16 replies to this topic

[JoshEth]

What are your views on Torrents, Filesharing and P2P?

I am going to post the most logical, irrefutable argument I can think of.

Is file sharing illegal. Sure. Is it wrong? Absolutely. Is it bad for anybody? Nope.

Here's why. If you look at sales of games/music/movies, they have actually gone UP along with P2P use. How can that be? Easy. Word of mouth - the ultimate advertising tool.

I wont lie. I download everything I can. I constantly look for movies from axxo, fxm, fxm, etc so i can watch it for free. But what happens after I watch/play/listen to whatever it is I download? I tell EVERYBODY about it. Most of my friends dont have the patience to learn how to use BitTorrent, so they go and buy/rent the game/movie/album/whatever.

I think the only people this hurts are those who try to sell crap and want to make a ton of money off of it.

How many times have you bought an album because you like one song, and discover the album sucks. Or how many times does a movie preview show the only funny parts in the entire movie and the rest of it blows? Or a game, with a recent example of Prototype. This game was ridiculously hyped up, and supposed to crush inFamous. Well as it turns out, game sucks, and inFamous is 100x better in every way.

I think P2P puts more pressure on these people to create something more polished and stop trying to sell fakes.

Look at it this way. Everyone downloaded The Dark Knight, or the new Star Trek movie. Their sales were insane. Did P2P really hurt them whatsoever? "Taken" was released in DVD quality MONTHS before the THEATRE release (I watched the movie back in November), and it was a great movie. So I told everyone they need to see it when it comes out.

And my final argument is simple. Why am I going to download DRM-ridden crap when I can generally get higher quality stuff, without the junk, for free. Numerous game have been released that the DRM would actually corrupt the OS, or crash the game, when I can jump on BitTorrent and get a better running version that doesnt require me to have a disc in the drive to run.

There's a reason a service like Steam is so successful. It's not because its tougher to pirate those games. But because it provides a service where I can download my games from any computer I log into, and it even keeps settings for my games.

In the end, if they spent this money to come up with innovative ideas rather than fight P2P, this would be a happier world.

What are your opinions?

[Tripp]

You've got a damn good point, and I certainly do see where you're coming from. And for god sakes man. That Angel is going to send me back to 1927 at this rate, or snap my neck and be done with it.

I digress. I do agree, Piracy is not a good thing, and shouldn't be condonable. However on the other side of the coin, if I were in the position to illegally AND hypothetically download a movie on a hypothetical bittorrent of sorts, and I were to illegally watch that movie, and it was decent, I would also be in a strong position to suggest that movie to several of my friends, who don't know the first thing about BitTorrent and the forementioned activities.

[cooky560]

There are two sides to this argument, as there are most arguments.


THE ARGUMENT FOR PIRACY

• There are no restrictions on the media after you get it
• There are no commercials on the media
• Price

THE ARGUMENT AGAINST PIRACY (MY ARGUMENT)

• You ARE stealing from the company (money lost by not making a sale is still theft if you get access to the product, remember media is licensed not sold)
• Pirates are the reason that anti-piracy systems are in place, making the innocent suffer
• Quality is usually better
• Extra features like commentary, un-cut scenes, a choice between dub or sub in foreign films
• If no-one pirated media, there would be no need for XCP and similar protection mechanisms, and less would be wasted on their production

[JJXB]

cooky560, on 27 October 2010 - 20:36 hrs, said:

There are two sides to this argument, as there are most arguments.


THE ARGUMENT FOR PIRACY

• There are no restrictions on the media after you get it
• There are no commercials on the media
• Price

THE ARGUMENT AGAINST PIRACY (MY ARGUMENT)

• You ARE stealing from the company (money lost by not making a sale is still theft if you get access to the product, remember media is licensed not sold)
• Pirates are the reason that anti-piracy systems are in place, making the innocent suffer
• Quality is usually better
• Extra features like commentary, un-cut scenes, a choice between dub or sub in foreign films
• If no-one pirated media, there would be no need for XCP and similar protection mechanisms, and less would be wasted on their production

ugh. get your definition of theft right please. there is no doubt that piracy is illegal. but please at least look up the legal definition of theft before you make yourself look as if you know nothing.
as taken from here but can be quoted from numerous other sources

Quote

(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and 'thief' and 'steal' shall be construed accordingly

in the act of piracy nothing is being deprived of anybody. the digital file is a copy. and when it is a copy, how can you declare it as theft according to the actual LEGAL definition? and money is never being lost with piracy. because even if it wasn't possible to pirate, there might be multiple reasons why the money would not have been guaranteed to go to the company (i.e. a lack of money or other reasons that might be construed as valid reasons, your mileage may vary). so if there was no way that money was promised to the company, it was only potential income. and potential income is just another way of saying "we might get the money". but if the money itself is indeed not promised to the company, how can it be classed as "stolen income" when you take into consideration that some people pirating might not have had the money in the first place.
so get your damn facts straight on that.

now, as for the DRM argument, that's another thing that seriously bugs me about people who will not get their facts straight.
because Piracy has always existed and no efforts to eradicate it, be it via DRM or any other way will stop it. and take into consideration the fact that pirates get a copy of the game that isn't affected by said DRM.
now the industry hates pirates, but they also hate USED GAME SALES. now, look at how DRM affects used game sales on PC. if you think that walking into a shop now and buying a recent PC game used will work, that'll be a joke. now as a result, the amount of consumers who have to buy new on PC is increased. so if you think it's the pirates inflicting the DRM on you, think again since with used sales there was actually a chance that a company would have money stolen off of them. but the only difference is that compared to piracy, someone is still profiting from money that "should have gone to the developer" and that someone is of course the used game retailer.

so DRM is effective at combating one thing that the industry hates. because only idiots would go for something that will never be able to be combated like piracy. thus it's more logical to target the other main "leech" off of your profits. but how do you market your screwing of the used market? you make the pirates a scapegoat. that's all piracy is being used for with the DRM and "sales figure" excuses.

of course i cannot provide sources on the truth of that but it makes a lot more sense from any perspective to realise that:

• Any attempts at stopping something happening all through history via laws and other measures have been futile (Homosexuality, Prohibition etc)
• Piracy is in exactly the same bracket of "You cannot stop it".
• The people affected the worst by DRM would be another potential market like the used game industry thus helping the possibility of money going to the developer for the copy of the game that was potentially going to be bought used.
• Stating that they are fucking used consumers in the ass with that move intentionally would be both PR suicide for the company and potentially illegal because of consumer rights laws as a downside though.
• Thus they get away with sabotaging their own game with DRM by blaming it on Piracy.

Think about that for a moment before still insisting that it's pirates that cause DRM to be used.

[♥ Pikachu ♥]

If you didn't figure it out. - Pikachu Approves

[cooky560]

JJXB, on 28 October 2010 - 19:12 hrs, said:

ugh. get your definition of theft right please. there is no doubt that piracy is illegal. but please at least look up the legal definition of theft before you make yourself look as if you know nothing.
as taken from here but can be quoted from numerous other sources

in the act of piracy nothing is being deprived of anybody. the digital file is a copy. and when it is a copy, how can you declare it as theft according to the actual LEGAL definition? and money is never being lost with piracy. because even if it wasn't possible to pirate, there might be multiple reasons why the money would not have been guaranteed to go to the company (i.e. a lack of money or other reasons that might be construed as valid reasons, your mileage may vary). so if there was no way that money was promised to the company, it was only potential income. and potential income is just another way of saying "we might get the money". but if the money itself is indeed not promised to the company, how can it be classed as "stolen income" when you take into consideration that some people pirating might not have had the money in the first place.
so get your damn facts straight on that.

now, as for the DRM argument, that's another thing that seriously bugs me about people who will not get their facts straight.
because Piracy has always existed and no efforts to eradicate it, be it via DRM or any other way will stop it. and take into consideration the fact that pirates get a copy of the game that isn't affected by said DRM.
now the industry hates pirates, but they also hate USED GAME SALES. now, look at how DRM affects used game sales on PC. if you think that walking into a shop now and buying a recent PC game used will work, that'll be a joke. now as a result, the amount of consumers who have to buy new on PC is increased. so if you think it's the pirates inflicting the DRM on you, think again since with used sales there was actually a chance that a company would have money stolen off of them. but the only difference is that compared to piracy, someone is still profiting from money that "should have gone to the developer" and that someone is of course the used game retailer.

so DRM is effective at combating one thing that the industry hates. because only idiots would go for something that will never be able to be combated like piracy. thus it's more logical to target the other main "leech" off of your profits. but how do you market your screwing of the used market? you make the pirates a scapegoat. that's all piracy is being used for with the DRM and "sales figure" excuses.

of course i cannot provide sources on the truth of that but it makes a lot more sense from any perspective to realise that:

• Any attempts at stopping something happening all through history via laws and other measures have been futile (Homosexuality, Prohibition etc)
• Piracy is in exactly the same bracket of "You cannot stop it".
• The people affected the worst by DRM would be another potential market like the used game industry thus helping the possibility of money going to the developer for the copy of the game that was potentially going to be bought used.
• Stating that they are fucking used consumers in the ass with that move intentionally would be both PR suicide for the company and potentially illegal because of consumer rights laws as a downside though.
• Thus they get away with sabotaging their own game with DRM by blaming it on Piracy.

Think about that for a moment before still insisting that it's pirates that cause DRM to be used.

My argument was not about the merits and / or costs of DRM, merely that it wouldn't exist if piracy didn't exist. I would also call Piracy theft since it involves the inappropriate acquisitions of properties you would not otherwise have, regardless of whether the company retains their copy. INTANGIBLE PROPERTY IS STILL PROPERTY in the same respect that an invention or idea remains the property of the inventor. As for your argument about my money point, assuming the pirate actually wants the product in question (a logical assumption since not many people download / buy things they don't want) thier only other choice would have been to purchase the item, hence the act of piracy has robbed the licensor a sale, and therefor money, although the offence is legally different from theft, in the real world there is little difference between the two.

Edited by cooky560, 28 October 2010 - 20:40 hrs.

[JJXB]

cooky560, on 28 October 2010 - 20:06 hrs, said:

My argument was not about the merits and / or costs of DRM, merely that it wouldn't exist if piracy didn't exist. I would also call Piracy theft since it involves the inappropriate acquisitions of properties you would not otherwise have, regardless of whether the company retains their copy. INTANGIBLE PROPERTY IS STILL PROPERTY in the same respect that an invention or idea remains the property of the inventor. As for your argument about my money point, assuming the pirate actually wants the product in question (a logical assumption since not many people download / buy things they don't want) thier only other choice would have been to purchase the item, hence the act of piracy has robbed the licensor a sale, and therefor money

Piracy possibly did "give birth" to the concept of DRM in some primitive form. but only back in the days of tapes and floppies. see how much piracy THAT stopped. but there would be one foolproof way to stop piracy and all of the world's other evils: remove free thought from the human brain. that is the only way to stop any crimes from from happening on a permanent basis. so no matter how much you might hate it, any crime will have been conceived in the human brain and therefore made possible. so even in an alternate future, there is a massive likelyhood that piracy even if it was under a different name would exist. therefore, so would DRM.
but at some point, DRM became more about stopping used sales and using piracy as a scapegoat. or maybe that was it's purpose all along?. either way we'll never know now. but DRM would in theory always exist regardless because of the human condition and the chain of reaction and thought that would trigger it.

and still, YOU ARE WRONG. THEFT AND PIRACY ARE DIFFERENT CRIMES. a piracy case charged as "Theft" would get laughed out of court. Because as the legal definition stated, it would be to "Deprive a person of property". and if you want to go ahead and think that potential income is the same as actual income, then consider this:
Let's assume your theory of "Intangible Property is Actual Property", if you follow it to the roots, money doesn't belong to us either. it belongs to the banks. because you could potentially not get any money from any source. only the difference in this example is that there is something to actually deprive the "original owner" of property that can be stolen.

but as i have shown with LEGAL DEFINITION, downloading a copy of a copyrighted file without the proper permissions of the copyright owner isn't stealing. there is a crime there but it is actually copyright infringement as you broke the copyright agreement by obtaining it in an unauthorised manner. there is no theft because:

• The original file (The "Property" a theft law refers to) is still intact and in possession of the rightful owner.
• You cannot steal a copyright by copying a file either. The copyright is still in place regardless of how you may infringe on it.
• Courts do not hold "Potential Earnings" as a property because there was nothing there to say that the person was even going to be interested in the product let alone have the currency to buy it. Thus, no proof the money was EVER going to change hands. Plus if "Potential earnings" were classified as a property, Companies would also be able to in theory earn the right to sue someone who doesn't touch their product in any manner legal or illegal for "Theft of Potential Earnings".
• Sometimes an pirated download can lead to a legal purchase where a purchase might not have even been considered before. so that isn't a lost sale but a GAINED sale.
• If piracy leads to the loss of a sale, it is more likely because of the quality of the base product. So if someone has bought a bad game before but reviews rated it good, videos looked good and other sources of testing portrayed the actual bad game to be a good game, you begrudge them the right to learn if the full core product is good before investing money?

Either way, you got facts wrong. because even legal definitions side with what i state. something you don't have any luxury of in your opinions. Is Piracy right? Legally no. Morally, it's different from person to person and circumstance.

cooky560, on 28 October 2010 - 20:06 hrs, said:

although the offence is legally different from theft, in the real world there is little difference between the two.

how so? from a moral standpoint? then that's YOUR morals. how come you feel the need to state that "The Real World" shares your morality when in reality the world has so many different points of morality that you cannot claim yours to be the "Right" set of morals that the world agrees with?
at least i can see the subjectivity where it is. you're just throwing out your opinions as fact. when you need solid sources to back up facts. my solid source for my facts? The law. yours? what sources?

Edited by JJXB, 28 October 2010 - 20:53 hrs.

[cooky560]

Ok let's take this point by point, I will add my responses in underlined since you cannot easily split quotes

JJXB, on 28 October 2010 - 20:47 hrs, said:

Piracy possibly did "give birth" to the concept of DRM in some primitive form. but only back in the days of tapes and floppies. see how much piracy THAT stopped. but there would be one foolproof way to stop piracy and all of the world's other evils: remove free thought from the human brain. that is the only way to stop any crimes from from happening on a permanent basis. so no matter how much you might hate it, any crime will have been conceived in the human brain and therefore made possible. so even in an alternate future, there is a massive likelyhood that piracy even if it was under a different name would exist. therefore, so would DRM.
but at some point, DRM became more about stopping used sales and using piracy as a scapegoat. or maybe that was it's purpose all along?. either way we'll never know now. but DRM would in theory always exist regardless because of the human condition and the chain of reaction and thought that would trigger it. It has been stated by many companies that piracy is the reason for DRM, also remember that most software is LICENSED not SOLD, meaning that in many cases the buyer doesn't actaully have the RIGHT TO RESELL IT, and where they do, for example with Windows, you can contact the company involved and get a new serial key for free, HOW IS THIS NOT SUPPORTING RESALE WHERE PERMITTED?

and still, YOU ARE WRONG. THEFT AND PIRACY ARE DIFFERENT CRIMES. a piracy case charged as "Theft" would get laughed out of court. Because as the legal definition stated, it would be to "Deprive a person of property". and if you want to go ahead and think that potential income is the same as actual income, then consider this:
Let's assume your theory of "Intangible Property is Actual Property", if you follow it to the roots, money doesn't belong to us either. it belongs to the banks. because you could potentially not get any money from any source. only the difference in this example is that there is something to actually deprive the "original owner" of property that can be stolen. ONE AGAIN YOU OBSESS OVER THE LEGAL DEFINITION, IF A PERSON WORKS FOR YEARS ON A PROJECT (WINDOWS VISTA WAS 4 YEARS IN THE MAKING FOR EXAMPLE) THAT PERSON WILL BE PRETTY MIFFED IF ILLEGAL COPIES ARE MADE, AND MANY PEOPLE SHARE MY VIEW THAT PIRACY IS THEFT, THE MAJORITY OF THE MUSIC INDUSTRY AND FILM INDUSTRY FOR EXAMPLE (HAVE YOU NOT SEEN THOSE DVDS WITH TRAILERS AT THE START SAYING THAT PIRACY IS THEFT?)

but as i have shown with LEGAL DEFINITION, downloading a copy of a copyrighted file without the proper permissions of the copyright owner isn't stealing. there is a crime there but it is actually copyright infringement as you broke the copyright agreement by obtaining it in an unauthorised manner. there is no theft because:

• The original file (The "Property" a theft law refers to) is still intact and in possession of the rightful owner. OK THIS IS VALID
• You cannot steal a copyright by copying a file either. The copyright is still in place regardless of how you may infringe on it.
• Courts do not hold "Potential Earnings" as a property because there was nothing there to say that the person was even going to be interested in the product let alone have the currency to buy it. Thus, no proof the money was EVER going to change hands. Plus if "Potential earnings" were classified as a property, Companies would also be able to in theory earn the right to sue someone who doesn't touch their product in any manner legal or illegal for "Theft of Potential Earnings".THIS IS NOT TRUE, COMPANIES CAN AND HAVE CLAIMED BACK COSTS (INCLUDING POTENTIAL COSTS) AFTER A PERSON IS CONVICTED IN THE UK, UNDER THE CIVIL RECOVERY SYSTEM (YOU CAN SEE SIGNS RELATED TO THIS IN STORES)
• Sometimes an pirated download can lead to a legal purchase where a purchase might not have even been considered before. so that isn't a lost sale but a GAINED sale. i HIGHLY DOUBT THE SIZE OF THIS MARKET IS ANYTHING CLOSE TO THE SIZE OF THE TORRENTING WORLD
• If piracy leads to the loss of a sale, it is more likely because of the quality of the base product. So if someone has bought a bad game before but reviews rated it good, videos looked good and other sources of testing portrayed the actual bad game to be a good game, you begrudge them the right to learn if the full core product is good before investing money? OTHER THAN IF SOMEONE DOESN'T WANT A GAME BECAUSE OF IT'S QUESTIONABLE QUALITY OR REVIEWS, THEY'D NOT PIRATE IT WOULD THEY? SOME OF THE MOST PIRATED SOFTWARE IN THE WORLD IS ALSO THE MOST POPULAR

Either way, you got facts wrong. because even legal definitions side with what i state. something you don't have any luxury of in your opinions. Is Piracy right? Legally no. Morally, it's different from person to person and circumstance.



how so? from a moral standpoint? then that's YOUR morals. how come you feel the need to state that "The Real World" shares your morality when in reality the world has so many different points of morality that you cannot claim yours to be the "Right" set of morals that the world agrees with? IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DEFINE A SET OF MORALS TRUE, HOWEVER YOU SEEM TO THINK THAT WHAT I AM SAYING IS A PERSONAL ATTACK ON YOU, THIS IS UNTRUE, I JUST HAPPEN TO SIDE WITH THE COMPANIES THAT MAKE THE PRODUCTS ON THE GROUNDS THAT IF THEY MAKE SOMETHING THEY DECIDE HOW AND WHERE IT CAN BE DISTRIBUTED, INCLUDING IF THEY WISH PROHIBITING USED SALES, IT IS DIFFERENT WHERE THE USED SALE STILL DEPRIVES THE ORIGINAL OWNER OF THE ORIGINAL (FOR EXAMPLE A VINYL SALE), HOWEVER WITH COMPUTER SYSTEMS IT IS TOO EASY TO MAKE A COPY OF THE PRODUCT BEFORE SELLING IT (THIS ITSELF IS PIRACY SINCE AT POINT OF SALE YOUR LICENSE BECOMES INVALID), THIS IS AN UNDERSTANDABLE AREA OF CONCERN FOR THE COMPANY


at least i can see the subjectivity where it is. you're just throwing out your opinions as fact. when you need solid sources to back up facts. my solid source for my facts? The law. yours? what sources? I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY SOURCES IN YOUR POSTS EITHER FOR ANY OF YOUR "FACTS" SO I AM DISMISSING THIS LINE BEFORE I SAY SOMETHING NASTY ABOUT IT

My source for the serial keys for free comes from the Windows License agreement which contains sections allowing the user to defeat activation if certain situations are true:

"You may permanently
transfer all of your rights under this EULA only as
part of a permanent sale or transfer of the COMPUTER,
provided you retain no copies of the SOFTWARE." (section 1.2 of the Windows EULA)

Piracy is theft trailer: (sections 0:19 to 0:21, this is an official statement thats on many recordings)

Edited by cooky560, 29 October 2010 - 10:33 hrs.

[Tripp]

cooky560, on 29 October 2010 - 10:17 hrs, said:

Piracy is theft trailer: (sections 0:19 to 0:21, this is an official statement thats on many recordings)

That's just media properganda that holds no truthful merit, what so ever.

[cooky560]

Yes it is, however my point was it shows a few of many about internet piracy (the thousands of people involved in making video)

[JJXB]

cooky560, on 29 October 2010 - 10:17 hrs, said:

It has been stated by many companies that piracy is the reason for DRM, also remember that most software is LICENSED not SOLD, meaning that in many cases the buyer doesn't actaully have the RIGHT TO RESELL IT, and where they do, for example with Windows, you can contact the company involved and get a new serial key for free, HOW IS THIS NOT SUPPORTING RESALE WHERE PERMITTED?

i know it has been publically "stated" that piracy is the reason for DRM. but think about how easily that covers up the fact the used market is hit too. and with the licenses do you mean those flimsy bits of text called EULA's? the only company that has got away with using EULA's in court is autodesk. no company before that got away with using a EULA as a way to prevent used sales. and the ones that do support resale have a system setup to actually make it viable to support it.

Quote

ONE AGAIN YOU OBSESS OVER THE LEGAL DEFINITION, IF A PERSON WORKS FOR YEARS ON A PROJECT (WINDOWS VISTA WAS 4 YEARS IN THE MAKING FOR EXAMPLE) THAT PERSON WILL BE PRETTY MIFFED IF ILLEGAL COPIES ARE MADE, AND MANY PEOPLE SHARE MY VIEW THAT PIRACY IS THEFT, THE MAJORITY OF THE MUSIC INDUSTRY AND FILM INDUSTRY FOR EXAMPLE (HAVE YOU NOT SEEN THOSE DVDS WITH TRAILERS AT THE START SAYING THAT PIRACY IS THEFT?)

many people also share the opinion that the holocaust never happened. or that jews did 9/11. but we all know that people have different schools of thought. doesn't stop them from being wrong. in this case, anyone who thinks piracy is theft is of course not taking into account the legal definition and basing it only on personal opinion.
and not all people think of pirates as a lost cause:
http://torrentfreak....endously101023/
http://torrentfreak....t-sites-090427/
http://torrentfreak....his-dvd-101019/
http://torrentfreak....-piracy-101008/
http://torrentfreak....torrent-100919/
http://torrentfreak....-battle-100914/
http://torrentfreak....-before-100914/
http://torrentfreak....ile-war-100915/
http://torrentfreak....torrent-100825/
note: these are all content makers of some sort that are behind each case listed here. and before you comment that it's a biased source for stories, it states what happened with opinions as separate bits of the article that you can choose not to read.

Quote

THIS IS NOT TRUE, COMPANIES CAN AND HAVE CLAIMED BACK COSTS (INCLUDING POTENTIAL COSTS) AFTER A PERSON IS CONVICTED IN THE UK, UNDER THE CIVIL RECOVERY SYSTEM (YOU CAN SEE SIGNS RELATED TO THIS IN STORES)

note: after a person is convicted. and with actual legally defined theft you can indeed claim back costs. but in theft, there is no "potential costs" involved. in copyright infringement cases i can see how some "potential costs" could be held as valid but i doubt that a company could claim millions of pounds were lost from a file being downloaded.

Quote

i HIGHLY DOUBT THE SIZE OF THIS MARKET IS ANYTHING CLOSE TO THE SIZE OF THE TORRENTING WORLD

and you think that some people don't pirate because of the fact they can't afford shit though they would love to pay money to the company for their work? some people like the game but hate the developer's decisions in one manner or another (e.g. a good activision game might come out but they might hate the thought of even paying Bobby "Pools of money" Kotick anything directly or indirectly). even if you don't count that as a valid reason within your morality, it doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense that someone wouldn't want to contribute to a bad company.

Quote

OTHER THAN IF SOMEONE DOESN'T WANT A GAME BECAUSE OF IT'S QUESTIONABLE QUALITY OR REVIEWS, THEY'D NOT PIRATE IT WOULD THEY? SOME OF THE MOST PIRATED SOFTWARE IN THE WORLD IS ALSO THE MOST POPULAR

like i stated, some people pirate as a test to ensure that the reviews aren't bullshitting for example. because how are you going to know if a PC game is good in YOUR OWN standards without playing it for yourself first?
demos? please. good demos don't exist anymore. there again the shareware model was a far better "taste test" than demos now since you got full non-gimped examples of gameplay with a full set of levels to test how solid the actual gameplay is and how long it will be fun to play. demos now are either steroid enhanced areas of early in the game, gimped versions of later in the game or in some other way non-reflective of the actual game experience and longevity of the true game. Videos? Reviews? Screenshots? biased towards trying to get you to buy the game no matter how bad it might actually be when you shell out the money for it. so either way, how are you going to know it's good or bad before playing it to ascertain that in your own personal opinion?

Quote

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DEFINE A SET OF MORALS TRUE, HOWEVER YOU SEEM TO THINK THAT WHAT I AM SAYING IS A PERSONAL ATTACK ON YOU, THIS IS UNTRUE, I JUST HAPPEN TO SIDE WITH THE COMPANIES THAT MAKE THE PRODUCTS ON THE GROUNDS THAT IF THEY MAKE SOMETHING THEY DECIDE HOW AND WHERE IT CAN BE DISTRIBUTED, INCLUDING IF THEY WISH PROHIBITING USED SALES, IT IS DIFFERENT WHERE THE USED SALE STILL DEPRIVES THE ORIGINAL OWNER OF THE ORIGINAL (FOR EXAMPLE A VINYL SALE), HOWEVER WITH COMPUTER SYSTEMS IT IS TOO EASY TO MAKE A COPY OF THE PRODUCT BEFORE SELLING IT (THIS ITSELF IS PIRACY SINCE AT POINT OF SALE YOUR LICENSE BECOMES INVALID), THIS IS AN UNDERSTANDABLE AREA OF CONCERN FOR THE COMPANY

i never construed it as a personal attack on me, i just stated the fact that "the real world" has too many sets of morality to even consider calling yours the only one that's right by "the real world's" standard. and do you also side with the companies when they do this:
http://www.gamasutra...eadquarters.php
http://news.cnet.com..._3-5476714.html
http://www.neoseeker...thheld-bonuses/
because when you look at it, is employee mistreatment, withholding of bonuses and laying off the people that just finished your fucking game something you should support? because that's within the morality of some of these companies too.
One thing you are not taking into account is the fact these companies are too short-sighted to even think about making profit from used game sales themselves. the only one that has (EA) are fucking the consumer in the ass with a $10/£15 fee for a new key (see: Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age, New EA sports games). when in reality the best solutions lie in either:

• Making the Used game retailer pay for the fee on they key in some way
• Publishers setting up Resale schemes of their own that allow their own games to be resold to them and the used copies then to be either resold sealed to retailers with new keys and/or direct resale to consumers.

Either way, the industry itself is ass-backwards retarded right now and needs to learn how to deal with the digital age and used sales PROPERLY.

Quote

I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY SOURCES IN YOUR POSTS EITHER FOR ANY OF YOUR "FACTS" SO I AM DISMISSING THIS LINE BEFORE I SAY SOMETHING NASTY ABOUT IT

you mean how i'm actually stating THE LAW as a viable source for the definition of theft and making sure to point out that by official (note: government official, not a game developer's official) standards, piracy is not theft? i never claimed the DRM reasoning or anything else was *pure* fact. i stated it was common sense.

Quote

My source for the serial keys for free comes from the Windows License agreement which contains sections allowing the user to defeat activation if certain situations are true:

"You may permanently
transfer all of your rights under this EULA only as
part of a permanent sale or transfer of the COMPUTER,
provided you retain no copies of the SOFTWARE." (section 1.2 of the Windows EULA)

one actual source to backup one tiny thing that you were saying that i answered anyway? whooptee doo. now show that all game developers/publishers have pure moral standards to backup their skewed viewpoints.

Quote

Piracy is theft trailer: (sections 0:19 to 0:21, this is an official statement thats on many recordings)

you really think propaganda and scare videos are actually solid sources?

and one last thing: those companies that claim "Piracy is out of control"?
http://www.zeropaid....piracy-figures/
http://arstechnica.c...s-are-bogus.ars

Edited by JJXB, 29 October 2010 - 12:21 hrs.

[cooky560]

JJXB, on 29 October 2010 - 12:19 hrs, said:

i know it has been publically "stated" that piracy is the reason for DRM. but think about how easily that covers up the fact the used market is hit too. and with the licenses do you mean those flimsy bits of text called EULA's? the only company that has got away with using EULA's in court is autodesk. no company before that got away with using a EULA as a way to prevent used sales. and the ones that do support resale have a system setup to actually make it viable to support it.

Regardless a EULA is the only real way a company has of stating the permissions you have with the license you are given please correct me if this is wrong.

JJXB, on 29 October 2010 - 12:19 hrs, said:

many people also share the opinion that the holocaust never happened. or that jews did 9/11. but we all know that people have different schools of thought. doesn't stop them from being wrong. in this case, anyone who thinks piracy is theft is of course not taking into account the legal definition and basing it only on personal opinion.

Many of these named examples have already been debunked by extensive study, this document about the 9/11 findings for example, however I seen nothing other than hearsay about secondary uses of DRM technology, also remember that most DRM technology (for example on CD and DVD) do not prohibit the sale of the original recording, only making a copy of it.

JJXB, on 29 October 2010 - 12:19 hrs, said:

note: after a person is convicted. and with actual legally defined theft you can indeed claim back costs. but in theft, there is no "potential costs" involved. in copyright infringement cases i can see how some "potential costs" could be held as valid but i doubt that a company could claim millions of pounds were lost from a file being downloaded

Having no experience with using Civil recovery I accept this probability

JJXB, on 29 October 2010 - 12:19 hrs, said:

and you think that some people don't pirate because of the fact they can't afford shit though they would love to pay money to the company for their work? some people like the game but hate the developer's decisions in one manner or another (e.g. a good activision game might come out but they might hate the thought of even paying Bobby "Pools of money" Kotick anything directly or indirectly). even if you don't count that as a valid reason within your morality, it doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense that someone wouldn't want to contribute to a bad company.

If you cannot afford to purchase software legitimately, you cannot have it, if you don't like this fact tough shit that's how capitalism works. The practices of the company do not justify pirating their products either, if you don't like them as a company, boycott.

JJXB, on 29 October 2010 - 12:19 hrs, said:

like i stated, some people pirate as a test to ensure that the reviews aren't bullshitting for example. because how are you going to know if a PC game is good in YOUR OWN standards without playing it for yourself first?
demos? please. good demos don't exist anymore. there again the shareware model was a far better "taste test" than demos now since you got full non-gimped examples of gameplay with a full set of levels to test how solid the actual gameplay is and how long it will be fun to play. demos now are either steroid enhanced areas of early in the game, gimped versions of later in the game or in some other way non-reflective of the actual game experience and longevity of the true game. Videos? Reviews? Screenshots? biased towards trying to get you to buy the game no matter how bad it might actually be when you shell out the money for it. so either way, how are you going to know it's good or bad before playing it to ascertain that in your own personal opinion?

As above, this in no way entitles a person to pirate software, if the company provides poor quality demos then don't risk using the product.

JJXB, on 29 October 2010 - 12:19 hrs, said:

i never construed it as a personal attack on me, i just stated the fact that "the real world" has too many sets of morality to even consider calling yours the only one that's right by "the real world's" standard. and do you also side with the companies when they do this:

There are many companies out there with terrible practices, however this again does not entitle a person to pirate their products, if you feel the developer is showing poor form, boycott.

JJXB, on 29 October 2010 - 12:19 hrs, said:

One thing you are not taking into account is the fact these companies are too short-sighted to even think about making profit from used game sales themselves. the only one that has (EA) are fucking the consumer in the ass with a $10/£15 fee for a new key (see: Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age, New EA sports games). when in reality the best solutions lie in either:
Making the Used game retailer pay for the fee on they key in some way
Publishers setting up Resale schemes of their own that allow their own games to be resold to them and the used copies then to be either resold sealed to retailers with new keys and/or direct resale to consumers.
Either way, the industry itself is ass-backwards retarded right now and needs to learn how to deal with the digital age and used sales PROPERLY.

One thing you are not taking into account is that rights the software developer gives you as part of the sale are entirely up to them, if they decide to ban used sales entirely, or charge a fee, that's entirely up to them, and they have every right to use measures to prevent or permit any of these operations, since they own all the rights to the distribution of the software.

JJXB, on 29 October 2010 - 12:19 hrs, said:

and one last thing: those companies that claim "Piracy is out of control"?
http://www.zeropaid....piracy-figures/
http://arstechnica.c...s-are-bogus.ars

impossible to quantify figures do not disprove that piracy causes losses, merely that it is difficult to judge the value of this figure

[JJXB]

cooky560, on 29 October 2010 - 13:01 hrs, said:

Regardless a EULA is the only real way a company has of stating the permissions you have with the license you are given please correct me if this is wrong.

yes but when they have been in use for at least 15+ years (not 100% sure on how long EULA's have been in use), how come it has only recently come to pass that ANY EULA has been given legal credence whatsoever in a court of law?

Quote

Many of these named examples have already been debunked by extensive study, this document about the 9/11 findings for example, however I seen nothing other than hearsay about secondary uses of DRM technology, also remember that most DRM technology (for example on CD and DVD) do not prohibit the sale of the original recording, only making a copy of it.

true. but you have to consider:

• Since it has never been considered necessary by the industry to question "why" DRM is used, there is no reports or findings whatsoever.
• DRM on CD'S and DVD stop something else that is a legal right to the consumer: Backup. either for digital use on your MP3 player or anything else that would be considered a legal right. Both the right to resell and the right to backup as long as you own the original are still in UK and European Law.

So either way, DRM in all technicalities violates legal consumer and possibly human rights (that one i can't be certain of).

Quote

If you cannot afford to purchase software legitimately, you cannot have it, if you don't like this fact tough shit that's how capitalism works. The practices of the company do not justify pirating their products either, if you don't like them as a company, boycott.

And how the human condition works means that even if capitalism works like that, people will inevitably think "This is bullshit, i won't stand for it" and do it regardless of how Capitalism might work.

Quote

As above, this in no way entitles a person to pirate software, if the company provides poor quality demos then don't risk using the product.

wait, you are telling me that there should be no way to make sure that you are going to be buying a quality product? because how do you know that a 3 hour easy game should be worth £50? it's pure ripoff overcharging in that case. but either way, you prefer people diving in blind and having the risk of buyer's remorse? especially in a recession where jobs are fucking awkward to find as it is, you expect people to drop a lot of money on a game not knowing if it was a waste?

Quote

There are many companies out there with terrible practices, however this again does not entitle a person to pirate their products, if you feel the developer is showing poor form, boycott.

this point is based on the person's moral standpoint. so what you are presenting as "fact" right now, is actually your moral opinion. note that not once have i stated that i agree or disagree with one side of a opinion based argument (including some of the stuff i might be saying) so for all you know i might agree with the sentiment of "boycott it" and be playing the devil's advocate. i just think it's wrong how you are forcing your viewpoint as right when i at least am willing to say "i think this way but the fact that others think differently is fine. i agree to disagree".

Quote

One thing you are not taking into account is that rights the software developer gives you as part of the sale are entirely up to them, if they decide to ban used sales entirely, or charge a fee, that's entirely up to them, and they have every right to use measures to prevent or permit any of these operations, since they own all the rights to the distribution of the software.

Of course they own the rights to the software. hence why piracy is classed as "copyright infringement". but that doesn't stop people from (rightfully) having opinions about it and then (possibly wrongfully) acting on said opinions. though the law does dictate that you can't prohibit used sales. because that is a consumer rights violation. plus it would look bad for the company if they did fuck the consumer. see how bad ubisoft's reputation is since the "Always Online" DRM on asassin's creed 2 and any other pc game by them onwards.

Quote

impossible to quantify figures do not disprove that piracy causes losses, merely that it is difficult to judge the value of this figure

they made up phony figures to make it look as if piracy was a serious profit loss when the real reason for the profit loss might have been mediocre product quality and as a result, some people's word of mouth/ownership of the game could have led to someone who was considering buying the game to avoid it or buy it second hand once the price goes down. just because piracy has always been there, it doesn't mean piracy is the cause of profit loss when there are so many other considerations (like the industry itself being retarded in MANY areas that are losing them money). the industries themselves are the main problem because with new eras of technology and new generations, they take no consideration into the fact that they might just be spending too much goddamn money to exploit something that might become a minor fad (see: motion controls, 3D gaming)
other industries have different things killing them from the inside too but in the end it's all semantics since no matter what, piracy will always be there and will always be used as a scapegoat even if it is responsible for only a fraction of said damage.

Edited by JJXB, 29 October 2010 - 14:03 hrs.

[cooky560]

JJXB, on 29 October 2010 - 14:01 hrs, said:

yes but when they have been in use for at least 15+ years (not 100% sure on how long EULA's have been in use), how come it has only recently come to pass that ANY EULA has been given legal credence whatsoever in a court of law?

Chance? Lack of real interest this issue? That is mere coincidence

JJXB, on 29 October 2010 - 14:01 hrs, said:

true. but you have to consider:
Since it has never been considered necessary by the industry to question "why" DRM is used, there is no reports or findings whatsoever.
DRM on CD'S and DVD stop something else that is a legal right to the consumer: Backup. either for digital use on your MP3 player or anything else that would be considered a legal right. Both the right to resell and the right to backup as long as you own the original are still in UK and European Law.
So either way, DRM in all technicalities violates legal consumer and possibly human rights (that one i can't be certain of).

There is no right in the UK to make backups of data, therefore this purpose is not a breach of consume rights

"In the United Kingdom, making a private copy of copyrighted media without the copyright owner's consent is illegal: this includes ripping music from a CD to a computer or digital music player.^[10][11] The UK government has made proposals to allow people to make copies of music for personal use.^[12]. According to one survey, 55% of British consumers believed ripping a CD to be legal, and 59% admitted to doing it.^[13][14]." Source

JJXB, on 29 October 2010 - 14:01 hrs, said:

And how the human condition works means that even if capitalism works like that, people will inevitably think "This is bullshit, i won't stand for it" and do it regardless of how Capitalism might work

Those people are entitled to their beliefs, as we are ours, but they are still breaking the law

JJXB, on 29 October 2010 - 14:01 hrs, said:

wait, you are telling me that there should be no way to make sure that you are going to be buying a quality product? because how do you know that a 3 hour easy game should be worth £50? it's pure ripoff overcharging in that case. but either way, you prefer people diving in blind and having the risk of buyer's remorse? especially in a recession where jobs are fucking awkward to find as it is, you expect people to drop a lot of money on a game not knowing if it was a waste?

It is the companies job to ensure that they are selling a quality product, which is why there are countless magazines and internet sites devoted to reviewing software and hardware products, if you don't want to take the risk that it's a shitty product, don't buy it and move on, there are thousands more products available to do a similar job.

JJXB, on 29 October 2010 - 14:01 hrs, said:

this point is based on the person's moral standpoint. so what you are presenting as "fact" right now, is actually your moral opinion. note that not once have i stated that i agree or disagree with one side of a opinion based argument (including some of the stuff i might be saying) so for all you know i might agree with the sentiment of "boycott it" and be playing the devil's advocate. i just think it's wrong how you are forcing your viewpoint as right when i at least am willing to say "i think this way but the fact that others think differently is fine. i agree to disagree".

My Moral Standpoint in this scenario happens to follow that of the law, so I would argue that is fact. Ever heard the saying "vote with your wallet?"

JJXB, on 29 October 2010 - 14:01 hrs, said:

Of course they own the rights to the software. hence why piracy is classed as "copyright infringement". but that doesn't stop people from (rightfully) having opinions about it and then (possibly wrongfully) acting on said opinions. though the law does dictate that you can't prohibit used sales. because that is a consumer rights violation. plus it would look bad for the company if they did fuck the consumer. see how bad ubisoft's reputation is since the "Always Online" DRM on asassin's creed 2 and any other pc game by them onwards.

The always on line policy of activision and other companies (remember early builds of Steam before off-line mode was put in?) does stink, and as a result I simply endeavour to get those games through Steam where possible, or simply avoid them entirely. This is not an ideal solution, but at least it's a legal one. As for used sales, since the copyright holder can stop sales entirely, what exactly stops them from controlling used sales?

JJXB, on 29 October 2010 - 14:01 hrs, said:

they made up phony figures to make it look as if piracy was a serious profit loss when the real reason for the profit loss might have been mediocre product quality and as a result, some people's word of mouth/ownership of the game could have led to someone who was considering buying the game to avoid it or buy it second hand once the price goes down. just because piracy has always been there, it doesn't mean piracy is the cause of profit loss when there are so many other considerations (like the industry itself being retarded in MANY areas that are losing them money). the industries themselves are the main problem because with new eras of technology and new generations, they take no consideration into the fact that they might just be spending too much goddamn money to exploit something that might become a minor fad (see: motion controls, 3D gaming)
other industries have different things killing them from the inside too but in the end it's all semantics since no matter what, piracy will always be there and will always be used as a scapegoat even if it is responsible for only a fraction of said damage.

This I admit is dumb, however it's not the first time that industries (or indeed governments) have used exaggeration to make a point.

Edited by cooky560, 29 October 2010 - 14:47 hrs.

[♥ Pikachu ♥]

[MegaZero64]

I support piracy, because there is a lot of shitty goods being pushed out. I like to try before I buy.
For example, Ultraman. I loved that series, and I bought the dvd set as soon as I had the chance. The same goes with Ninja Assassin. If I don't like it, I delete it. If I do like it, I buy it.

[MissTengu]

Here is proof that piracy isn't all bad:

Quote

Distribution As no big studio picked up the film for theatrical and home distribution, Double Edge Films pitched the movie directly to independent cinemas and also saw to the DVD, Blu-ray and online distribution themselves. DVD and Blu-ray copies of the movie are sold directly via the company's website starting from October 30, 2009 and are sold at retail stores starting November 10, 2009, as well as downloads at Video on demand stores.^[4] According to TorrentFreak, a file sharing news site, Ink was downloaded via BitTorrent 400,000 times in a single week and exposed the film to a large audience, leading to higher DVD and Blu-ray sales in return.^[5] Jamin and Kiowa Winans wrote in their newsletter that they had "embraced the piracy" and are "happy Ink is getting unprecedented exposure."^[5] Around Christmas 2009 the film was also released on Hulu for free viewing.^[6][7]

^{Please note this is taken from an article about a film called "Ink." If you haven't seen the film I suggest you don't look it up on wiki. Simply download it and see it for all the glory that it is. you will see just how much piracy has helped such a wonderful film become some what known.}