they don't lose their property then it's plagiarism, copyright infringement, piracy. Don't say "the victim in piracy/theft loses income from sales", because that's an indirect possible consequence, not a direct effect of the act of taking. It's hypothetical.

 

[theplanetmars]

Advice taken on posting guidelines. Much thanks. I should go and read the guidelines. I always forget to do that.

Anyway, I generally stick to discussing this topic within the confines of the US legal system because it's just too difficult for me to keep track of the myriad laws in all countries (let alone the various conflicting state laws within the US!). That said, we must consider that (at the very least) the examples I have given of US law underscore that there is no universal legal definition of theft. Dictionary definitions of the term are not always identical. And while popular consensus can certainly be a good foundation for the concept of evolving defintions, this particular subject has yet to reach popular consensus. Just look on most any debate on this topic and you will find the same polarized viewpoints that exist here.

In short: If we all agreed, there would be no raging controversy.

On the subject of physical versus intangible: Again, I can only speak on US law. The US has long held (at least as far back as 1968) that intangible media can be defined as a form of property (However, I won't pretend there isn't controversy on this topic within the US legal system). Piracy and copyright infringement are terms usually used to describe one who is distributing (freely or for profit) protected works, and it takes very specific circumstances for one who is downloading to be considered guilty of such an infringement. That's why most copyright infringement cases target uploaders. And of course, downloading alone is so very difficult to prove (both that it occurred at all and in defining the damages) that it's a waste of money for almost any copyright holder. Subsequently, the topic has rarely been tested in court.

And I would never say: "the victim in piracy/theft loses income from sales". But what I will say is that the victim in piracy/theft is legally owed income from each unique copy distributed. No one is entitled to acquiring the media in question for free.

It's important to consider what the thing is that you're really buying when you purchase a game or a cd or a movie. Is it the plastic? The packaging? The distribution method? In my perspective, we have always been seeking the intangible properties found within. When I buy a CD, it's for the music. If it wern't for the music, why would I care what band was on the disk? Why would a blank disk not suffice? A book without the intangible elements is just blank paper. Why not just buy my own blank paper?

The intangible properties of the album/film/game/book are what gives it value. This has always been the case. So why does that intangible media not deserve protection in the same manner that it did when it was bound to a phyiscal distribution method?

 

[slyder35]

can you guys please make a different thread for software piracy instead of constantly side-tracking my awesomely awesome DS thread!

 

[Same River New Water]

Pish posh slyder, we answered your question and now we're keeping "your" thread alive.

planetmars: good point on the distinction between taking and owing. The rest, well, I see your point even if I don't agree.

As a side note, on the question of whether you're buying the content or the medium, big media producers are trying to have it both ways. If you're just buying the medium (the CD, the disk, etc) then you should be able to do whatever you want with it as long as you're not making copies - you should be able to play your music CD in public, for example, without paying licensing fees, because licensing fees are for use of the content. If on the other hand you're buying the license to the content, you should be able to do whatever you want with the content as long as it's for personal use - make as many copies for yourself as you like, transfer freely between PC, CD, iPod, etc, without DRM software [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management] blocking your access to the content you've paid for. But organisations like the RIAA in America and ARIA in Australia lobby for laws that make the purchase of, say, a music album valid only for private use AND only for the medium on which its sold. They want to have their cake and eat it too, and they're quite successful. Australian law, for example, says you can only make a single backup copy of the media content you paid for when you bought a CD.

That's not relevant to the meaning of theft, I just think it's an interesting footnote.

 

[theplanetmars]

Oh, I'd say we're fully in agreement on all that. If I buy a DVD, and I want to transfer it on to my iPod, that's fair usage. I already paid. The entertainment industry has gotten comfortable with the idea of repackaging the same entertainment and selling to us again and again. If I've already paid for the item, I don't think I should have to pay for it again.

 

[Drong]

To the American arguing that the American Supreme Court should decide what terms in this language mean I have one question for you, what is the name of the language of your nation?

(Here's a hint it's not American)


As to Piracy yeah I sometimes pirate stuff (not games but some music etc) and sometimes I buy stuff (generally buy good stuff and pirate crap), I figure it all works out as they get a fair percentage of my money and especially with music (£15 for a cd at release, that 's $30 to you yanks, how can you say that's reasonable) and rubbish films (£20+ $40+ at release), they are making something that would be dirt cheap if it wasn't run by a bunch of profiteering gluttons.

And the DS (and sorry for continuing the hi-jacking of this thread but I can't help myself sometimes especially for naive people who refuse to recognise grey) I brought one for my Mum for her birthday and she has loved it and what little i have managed to play on it have been really impressed.

 

[ThaBenMan]

really-random-but-sort-of-on-topic-question: what does ds stand for? dual screen?

 

[slyder35]

still haven't bought one *sigh*

 

[Same River New Water]

Go! Go! Don't be put off by our bickering. Honestly I think part of the reason this thread got sidetracked is that your question was so easy to answer: yes, you should get a DS.

Ben: Yep, sort of. Officially [http://www.nintendo.com/consumer/systems/ds/faq.jsp#ds] it's Developer's System but can also be Dual Screen. Unofficially, it's Dual Screen all the way.