70 replies to this topic

[Camille]

Wizard, on 24 May 2011, 22:01, said:

CJ, on 24 May 2011, 17:43, said:

ΓΛPTΘΓ, on 24 May 2011, 17:30, said:

I am sure not everyone is going to agree here, but that is just how I value stuff. Also, as said piracy is not stealing as the original master copy is still there, you are merely taking a digital copy of the original and can easily multiply freely. Where if you are stealing a real world object, the original is gone.

Concerning that, I'd also like to point out the fact that if a person pirates something, it doesn't mean the editor is losing money, as there's no way to prove that the person would've bought the product if they didn't find a way to pirate it.

Just because this thread has been necro'd doesn't mean people can't read what has gone before....

Wizard, on 19 Apr 2011, 20:44, said:

Camille, on 19 Apr 2011, 18:56, said:

no no, once again, filesharing is NOT THE SAME THING as stealing a car or whatever else, it is not applicable on anything that is actual matter, that actually EXISTS. you can't be that narrow. you simply cannot physically copy a car. you CAN copy a book and you CAN copy a film. this is the only difference that renders the whole philosophy behind property meaningless. if we could copy food, we would and no one would ever be hungry again. we can copy good films ad infinitum and enrich people intellectually so there's literally no reason to be so bigoted and say it all needs compensation.

also, you can keep repeating that "it's theft because... it's theft". but that will hardly change anyone's mind.

Ofc file sharing is not the same thing as stealing a car. You can't smash the windows of a copy of Photoshop and then hotwire it using an elaborate understanding of the wiring..... oh wait......

Theft is theft, whether it be throwing a brick through the window of a shop, dropping an item into a bag to hide it or downloading a copy of a piece of software then ripping a serial key. They aren't the exact same physical actions, but the one thing they all have in common is the appropriation of goods/services/intellectual property that are not yours without the suitable exchange of economic material. Just because there is an ability to recreate the said item in the digital medium and distribute via the same method, ad nausuam, does not mean that the act of taking possession of something without paying for the commodity isn't theft in legal, moral or real terms.

Camille, on 19 Apr 2011, 18:56, said:

i wish i could redirect you to some discussions on thepiratebay, these folks have far better linguistic skills than me and could far better explain the overall views of file-sharers. but in all honesty i don't think you give a single damn. as long as your pockets filled righty-oh? bah, this mentality makes me sick.

The simple fact is, we live in a society where the supply of goods and services are based on the principle of "consideration" or "exchange". If someone creates a product, i.e., comes up with intellectual property, they have a fundamental right to control that property. If they choose to give it away, fine. If they don't any attempt to acquire it without their consent is stealing. Whether you download or use the old fashioned brick. It's a mentally that has worked pretty well for a good couple of hundred years if I am not mistaken.

Stealing is stealing, you can cover it in as much sanctimonious, self justifying bullshit all you like, but that doesn't make it right or legal.

wow seriously now? see this is exactly the reason why i stopped posting in this thread. i'm done defending my argument though, don't know why i got into it in the first place. seems like your supreme truth trumps mine any time so where's the point in arguing? (genuine question, no sarcasm).

[Wizard]

Camille, on 25 May 2011, 9:05, said:

wow seriously now? see this is exactly the reason why i stopped posting in this thread. i'm done defending my argument though, don't know why i got into it in the first place. seems like your supreme truth trumps mine any time so where's the point in arguing? (genuine question, no sarcasm).

As my position is supported by defacto law, you could say that my truth does trump yours, yes. Though that isn't from a position of personal moral superiority. It's just a fact. I understand that your opinion is your own to have, and it's actually genuninely refreshing to hear that content you create you are happy to share, but that doesn't change the position for the rest of us. It is wrong to steal, to pirate and to fileshare. And no amount of gymnastic articulation is going to change that fact. The system of consideration isn't going to change any time soon.....

Edited by Wizard, 25 May 2011 - 08:14.

[SquigPie]

Although I agree with you Wiz. The law is not always right. In England, a woman can't be charged of raping a man since it's defined as "penetration". I think there was a case where a woman got scot-free away from raping her 6-year old child (Or maybe that was Ireland) because whoever wrote the law was too stupid to consider that women might be sick fucks too.

CJ, on 25 May 2011, 1:02, said:

I'm not ignoring what you said Wiz : I never said piracy was legal (or right), although according to my country's law it perfectly is. That's why you can find pirated CDs at any mart

That's because you country's just been through a revolution, and is still picking up the pieces.

Although it's been some time since I last heard anything from Tunesia (media is too busy talking about the hardly noteworthy horrible ash-cloud coming over from Iceland).

Edited by SquigPie, 25 May 2011 - 08:59.

[Z_mann]

Hey, it's not illegal unless they catch you

All joke aside though, I really have an issue with the statement: "It's immoral, illegal, and its set in stone". For me, morality was always ambiguous. I'm not trying to be a verbal gymnast here, people, I'm defending what I truly believe in! Not even defending per se, just laying it out for all to see and wonder and gaze upon.

Case in point, it SHOULD be illegal to work for ~220$ a month when a carton of fucking milk costs 2. Yet nobody complains...

[Wizard]

SquigPie, on 25 May 2011, 9:49, said:

Although I agree with you Wiz. The law is not always right. In England, a woman can't be charged of raping a man since it's defined as "penetration". I think there was a case where a woman got scot-free away from raping her 6-year old child (Or maybe that was Ireland) because whoever wrote the law was too stupid to consider that women might be sick fucks too.

The law not always being right doesn't mean it's not in this instance.

[SquigPie]

Z_mann, on 25 May 2011, 11:55, said:

Hey, it's not illegal unless they catch you

All joke aside though, I really have an issue with the statement: "It's immoral, illegal, and its set in stone". For me, morality was always ambiguous. I'm not trying to be a verbal gymnast here, people, I'm defending what I truly believe in! Not even defending per se, just laying it out for all to see and wonder and gaze upon.

Case in point, it SHOULD be illegal to work for ~220$ a month when a carton of fucking milk costs 2. Yet nobody complains...

Well, If I lived in Serbia I would complain about it.

Edited by SquigPie, 25 May 2011 - 10:43.

[Alias]

Yeah, it's illegal to get paid less than about $600 a week here. :|

Obviously they're two different countries, but minimum wage law should be a requirement of every country.

[SquigPie]

Alias, on 25 May 2011, 12:47, said:

Yeah, it's illegal to get paid less than about $600 a week here. :|

Obviously they're two different countries, but minimum wage law should be a requirement of every country.

Now I better understand why the maker of "A Serbian Film" said it was a parallel to Serbia...

[Ion Cannon!]

Z_mann, on 25 May 2011, 10:55, said:

Hey, it's not illegal unless they catch you

All joke aside though, I really have an issue with the statement: "It's immoral, illegal, and its set in stone". For me, morality was always ambiguous. I'm not trying to be a verbal gymnast here, people, I'm defending what I truly believe in! Not even defending per se, just laying it out for all to see and wonder and gaze upon.

Case in point, it SHOULD be illegal to work for ~220$ a month when a carton of fucking milk costs 2. Yet nobody complains...

The problem isn't that, It's that you think its your right to play games, even though you cannot afford them. Games are not food and water, you do not need them to survive. We can't get everything we want in life.

[Libains]

Wizard, on 25 May 2011, 11:12, said:

SquigPie, on 25 May 2011, 9:49, said:

Although I agree with you Wiz. The law is not always right. In England, a woman can't be charged of raping a man since it's defined as "penetration". I think there was a case where a woman got scot-free away from raping her 6-year old child (Or maybe that was Ireland) because whoever wrote the law was too stupid to consider that women might be sick fucks too.

The law not always being right doesn't mean it's not in this instance.

Totally agree with Wiz on this one.

\Just a quick clarification on this one, men and women are indeed not treated the same as rape is defined as penetration with a penis, thus no female rape. However, there is also assault by penetration, which carries the exact same charges, sentences, etc. Just no stigma. An odd peculiarity, but you can't get away with raping someone if you're a woman, you're just going to get away with being called a rapist in the eyes of the law.

[CJ]

SquigPie, on 25 May 2011, 9:49, said:

CJ, on 25 May 2011, 1:02, said:

I'm not ignoring what you said Wiz : I never said piracy was legal (or right), although according to my country's law it perfectly is. That's why you can find pirated CDs at any mart

That's because you country's just been through a revolution, and is still picking up the pieces.

Although it's been some time since I last heard anything from Tunesia (media is too busy talking about the hardly noteworthy horrible ash-cloud coming over from Iceland).

There were laws before the revolution y'know. And none of them outlawed piracy, ergo it IS legal.

[SquigPie]

CJ, on 25 May 2011, 18:17, said:

SquigPie, on 25 May 2011, 9:49, said:

CJ, on 25 May 2011, 1:02, said:

I'm not ignoring what you said Wiz : I never said piracy was legal (or right), although according to my country's law it perfectly is. That's why you can find pirated CDs at any mart

That's because you country's just been through a revolution, and is still picking up the pieces.

Although it's been some time since I last heard anything from Tunesia (media is too busy talking about the hardly noteworthy horrible ash-cloud coming over from Iceland).

There were laws before the revolution y'know. And none of them outlawed piracy, ergo it IS legal.

Yeah, but previous to the revolution it was a dictatorship that outlawed half the internet.

[Camille]

it isn't even a question of legality really, but rather of personal view. it's been repeated a trillion times now: it's illegal etc. but that's simply the way it IS. what do you actually think for yourselves? what would you LIKE?

for example: i'd like a different monetary approach towards digital media. i'd like reward instead of punishment e.g: developers receive voluntary payment from customers and the cost of games and media alike is drastically lowered. instead of supporting big studios that churn out a game every year by contract, developers are kept small, independent and gain funding that allows and stimulates them to be creative. of course there'd be parameters that define whether or not you can gain said funding and public opinion would ultimately decide whether or not you can continue to make games/films/whatsoever, democratically. devs would receive standard payment in the shape of funds but would receive a bonus in the shape of the customers' own chosen bonus price. since prices would be very low compared to now, people would have a reason and incentive to pay the extra if they like it. nobody would be forced to pay the sum but it'd be regarded as common courtesy to reward devs for good work. additionally, the system would be more or less centred around reward: poor people are rewarded with the ability to enjoy things like films, music and games. devs are rewarded by fortunate people out of respect for the work that has actually been created. AFTER it's been created. nobody looses but the power-mongers.

tl;dr:

- much cheaper products.
- LESS producst.
- higher quality and creativity.
- voluntary customer bonuses above the standard pay for devs.
- democratic approach towards continued funding.
- system of reward.
- no globalisation or industrialisation of any media whatsoever.
- the pursuit of artistic and intelligent content, be it music, games, films etc.

that's how i'd LIKE it to be. can anyone agree? even partially?

Edited by Camille, 25 May 2011 - 18:02.

[Ion Cannon!]

How I'd like it to be is for everyone to be like Valve. Sure it's all well and good playing some indie games, but they simply don't have the resources to pull off massive games, and lets face it, we all play and enjoy games like that. Basically what I'm saying is that I don't believe indie developers will ever be able to cater for that, but they're not supposed to, they create games for niche markets. On a further point I think theres actually a fair bit of creativity in some of the larger developers, the only problem is publishers pulling strings.

Edited by Ion Cannon!, 25 May 2011 - 18:12.

[Camille]

Ion Cannon!, on 25 May 2011, 18:09, said:

How I'd like it to be is for everyone to be like Valve. Sure it's all well and good playing some indie games, but they simply don't have the resourced to pull off massive games, and lets face it, we all play and enjoy games like that.

games don't need to be developed by huge studios to be huge themselves. also, we might just have been overloaded with "huge" games explaining our craving for it. i myself find it much more important for a game to be replayable than necessarily huge. i'm also of opinion that this particular lack in resources could trigger a creative process instead of suppressing actual content.

anyway, i'm glad you mention valve since they usually have a more humane approach to games and game releases. they are way more fitting in my philosophy than, say, EA or activision (to name the worst).

[Ion Cannon!]

Camille, on 25 May 2011, 19:16, said:

Ion Cannon!, on 25 May 2011, 18:09, said:

How I'd like it to be is for everyone to be like Valve. Sure it's all well and good playing some indie games, but they simply don't have the resourced to pull off massive games, and lets face it, we all play and enjoy games like that.

games don't need to be developed by huge studios to be huge themselves. also, we might just have been overloaded with "huge" games explaining our craving for it. i myself find it much more important for a game to be replayable than necessarily huge. i'm also of opinion that this particular lack in resources could trigger a creative process instead of suppressing actual content.

anyway, i'm glad you mention valve since they usually have a more humane approach to games and game releases. they are way more fitting in my philosophy than, say, EA or activision (to name the worst).

You say it like huge games are bad. An indie studio never could have created something like Left4Dead or HL2 or Dragon Age Origins. The first and last of which are extremely replayable.

[Camille]

Ion Cannon!, on 25 May 2011, 19:30, said:

Camille, on 25 May 2011, 19:16, said:

Ion Cannon!, on 25 May 2011, 18:09, said:

How I'd like it to be is for everyone to be like Valve. Sure it's all well and good playing some indie games, but they simply don't have the resourced to pull off massive games, and lets face it, we all play and enjoy games like that.

games don't need to be developed by huge studios to be huge themselves. also, we might just have been overloaded with "huge" games explaining our craving for it. i myself find it much more important for a game to be replayable than necessarily huge. i'm also of opinion that this particular lack in resources could trigger a creative process instead of suppressing actual content.

anyway, i'm glad you mention valve since they usually have a more humane approach to games and game releases. they are way more fitting in my philosophy than, say, EA or activision (to name the worst).

You say it like huge games are bad. An indie studio never could have created something like Left4Dead or HL2 or Dragon Age Origins. The first and last of which are extremely replayable.

no, huge games aren't bad. about an indie studio not creating huge games, i really don't find it that easy an assumption to make. maybe the incentive has never been there. i agree however that games would be hugely different though i don't think that's a bad thing.

[Wizard]

Camille, on 25 May 2011, 18:59, said:

public opinion would ultimately decide whether or not you can continue to make games/films/whatsoever, democratically.

Strangely enough that is the system we have atm........ we vote with out wallets.

[Z_mann]

Okay, I definitely HAVE to watch that movie, because everybody's talking about it and I am completely clueless

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. I'm no hypocrite: I understand the need for intellectual property laws, and I do support them. But you mentioned earlier before that video games are regulated by the market. Fine, why don't the prices adapt to the market here? I mean, it's better to get just a part of the money then insisting on a retail price and pricing yourself too high.

As for games being not being necessary for day to day life, that is true. But, try and put yourself in my position for a bit. You've grown up with games readily available to you (pirated of course, even though you buy them in a store), and now you just have to quit. It's not exactly easy, y'know? You get used to it. Plus, i already said I'm boycotting the retailers here, because they're fucking vampires! You can buy ME2 for like 20$ (give or take) on Amazon, and here its still over 40 Euros in stores. If you get lucky and find it.

@Camille I actually agree with you: I believe the EU, for example, should try and spend some money on giving video game stipends to creative teams, and help them release for a no-budget price for example. And I'm not talking flash games here - a real, honest to god project, full game, AAA quality title. They could drop one yearly, pretty much, when the system gets going. And it would all be quality gaming. I think that's completely within the limits of 'reality' of like, right now. But I'll stop now, will explain later before I hit tl:dr.

[Golan]

CJ, on 24 May 2011, 11:46, said:

And that's the reason for which I do not pirate indie games or music made by small bands which are not attached to any label

Also, if I had some way to pay online I'd be definitely buying more stuff, but I do not consider living in a economically closed country a sufficient reason to deprive myself from these "luxuries",and if there's no alternative, piracy it is then.

I guess if there is no reasonable physical possibility to buy something, the case might be a bit sketchy. Obviously, there cannot be a loss here, as indeed it is impossible to project value into something that could never happen. Now, the question is if you'd stopped if that'd change... ^^
Me, personally? I wouldn't bother minding if you pirated my work (as long as you don't redistribute it). There are really more pressing concerns than thinking about whether someone owes me a bit of cash he couldn't even technically afford. But, in the end, that is more the case of the one you are harming absolving you instead of you being in the right.
Still, see below... by making piracy a widespread phenomenon, you are helping financially sound people to pirate, too.

ΓΛPTΘΓ, on 24 May 2011, 16:30, said:

Sometimes games are too expensive for me, I do not think £30 for less than 24hours of entertainment is worth it. There are too many games charging a lot, sometimes I just don't see the replay value.

If you think a game isn't worth the cost charged for it, don't get it on release. They tend to get cheaper with time, y'know. If that still doesn't seem like a good deal to you... don't get it, period.

ΓΛPTΘΓ, on 24 May 2011, 16:30, said:

I am sure not everyone is going to agree here, but that is just how I value stuff. Also, as said piracy is not stealing as the original master copy is still there, you are merely taking a digital copy of the original and can easily multiply freely. Where if you are stealing a real world object, the original is gone.

The master piece itself usually doesn't have any intrinsic value to the creator, however. The value is only gained by selling the stuff, and for every person taking over your mindset, a bit of said value is lost or at least shifted to those that still buy it, so yeah, you are stealing from someone, and the thing you are stealing is very physical.

CJ, on 24 May 2011, 16:43, said:

ΓΛPTΘΓ, on 24 May 2011, 17:30, said:

I am sure not everyone is going to agree here, but that is just how I value stuff. Also, as said piracy is not stealing as the original master copy is still there, you are merely taking a digital copy of the original and can easily multiply freely. Where if you are stealing a real world object, the original is gone.

Concerning that, I'd also like to point out the fact that if a person pirates something, it doesn't mean the editor is losing money, as there's no way to prove that the person would've bought the product if they didn't find a way to pirate it.

Prove it or it didn't happen, eh? Prove the opposite, gigglesnort!
On average, for every given number of people pirating, one would have bought the game. By making pirating a recognized, accepted and widespread form of media distribution, you are encouraging and enabling people able to buy a product to pirate it instead.

Wizard, on 25 May 2011, 8:13, said:

As my position is supported by defacto law, you could say that my truth does trump yours, yes. Though that isn't from a position of personal moral superiority. It's just a fact. I understand that your opinion is your own to have, and it's actually genuninely refreshing to hear that content you create you are happy to share, but that doesn't change the position for the rest of us. It is wrong to steal, to pirate and to fileshare. And no amount of gymnastic articulation is going to change that fact. The system of consideration isn't going to change any time soon.....

Law's can be changed and as CJ pointed out, it is legal in some countries. So, any legal deduction of right and wrong is in itself flawed, as the law the law doesn't hold any moral value just in itself. It may only deduce moral/general value from principles it is based on, and in this case again it is not the law creating right or wrong, it's said principles.

Camille, on 25 May 2011, 17:59, said:

it isn't even a question of legality really, but rather of personal view. it's been repeated a trillion times now: it's illegal etc. but that's simply the way it IS. what do you actually think for yourselves? what would you LIKE?

Getting paid for my work!

Camille, on 25 May 2011, 17:59, said:

for example: i'd like a different monetary approach towards digital media. i'd like reward instead of punishment e.g: developers receive voluntary payment from customers and the cost of games and media alike is drastically lowered. instead of supporting big studios that churn out a game every year by contract, developers are kept small, independent and gain funding that allows and stimulates them to be creative. of course there'd be parameters that define whether or not you can gain said funding and public opinion would ultimately decide whether or not you can continue to make games/films/whatsoever, democratically. devs would receive standard payment in the shape of funds but would receive a bonus in the shape of the customers' own chosen bonus price. since prices would be very low compared to now, people would have a reason and incentive to pay the extra if they like it. nobody would be forced to pay the sum but it'd be regarded as common courtesy to reward devs for good work. additionally, the system would be more or less centred around reward: poor people are rewarded with the ability to enjoy things like films, music and games. devs are rewarded by fortunate people out of respect for the work that has actually been created. AFTER it's been created. nobody looses but the power-mongers.

Why do you want this system? Because people are money hogging idiots exploiting others. Why do you think it'll work? Because once it's established, people miraculously aren't money-hogging idiots anymore. Totally see that working.
Most democracies suffer from only few people caring even about the most fundamental procedures and you want them to democratically decide about the value of video games? Half my neighbors would think of me as training mass-murderers for working with the evil scorch of modern media!

Z_mann, on 25 May 2011, 22:37, said:

As for games being not being necessary for day to day life, that is true. But, try and put yourself in my position for a bit. You've grown up with games readily available to you (pirated of course, even though you buy them in a store), and now you just have to quit. It's not exactly easy, y'know? You get used to it. Plus, i already said I'm boycotting the retailers here, because they're fucking vampires! You can buy ME2 for like 20$ (give or take) on Amazon, and here its still over 40 Euros in stores. If you get lucky and find it.

It's called an addiction. Try to get help.

[Z_mann]

Don't be silly, I can quit whenever I want to The point was that I spent a long time as a kid believing pirating games was acceptable, and then BAM! Suddenly you are the Devil!

My most recent woe is that I want to buy Planescape:Torment over at GOG.com, but I CAN'T (cause I don't own a credit card that can be used for online shopping in foreign currency), and Paypal won't be coming here soon. And I DON'T want to just pirate it, even though I CAN.