113 réponses à ce sujet

[RiGoRmOrTiS_UK]

just read over your previous thread (all of it) that you got banned for. you make a whole lot of sense; a lot of it I've been saying for years. it's amazing how many people can't differentiate between stealing and piracy. I agree with neither; but they can't be claimed as the same and the way the industry handles piracy with draconian principles based on "physical" theft rather than digital is crazy. Compound that with taking away something you paid for when you simply tried to inform people of the difference between theft and piracy is crazy. Anyway; good luck getting your access back.

[Sinister316]

meznaric wrote...
Anyway, the ban was meant to be for 72 hours according to the automatic e-mail I received (during which time I was still able to post as long as I didn't log off because of the way their cookies work). But after 72 hours, nothing changed and I am (now several weeks afterwards) still unable to log on in new locations or access the DLCs.

So, have you not logged out from home since the ban so you can still post here? If so, maybe thats the problem, if you haven't logged out on your home pc (which was the IP you were using when you were banned?) maybe the ban hasn't even gone into effect. You might have to log out to get the clock ticking is what im saying.

This is just a shot in the dark unless anyone can confirm this can happen.

Modifié par Sinister316, 17 mars 2010 - 08:05 .

[Sinister316]

RiGoRmOrTiS_UK wrote...

just read over your previous thread (all of it) that you got banned for. you make a whole lot of sense; a lot of it I've been saying for years. it's amazing how many people can't differentiate between stealing and piracy. I agree with neither; but they can't be claimed as the same and the way the industry handles piracy with draconian principles based on "physical" theft rather than digital is crazy.

What is with you people who belive downloading a game isn't theft.


What is Intellectual Property?
Intellectual property (IP) refers to creations of the mind: inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce.
IP is divided into two categories:  Industrial property, which includes inventions (patents), trademarks, industrial designs, and geographic indications of source; and Copyright, which includes literary and artistic works such as novels, poems and plays, films, musical works, artistic works such as drawings, paintings, photographs and sculptures, and architectural designs.  Rights related to copyright include those of performing artists in their performances, producers of phonograms in their recordings, and those of broadcasters in their radio and television programs. 

Now that you know what intellectual property is...

theft n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). In many states, if the value of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime is "petty theft," but it is "grand theft" for larger amounts, designated misdemeanor, or felony, respectively. Theft is synonymous with "larceny." Although robbery (taking by force), burglary (taken by entering unlawfully), and embezzlement (stealing from an employer) are all commonly thought of as theft, they are distinguished by the means and methods used, and are separately designated as those types of crimes in criminal charges and statutory punishments.

So now you know what theft is. So after absorbing both of these facts, how is downloading intellectual property without the publishers permission or paying for it not theft?

[TheTrooper1138]

Sinister316 wrote...

What is with you people who belive downloading a game isn't theft.

Pretty simple:
"The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorised taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use."
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft)

If one downloads the game, the "owner" (or rather copyright holder) can still sell it/use it. Therefore it isn't theft.
Or if that is too complicated for you:

Busomjack wrote...

You deserve to have had your account suspended for advocating piracy. I'm sick of arrogant little ****s who think they're entitled to everything.

so stating that piracy isn't theft (which is isn't, I just explained why) means advocating it? 

Busomjack wrote...

I think putting piracy which is a criminal action in a sympathetic light is tacit advocacy.  Gamers are not a charity.  If you have a game that you didn't pay for then you're a thief.

no, you're not. See above.

Busomjack wrote...

I actually agree with you that DRM is an ineffective way for dealing with piracy.  Personally, I would deal with it the way ancient Islamic cultures dealt with thieves.  Cut off their hands. 

god, I hope you're joking... if not... well, there's always the mental hospital... :innocent: 

Busomjack wrote...

As for your second point about "the democratic process" interpretation of the law is not democratic.  Piracy is not a moral term, it is a legal term and the law says that it is illegal.  Just because you dissagree with the law doesn't give you the right to break it.

oh come on, if people would've always followed the law without questioning it, we would still be stuck in the middle-ages or worse...
Also, do you never ignore a red traffic light, when there are absolutely no cars coming? I doubt it... technically, that's breaking the law too, but if nobody gets hurt, so what? And if for example some school kid downloads a game he couldn't even afford anyways, so what? If he couldn't have bought it anyways, there's no harm done...
or a poor single mother for that matter... yeah, sentence her to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars, which she won't be able to pay in 2 lifetimes... makes real sense, a great way to win customers btw...  

Busomjack wrote...

He shouldn't.  I think he deserved to get banned from the forums as EA should not have to deal with people posting stuff which advocates practices which are harmful to their business, but yeah he's entitled to what he paid for.

where are you from? China? First you advocate barbaric punishments, now you advocate censorship... by your logic, maybe we should send you to Saudi Arabia... :innocent: 
Seriously, how does stating (an entirely valid) opinion justify censorship? That's totalitarian, you know... 

[Sinister316]

TheTrooper1138 wrote...

Sinister316 wrote...

What is with you people who belive downloading a game isn't theft.

Pretty simple:
"The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorised taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use."
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft)

If one downloads the game, the "owner" (or rather copyright holder) can still sell it/use it. Therefore it isn't theft.
Or if that is too complicated for you:

Nice try.

Selective copy and paste of Wiki and a dumm**** image is the best you can do. Here's a wiki quote you selectively missed.

Theft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In criminal law, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent. The word is also used as an informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting, fraud and sometimes criminal conversion. In some jurisdictions, theft is considered to be synonymous with larceny; in others, theft has replaced larceny.

So the game publishers are giving people consent to download their copyrighted material, in other words their property. When did that happen? Must have missed it in the news I guess.

Sad try.

Modifié par Sinister316, 18 mars 2010 - 04:06 .

[TheTrooper1138]

Sinister316 wrote...

TheTrooper1138 wrote...

Sinister316 wrote...

What is with you people who belive downloading a game isn't theft.

Pretty simple:
"The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorised taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use."
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft)

If one downloads the game, the "owner" (or rather copyright holder) can still sell it/use it. Therefore it isn't theft.
Or if that is too complicated for you:

Nice try.

Selective copy and paste of Wiki and a dumm**** image is the best you can do. Here's a wiki quote you selectively missed.

Theft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In criminal law, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent. The word is also used as an informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting, fraud and sometimes criminal conversion. In some jurisdictions, theft is considered to be synonymous with larceny; in others, theft has replaced larceny.

So the game publishers are giving people consent to download their copyrighted material, in other words their property. When did that happen? Must have missed it in the news I guess.

Sad try.

the part you quoted doesn't contratict me. You still have to take something away from someone for it to be theft. Simple as that. And it's really disgusting how the content industry has a grip on the judicial system in most Western societies, creating punishments that are absolutely out of proportion... in some countries you can get worse penalties for making content available illegally (uploading, not downloading, but still) than for child abuse... do you actually think that's reasonable? 

[Sinister316]

I'll keep it simple without dredging up more law quotes. If you are in possesion of copyrighted intelectual property and you do not have either a sales reciept or a form of consent from its owner, you are a damn thief. It really is as simple as that. "But I didn't take anything from anyone, no one was deprived of property". Bull****, you downloaded it from a thief and by doing so you are now also a thief.



If you take something illegaly, even by downloading it, you are a thief. Its really very simple.

[TheTrooper1138]

Sinister316 wrote...

I'll keep it simple without dredging up more law quotes. If you are in possesion of copyrighted intelectual property and you do not have either a sales reciept or a form of consent from its owner, you are a damn thief. It really is as simple as that. "But I didn't take anything from anyone, no one was deprived of property". Bull****, you downloaded it from a thief and by doing so you are now also a thief.

If you take something illegaly, even by downloading it, you are a thief. Its really very simple.

lol, no, because "copyright infringement" is not theft, by definition and by moral standards as well imao. Since if you steal something, you deprive the rightful owner of the possibility of still using what you stole. If you download it, the owner can still use it. If you can't see that difference, then you're either stupid or you don't wanna see it...

[meznaric]

What I think is the biggest problem is this. You go to a shop and buy a computer and you get MS Office (OEM version) with it. Now say your wife wants to use your computer to write a document. Legally speaking, she cannot! You have to buy a separate version for yourself, for your wife, and for each of your kids. Now if you buy a new computer (you throw the old one away), you have to buy a new office (because OEM version can only be used on the computer you got it for!). Yes, all this is in the terms of use and it's all legally binding. So would you say your kids are thieves since they use the same office as you? Did you buy a separate licence?



Now I do agree that the producers of software should be able to make money out of it and be compensated for their work. But the draconian controls that they want to have over our software consumption are really too much. One thing is what is legal, and quite another is what is morally acceptable.



And to be totally honest, even if piracy was legal, I would still go to a shop and buy great many games, just because I like them, I like to compensate the guys who worked hard to make it, and I like to have it in a nice box that I can put somewhere. But one thing you should keep in mind is that often times the guy you are compensating is not the guy who made the game, but the guy who owns the publishing company... The only thing I am saying is, we need a better business model. The criminalisation of more than 50% of the computer using population is no good.

[TheTrooper1138]

meznaric wrote...

What I think is the biggest problem is this. You go to a shop and buy a computer and you get MS Office (OEM version) with it. Now say your wife wants to use your computer to write a document. Legally speaking, she cannot! You have to buy a separate version for yourself, for your wife, and for each of your kids. Now if you buy a new computer (you throw the old one away), you have to buy a new office (because OEM version can only be used on the computer you got it for!). Yes, all this is in the terms of use and it's all legally binding. So would you say your kids are thieves since they use the same office as you? Did you buy a separate licence?

Now I do agree that the producers of software should be able to make money out of it and be compensated for their work. But the draconian controls that they want to have over our software consumption are really too much. One thing is what is legal, and quite another is what is morally acceptable.

And to be totally honest, even if piracy was legal, I would still go to a shop and buy great many games, just because I like them, I like to compensate the guys who worked hard to make it, and I like to have it in a nice box that I can put somewhere. But one thing you should keep in mind is that often times the guy you are compensating is not the guy who made the game, but the guy who owns the publishing company... The only thing I am saying is, we need a better business model. The criminalisation of more than 50% of the computer using population is no good.

This. 

[Sinister316]

TheTrooper1138 wrote...

lol, no, because "copyright infringement" is not theft, by definition and by moral standards as well imao. Since if you steal something, you deprive the rightful owner of the possibility of still using what you stole. If you download it, the owner can still use it. If you can't see that difference, then you're either stupid or you don't wanna see it...

What you seem to be to stupid to understand is that infingement and piracy are the laws fancy terms for theft were no actual property was taken, but instead the property owners rights violated which is still a form of theft.

Comparison to theft

Copyright infringement is often equated with theft, for instance in the title of the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997, but differs in certain respects.
Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not (for the purpose of the case) constitute stolen property, and writing:

interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: ... 'an infringer of the copyright.' ...
The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
—Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207, pp. 217–218

The key distinction generally drawn, as indicated above, is that while copyright infringement may (or may not) cause economic loss to the copyright holder, as theft does, it does not appropriate a physical object, nor deprive the copyright holder of the use of the copyright. That information can be replicated without destroying an original is an old observation,[55] and a cornerstone of intellectual property law. In economic terms, information is not a rival good; this has led some to argue that it is very different in character, and that laws for physical property and intellectual property should be very different.[56]
A British Government's report, Digital Britain, characterizes online piracy as a form of theft: "Unlawful downloading or uploading, whether via peer-to-peer sites or other means, is effectively a civil form of theft."[57]

You can call yourself a infringer all you want, I will still call you a damn thief because its the same damn thing,

Modifié par Sinister316, 18 mars 2010 - 05:22 .

[TheTrooper1138]

Sinister316 wrote...

TheTrooper1138 wrote...

lol, no, because "copyright infringement" is not theft, by definition and by moral standards as well imao. Since if you steal something, you deprive the rightful owner of the possibility of still using what you stole. If you download it, the owner can still use it. If you can't see that difference, then you're either stupid or you don't wanna see it...

What you seem to be to stupid to understand is that infingement and piracy are the laws fancy terms for theft were no actual property was taken, but instead the property owners rights violated which is still a form of theft.

Comparison to theft

Copyright infringement is often equated with theft, for instance in the title of the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997, but differs in certain respects.
Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not (for the purpose of the case) constitute stolen property, and writing:

interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: ... 'an infringer of the copyright.' ...
The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
—Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207, pp. 217–218

The key distinction generally drawn, as indicated above, is that while copyright infringement may (or may not) cause economic loss to the copyright holder, as theft does, it does not appropriate a physical object, nor deprive the copyright holder of the use of the copyright. That information can be replicated without destroying an original is an old observation,[55] and a cornerstone of intellectual property law. In economic terms, information is not a rival good; this has led some to argue that it is very different in character, and that laws for physical property and intellectual property should be very different.[56]
A British Government's report, Digital Britain, characterizes online piracy as a form of theft: "Unlawful downloading or uploading, whether via peer-to-peer sites or other means, is effectively a civil form of theft."[57]

You can call yourself a infringer all you want, I will still call you a damn thief because its the same damn thing,

maybe you should look at the little Icons below my ava... I bought the games, so you don't get to call me anything. And it's still not the same thing. Also I don't care what laws some lobbyist established in the U.S., I live in Germany and here at least we still have some reasonable laws and judges and it is not the same. I just read an interview with an Austrian judge not too long ago and he basically confirmed what I said; theft includes the taking away of a thing, so that the other can't use it anymore, therefore piracy is not theft. Coming from a judge, not some content lobbyist...
 the punishments for copyright infringement are still too high over here, but at least we stll know the difference between theft and not theft...

[Sinister316]

TheTrooper1138 wrote...

Sinister316 wrote...

TheTrooper1138 wrote...

lol, no, because "copyright infringement" is not theft, by definition and by moral standards as well imao. Since if you steal something, you deprive the rightful owner of the possibility of still using what you stole. If you download it, the owner can still use it. If you can't see that difference, then you're either stupid or you don't wanna see it...

What you seem to be to stupid to understand is that infingement and piracy are the laws fancy terms for theft were no actual property was taken, but instead the property owners rights violated which is still a form of theft.

Comparison to theft

Copyright infringement is often equated with theft, for instance in the title of the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997, but differs in certain respects.
Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not (for the purpose of the case) constitute stolen property, and writing:

interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: ... 'an infringer of the copyright.' ...
The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
—Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207, pp. 217–218

The key distinction generally drawn, as indicated above, is that while copyright infringement may (or may not) cause economic loss to the copyright holder, as theft does, it does not appropriate a physical object, nor deprive the copyright holder of the use of the copyright. That information can be replicated without destroying an original is an old observation,[55] and a cornerstone of intellectual property law. In economic terms, information is not a rival good; this has led some to argue that it is very different in character, and that laws for physical property and intellectual property should be very different.[56]
A British Government's report, Digital Britain, characterizes online piracy as a form of theft: "Unlawful downloading or uploading, whether via peer-to-peer sites or other means, is effectively a civil form of theft."[57]

You can call yourself a infringer all you want, I will still call you a damn thief because its the same damn thing,

maybe you should look at the little Icons below my ava... I bought the games, so you don't get to call me anything. And it's still not the same thing. Also I don't care what laws some lobbyist established in the U.S., I live in Germany and here at least we still have some reasonable laws and judges and it is not the same. I just read an interview with an Austrian judge not too long ago and he basically confirmed what I said; theft includes the taking away of a thing, so that the other can't use it anymore, therefore piracy is not theft. Coming from a judge, not some content lobbyist...
 the punishments for copyright infringement are still too high over here, but at least we stll know the difference between theft and not theft...

Trooper, I apologize for how that came across. I did not mean a personal attack on you, I was just implying I will call anyone who downloads a game in general a thief rather than an infinger. Illegal downloading is a more complicated form of theft hence the reason the courts were forced to make new terms to describe it and distinguish it seperately from theft in general. Is doesn't change the facts though, if you take into your possesion property, intellectual or physical, by illegal means you are a thief, the courts will just call you a infringer if it was downloaded.

Infringer = Thief
I think most would agree.

[TheTrooper1138]

Sinister316 wrote...
Trooper, I apologize for how that came across. I did not mean a personal attack on you, I was just implying I will call anyone who downloads a game in general a thief rather than an infinger.

So what about someone who downloads a game to TEST it? Maybe some people (and yes, that includes me) are fed up with being served the same crap all over again, without even the opportunity to really get an unbiased opinion before buying a game (or music or a film); some years back demos were common, so you could test most new games before buying it, what big games today (apart from sports games) offer demos? And reviews in magazines are bought in many cases anyway, there is no more objectivity and even if there is, than it's hard to distinguish it from the rest. 
Also when it comes to music, the music I'm listening to, isn't being played on the radio or anywhere, so I can either buy it blindly or download it to test it and then either buy it or delete it.
There is no black & white, "pirates = evil, companies = good" and the numbers that are being published by the companies that claim they lost certain amounts of money to "piracy" are bullcrap. Maybe they do lose money to it and maybe they don't, because there are many factors. I for one would never have bought any of the last BioWare games if I wouldn't have had the opportunity to test them first, because I was really disappointed with most recent games and was starting not to care about new releases, when I read about DAO, dl'd and tested it and then BOUGHT it - even got the LE. (And no, if a download would not have been available, I would not have bought it anyways, cause the last games I bought blindly turned out to be disappointing) So in my case BioWare/EA profited from the original download, because it made me buy the game. And any ****** group tells you to buy the software, if you like it. I see no problem with that, I even think that might warrant quality, because if the gamers can test the games before deciding whether to buy them, then the studios can't sell all their crap anymore, hoping the people will buy it anyways cause they can't know it's crap... think about it for a moment, before you start flaming me... 

Sinister316 wrote...
Illegal downloading is a more complicated form of theft hence the reason the courts were forced to make new terms to describe it and distinguish it seperately from theft in general. Is doesn't change the facts though, if you take into your possesion property, intellectual or physical, by illegal means you are a thief, the courts will just call you a infringer if it was downloaded.

There is only one real way of stealing intellectual property and that is stealing ideas and using them. That is theft, since the original "author"/creator of said ideas will not be able to use them afterwards anymore. The funny thing about this is that the ones doing that kind of theft are usually the same people who cry about illegal downloading... like the big movie studios who do it all the time. THEY are the criminals, but of course they have the money to hijack the legal system. Simple as that.

Sinister316 wrote...
Infringer = Thief
I think most would agree.

If they do, than they're idiots and as we know, the majority of people are idiots, but still, I doubt that most would agree, since according to some statistics more of 50% of the people in some Western countries download at least sometimes...

[MaaZeus]

Simply put.



Thievery = taking someones property for your own without permission, causes direct damage to original owner.



Piracy = Making illegal copy of a product that is protected by law, you do not directly steal anything but break copyright law. Damage is indirect as it is not a loss of material product but a loss of potential sale.



Both are illegal, but are very different types of crime.

[DeadInHell]

If EA takes such issue with the discussion of piracy perhaps they should stop adopting measures that force people to it.

On two occasions, suffering through EA DRM to play Bioware games, I've had to resort to measures of "piracy" in order to use my legitimately purchased products. It is simply unacceptable that consumers who legally purchase a product be prevented from using it by invasive DRM procedures. As has been said before, the only ones hampered by such things are those of us who actually buy the games. Anyone who is pirating software has a clean copy and suffers through none of the nonsense that we do in order to get to our products.

As for the topic now at hand, to argue that piracy and theft are two different things is in no way advocation of piracy. If I were to assert that assault is not murder, would you consider that to be an advocation of assault? No. Don't be absurd.

[Dethateer]

MaaZeus wrote...

Simply put.

Thievery = taking someones property for your own without permission, causes direct damage to original owner.

Piracy = Making illegal copy of a product that is protected by law, you do not directly steal anything but break copyright law. Damage is indirect as it is not a loss of material product but a loss of potential sale.

Both are illegal, but are very different types of crime.

They're not really potential sales. They're either people who wouldn't buy anyway, or people who will buy after testing. The only lost potential sales show up when devs like Ubi cram incredibly retarded DRM into their games.

[cruc1al]

Dethateer wrote...

MaaZeus wrote...

Simply put.

Thievery = taking someones property for your own without permission, causes direct damage to original owner.

Piracy = Making illegal copy of a product that is protected by law, you do not directly steal anything but break copyright law. Damage is indirect as it is not a loss of material product but a loss of potential sale.

Both are illegal, but are very different types of crime.

They're not really potential sales. They're either people who wouldn't buy anyway, or people who will buy after testing.

And you know this how? If piracy didn't exist, I'm pretty sure a fair proportion of those who pirate games without buying them afterwards would buy them instead.

[Dethateer]

cruc1al wrote...

Dethateer wrote...

MaaZeus wrote...

Simply put.

Thievery = taking someones property for your own without permission, causes direct damage to original owner.

Piracy = Making illegal copy of a product that is protected by law, you do not directly steal anything but break copyright law. Damage is indirect as it is not a loss of material product but a loss of potential sale.

Both are illegal, but are very different types of crime.

They're not really potential sales. They're either people who wouldn't buy anyway, or people who will buy after testing.

And you know this how? If piracy didn't exist, I'm pretty sure a fair proportion of those who pirate games without buying them afterwards would buy them instead.

Piracy cannot ever be stopped. And why is my point less valid than yours just because you're "pretty sure"? They'd just move on to other games.

[cruc1al]

Dethateer wrote...

Piracy cannot ever be stopped. And why
is my point less valid than yours just because you're "pretty sure"?
They'd just move on to other games.

So what if
piracy cannot be stopped? I gave you a "what if" scenario. Under the condition that no piracy exists at all, it is likely that people who now pirate games would buy games instead. Not all people, but some people. And that proportion of people is large enough to make it profitable for companies to try to fight piracy, or so they view it.

And your point is less valid because you're making a statement that either people only pirate games, or they pirate AND buy. You're discounting the possibility that some pirate OR buy, depending on which is the more viable option. I'm not. Your statement can be disproven by finding a small percentage of people who fit into the last category.

Modifié par cruc1al, 22 mars 2010 - 01:03 .

[Dethateer]

cruc1al wrote...

And your point is less valid because you're making a statement that either people only pirate games, or they pirate AND buy. You're discounting the possibility that some pirate OR buy, depending on which is the more viable option. I'm not. Your statement can be disproven by finding a small percentage of people who fit into the last category.

Thank you for your reading comprehension...
O, wait, what did I write there again?

Dethateer wrote...

They're not really potential sales.
They're either people who wouldn't buy anyway, or people who will buy
after testing. The only lost potential sales show up when devs
like Ubi cram incredibly retarded DRM into their games.

And pirating a game because it's not made anymore (see: System Shock 2), for example, doesn't really represent lost sales, unless you're counting second-hand sales.

Not to mention the fact that you didn't count them either. In fact, you only counted those who wouldn't move on to other games/forms of entertainment, which is an impossible to determine percentage, so, by your own logic, your argument is less valid than mine.

Modifié par Dethateer, 22 mars 2010 - 01:14 .

[cruc1al]

Dethateer wrote...

cruc1al wrote...

And your point is less valid because you're making a statement that either people only pirate games, or they pirate AND buy. You're discounting the possibility that some pirate OR buy, depending on which is the more viable option. I'm not. Your statement can be disproven by finding a small percentage of people who fit into the last category.

Thank you for your reading comprehension...
O, wait, what did I write there again?

Dethateer wrote...

They're not really potential sales.
They're either people who wouldn't buy anyway, or people who will buy
after testing. The only lost potential sales show up when devs
like Ubi cram incredibly retarded DRM into their games.

And pirating a game because it's not made anymore (see: System Shock 2), for example, doesn't really represent lost sales, unless you're counting second-hand sales.

Not to mention the fact that you didn't count them either. In fact, you only counted those who wouldn't move on to other games/forms of entertainment, which is an impossible to determine percentage, so, by your own logic, your argument is less valid than mine.

Impossible to determine percentage? Ever heard of, uh, gallups? Why would they move on to other games that they'd have to buy anyway? Why not just buy the game they would otherwise have pirated? Remember, in this scenario no piracy exists.

I know you mentioned Ubi's DRM, but that's a special case. My words "discounting the possibility" weren't meant as absolute. What I meant was that you're not sufficiently considering the possibility in general.

Modifié par cruc1al, 22 mars 2010 - 01:26 .

[Dethateer]

Ubi isn't the only one whose DRM made people pirate out of convenience. *points to Spore*

And... because it's a fictional scenario that doesn't apply to the real world, since pirates would tear apart a program and rebuild it if that's what it took to crack it? There is no such thing as a no piracy scenario. Those are only lost sales if one assumes such a scenario could actually happen.

[Tirigon]

Busomjack wrote...


I actually agree with you that DRM is an ineffective way for dealing with piracy.  Personally, I would deal with it the way ancient Islamic cultures dealt with thieves.  Cut off their hands. 

It would be interesting to see them try their "LOL TORRENT FTW!" with no hands.

Maybe you should have your hands cut off so you can´t write such sh!t.

In all seriousness though, I don't like DRM but that doesn't make piracy ok.

As for your second point about "the democratic process" interpretation of the law is not democratic.  Piracy is not a moral term, it is a legal term and the law says that it is illegal.  Just because you dissagree with the law doesn't give you the right to break it.

It doesn´t legally, but it SHOULD give you the right to break the law. Noone should be forced to obey to laws he or she hasn´t agreed voluntarily. But I´m not gonna explain further, you wouldn´t understand anyways.

[meznaric]

cruc1al wrote...
Impossible to determine percentage? Ever heard of, uh, gallups? Why
would they move on to other games that they'd have to buy anyway? Why
not just buy the game they would otherwise have pirated? Remember, in
this scenario no piracy exists.

I know you mentioned Ubi's DRM,
but that's a special case. My words "discounting the possibility"
weren't meant as absolute. What I meant was that you're not sufficiently
considering the possibility in general.

There very likely is a small percentage who would buy games instead of pirating. But if we are taking this negative into account, we should also calculate the percentage of people who buy games because they saw someone playing who pirated a game and buy it as a result.

So there is some cost associated with people who would otherwise buy. But there is also some benefit associated with the free marketing. If you want to get a full cost (or possibly benefit) of piracy on the creative industry, you've got to take all these effects into account. Either way, the cost of piracy is a lot smaller than what companies are letting on.

You see the true fear is not the loss of intellectual property. The true fear is the move towards basically almost free publishing. The publishers are those that stand to loose most from the sharing technologies, while the general public and creative workers (i.e. those that actually make the stuff) are the ones that stand to gain most.

So we should really ask ourselves. We have a kind of technology that allows us to do almost free publishing. Why do we still have to pay for the publishing? I understand there is a marketing cost, but publishing cost is really really low. Yet we pay for it. There are better business models is all I am saying. And this does not mean you have to take all the intellectual property rights and bin them. You just have to rethink the way you do business. And the businesses won't do this until they have a financial incentive to do so. And this will only happen when the state stops to shield them from all the effects of the new technology.

Modifié par meznaric, 22 mars 2010 - 03:06 .