Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Helptato
#26 Old 25th Jun 2013 at 5:36 PM
Part of the problem is when companies like EA respond to pirating by slapping even WORSE DRM/copy protection on games. Then customers get pissed off, pirate the games to get round the DRM, and then the cycle gets repeated again. IMO it only makes it worse.


Emma!

Simblr
[url=https://peanutbuttersandwich.dreamwidth.org/Dreamwidth[/url]
Advertisement
Site Helper
#27 Old 25th Jun 2013 at 9:35 PM
It's true. EA basically forced me to learn to pirate, even though I legally owned their games. Bad move, EA!
Instructor
#28 Old 26th Jun 2013 at 8:00 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Nysha
The majority of people who pirate are redistributing, in fact, because they are using P2P. P2P means that you upload while you download; and depending on where the person is downloading from and what their take is on netiquette, they may be obliged to keep uploading long after they've finished downloading. That's not to say I agree with the current state of copyright law, but there are very few people who "just" pirate for personal use, even if that's their primary concern.


True, but people who download something over P2P and then stop uploading immediatly afterwards are often called or referred to as leechers and there are more leechers than seeders out there.

All TS2 Downloads Link
All TS3 Downloads: Link
All Other downloads: Link
Skyrim SKSE 1.6.x gamepad key support: Link
Instructor
#29 Old 28th Aug 2013 at 3:38 PM Last edited by High Plains Gamer : 28th Aug 2013 at 3:57 PM.
Your question contains its own answer. The unauthorized copying of software is not piracy. "Piracy" has a distinct common and legal meaning.

No one is boarding a ship owned by EA, with cutlass in hand, saying "Ahoy! Mayteys! Give me your gold!" (And yes, real piracy still exists in the world -- particularly around Somalia.)

In the context of unauthorized copying, the use of the word "piracy" is a propaganda term -- as is the term "intellectual property." A persons interest in his creations is not property. A copyright does not create a property right, either at common law or by statute. Since it is not property, unauthorized copying is not "theft." Anyone who starts bandying around words like "piracy," "intellectual property," or "theft" is making statements which are legally inaccurate and deliberately deceptive.

Think of it like this, imagine that the software companies that anyone making an unauthorized copy of their software is guilty of TREASON. Most of us would look at this and say that the claim is ridiculous. Well, the same is true of calling unauthorized copying "piracy." Making an unauthorized copy is not TREASON and it is not piracy. Making an unauthorized copy is "making and unauthorized copy." Nothing more, nothing less.

In some cases, making an unauthorized copy is perfectly legal. For example, under copyright law, one can make archival copies of software. Also "fair use" is perfectly legal. And libraries typically are given a certain degree of latitude -- I suspect most of us would agree that public libraries are a good thing. (Publishers, on the other hand, hate public libraries.) Other forms of unauthorized copying are illegal, or more accurately infringe on a copyright. But talking about copyright infringement is not nearly as dramatic as talking about "piracy."

Resorting to propaganda and name calling is actually pretty "over the top." It is meant to stifle rather than encourage discussion. Anyone who questions what the software companies is accused of supporting piracy. Might I suggest that people opposing unauthorized copying, even when it is perfectly legal, are supporting fraud and deceptive trade practices? Such a claim would be no more over the top than accusing people of supporting piracy.

That you felt compelled to state that this was not a pro-piracy thread just shows how effective this propaganda campaign has been in stifling a free and open discussion of the topic.
Site Helper
#30 Old 28th Aug 2013 at 4:59 PM
I remember hearing recently that a dictionary had to add the word "figurative" as a definition for the word "literal". That's because of usage. Yes, if people continually use a word to mean its exact opposite, then that definition actually becomes a valid definition, regardless of the intelligence of the people who starting using the word to mean its opposite.

In the same way, the word "piracy" is widely used to mean "making an unauthorized copy". You may not like this definition, but you can't turn back the clock on that definition. It's a commonly used phrase which is likely in most recent editions of any dictionary.
Née whiterider
retired moderator
#31 Old 28th Aug 2013 at 6:46 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Digitalchaos
True, but people who download something over P2P and then stop uploading immediatly afterwards are often called or referred to as leechers and there are more leechers than seeders out there.
Sure, but they're still uploading during the time that they are downloading, and any prosecutor will happily take that as a case of redistribution.

The title of this thread isn't about not wanting to be seen to support piracy - it's about the fact that discussion of piracy online tends to turn into a discussion of the morality of piracy, and the OP wanted to avoid that kind of derailment. I do agree that the term piracy is a deliberately over the top term to use, which has been chosen for impact, as anyone who has seen those ridiculous old "you wouldn't steal a car" segments at the beginning of a DVD will attest to. I suspect, though, that it's too late to change it.

What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.
Instructor
#32 Old 28th Aug 2013 at 10:49 PM Last edited by High Plains Gamer : 28th Aug 2013 at 11:49 PM.
Quote: Originally posted by Mootilda
I remember hearing recently that a dictionary had to add the word "figurative" as a definition for the word "literal". That's because of usage. Yes, if people continually use a word to mean its exact opposite, then that definition actually becomes a valid definition, regardless of the intelligence of the people who starting using the word to mean its opposite.

In the same way, the word "piracy" is widely used to mean "making an unauthorized copy". You may not like this definition, but you can't turn back the clock on that definition. It's a commonly used phrase which is likely in most recent editions of any dictionary.


This does not use the sloppy use of language, nor does it justify spreading propaganda.

It's like that old Abraham Lincoln question: :If we call a tail a "leg," how many legs does a horse have?

Answer: Four. Calling a tail a "leg" does not make it one.

I am not particularly friendly towards copyright and patent law. Too often, they have become tolls on the road of commerce, and become a tool for seeking monopoly rents.

I am concerned about the degree of inequality we currently are seeing in the U.S. We are experiencing a new gilded age, where income inequality is at levels not seen in a century. Currently, inequality in the U.S. is greater than that of Argentina in the 1940s. This degree of inequality is both socially and economically disruptive; inequality in the U.S. is now greater than that in Egypt or Tunisia prior to the "Arab Spring."

A major cause of this income inequality are the current copyright and patent laws. A second major factor is our current system of corporate structure and management. All too often, the people making a fortune off of software copyrights are not the people actually doing the work of writing the software, but some suit sitting in some fancy office. You can be pretty sure that the actual programmers and artists making the Sims games are not really paid all that much considering their contributions, but that the CEO of EA is making a lot of money for basically doing nothing. (John Riccitiello, as CEO of EA, received compensation of $15,841,307.)

It's these very wealthy individuals who write the copyright and patent laws. If you have any experience with dealing with legislatures, you know that legislators and their staffs do not actually write any laws. Instead, laws are written by well paid lobbyists who are paid by very wealthy individuals. These lobbyist written laws are then handed to legislators who pass them through Congress or state legislatures, often without even reading them and certainly without understanding them. These legislators, in turn, receive huge bribes to do this. Understand that the current state of copyright and patent law is very corrupt.

There is not much the average individual can do to fight this corruption. In fact, the longer it persists, the more wealth these very wealthy people accumulate, giving them the ability to hire even more lobbyists and make bigger bribes to politicians. More importantly, they can use their wealth and power to stifle competing products and keep them off of the market.

Anyone who believes in free markets and an open economy should be highly suspicious of propaganda coming from these wealthy individuals. They are not working in your best interest. Keep in mind that a copyright or patent is a grant of a monopoly. Under current copyright law, those monopolies last almost indefinitely. The copyright on Mickey Mouse, for example, has survived its creator, Walt Disney, by nearly fifty years. Walt Disney no longer benefits from a copyright on his creations, but individuals who have created absolutely nothing of value do. Monopolies do not promote free markets, they destroy them.

There is little an individual can do to fight these corporate monopolists. One way to fight back is to engage in a degree of civil disobedience and not respect laws which promote the creation of corporate monopolies. Keep in mind that most transactions in any sort of market economy require cooperation from its participants. When one group of people are able to manipulate the rules of such a system, they really cannot reasonably expect others to follow those rules.
Top Secret Researcher
#33 Old 28th Aug 2013 at 11:33 PM
Quote: Originally posted by High Plains Gamer
This does not use the sloppy use of language, nor does it justify spreading propaganda.

It's like that old Abraham Lincoln question: :If we call a tail a "leg," how many legs does a horse have?

Answer: Four. Calling a tail a "leg" does not make it one.


We used to call a tail a "penis". Should everyone go back to the old definition of that word? If not, then word definitions can change. Holding to a specific era's definition of words is fine, but insisting that everyone follow those definitions is annoying.

As a fellow grammar nazi, I am ashamed. Now, how about we stop arguing about which word describes the topic? Everyone understands that "piracy" describes it, so the word serves its function to bring the concept across in conversation.

To restate my earlier thoughts: I don't think that piracy is nearly as bad as companies think it is. There are successful industries based on allowing people to take the product for free and decide to pay later. If human nature was as bad as companies claim, those industries would be gone. I think I gave WildTangent as an example last time, because it also deals in video games. I think KrispyKreme does the same thing. You get a free doughnut when you go in. There's nothing to stop you from taking it and leaving. But most people don't. Based on things like this, I think that we're not very likely to rip off those companies - well, deserving companies - and then leave them high and dry.
Instructor
#34 Old 28th Aug 2013 at 11:59 PM
Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
As a fellow grammar nazi, I am ashamed. Now, how about we stop arguing about which word describes the topic? Everyone understands that "piracy" describes it, so the word serves its function to bring the concept across in conversation..


For t he purposes of this conversation,why don't we just call unauthorized copying treason. If you make an unauthorized copy of a piece of software, you are a TRAITOR!

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they're the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!
Alchemist
#35 Old 29th Aug 2013 at 12:02 AM Last edited by applefeather2 : 29th Aug 2013 at 12:25 AM.
Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
We used to call a tail a "penis". Should everyone go back to the old definition of that word?

Okay, hugbug, what is the OLD definition of "penis" ?

erm... ... Never mind. Just have a free doughnut. I made copies.
Instructor
#36 Old 29th Aug 2013 at 6:03 AM
For those who disagree with my posts: it is easy living in a fact free universe. You can click the disagree button without ever giving the matter a moment of thought. But keep in mind that such thoughtlessness has real world costs, that go beyond computer gaming. Consider, this article by Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.

Intellectual property rights are rules that we create and that are supposed to improve social well-being. But unbalanced intellectual-property regimes result in inefficiencies—including monopoly profits and a failure to maximize the use of knowledge—that impede the pace of innovation. And, as the Myriad case shows, they can even result in unnecessary loss of life.

America’s intellectual property regime—and the regime that the US has helped to foist upon the rest of the world through the TRIPS agreement—is unbalanced. We should all hope that, with its decision in the Myriad case, the Supreme Court will contribute to the creation of a more sensible and humane framework.


Of course, the easiest and best way to eliminate unauthorized copying is to eliminate copyrights altogether. Our current system of copyrights and patents is a relic from the medieval guild system, which serves to transfer wealth from the poorest individuals to the wealthiest.

It also strikes me that the people disagreeing with me are admantly opposed to public libraries and public art museums. After all, public libraries and museums make the creative works of authors and artists available to the general public for free. Personally, I see little difference between offering a game title to the public for free and offering a fiction novel to the public for free. Some of the posters on this site undoubtedly view both libraries and museums as the worst pirates of all.
Née whiterider
retired moderator
#37 Old 29th Aug 2013 at 12:32 PM
It's rather obnoxious to assume that people who disagree with you do so because they "live in a fact free universe". Funnily enough, the same facts can be interpreted and analysed differently by different people. That's why debate is a thing.

What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.
Mad Poster
#38 Old 29th Aug 2013 at 3:36 PM
Quote: Originally posted by High Plains Gamer
It also strikes me that the people disagreeing with me are admantly opposed to public libraries and public art museums. After all, public libraries and museums make the creative works of authors and artists available to the general public for free. Personally, I see little difference between offering a game title to the public for free and offering a fiction novel to the public for free. Some of the posters on this site undoubtedly view both libraries and museums as the worst pirates of all.


Dude, you're full of shit. I think I understand a lot of your viewpoints and definitions, and even agree with you on some of it. Where you fail is in understanding that your views are not universal and that other people have perspectives that are just as valid as yours. To assume people must obviously (to you ) disapprove of something most would argue are quite positive (libraries and museums), just because they don't see your way on something else, is ridiculous, offensive, and makes you a lousy debater.
Moderator of Extreme Limericks
#39 Old 29th Aug 2013 at 4:23 PM Last edited by jhd1189 : 29th Aug 2013 at 4:40 PM.
Quote: Originally posted by High Plains Gamer
It also strikes me that the people disagreeing with me are admantly opposed to public libraries and public art museums. After all, public libraries and museums make the creative works of authors and artists available to the general public for free. Personally, I see little difference between offering a game title to the public for free and offering a fiction novel to the public for free. Some of the posters on this site undoubtedly view both libraries and museums as the worst pirates of all.


The library analogy comes up in debates on piracy a lot, and it's actually a fairly problematic analogy. With the exception of brand new books where the librarians have anticipated high demand, libraries usually only have a single copy of a book on hand. Only one person can borrow that book at a time, and while that book is checked out from the library no one else is able to use it. This is not how piracy works. If you're proposing a system where all game titles are released for free on an unlimited basis, then you are proposing a system where there is no compensation for game designers (and thus no games, most likely).

Museums are pretty different from libraries. Yes, a potentially unlimited number of people can look at a painting over the course of a day, but at no point during that interaction does the painting pass into their hands. Libraries give you permission (for the most part--there are exceptions with things like reference materials and subscription-based services) to borrow something and temporarily bring it home with you, while museums give you permission to look at something through an inch of plexiglass. There is no smiling security guard handing out copies of the Mona Lisa and asking you to please bring them back when you're finished.

Intellectual property laws that require people to pay for access to a computer game are not what stifle innovation. Game companies that launch a title three months before it's ready or that force online connectivity into a single player game as part of their vision for the future stifle innovation. I won't argue that computer games are expensive and that the majority of the profits from computer games probably never make it into the hands of the designers, but for better or for worse that money is what keeps the cycle of game development moving.

Don't get me wrong--I love freeware, but it's unrealistic to hope for a system where the games that currently cost tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars to develop are released to the public the same way that free-to-play browser games are.

There's always money in the banana stand.
The Great AntiJen
retired moderator
#40 Old 30th Aug 2013 at 9:33 AM
Um - don't libraries pay a fee to the author calculated from the number of times it is borrowed? Well, that's how it works over here. In other words: Not Free - we pay via our taxes.

I no longer come over to MTS very often but if you would like to ask me a question then you can find me on tumblr or my own site tflc. TFLC has an archive of all my CC downloads.
I'm here on tumblr and my site, tflc
Top Secret Researcher
#41 Old 30th Aug 2013 at 6:32 PM Last edited by hugbug993 : 30th Aug 2013 at 10:51 PM.
Quote: Originally posted by applefeather2
Okay, hugbug, what is the OLD definition of "penis" ?

erm... ... Never mind. Just have a free doughnut. I made copies.


The old definition was "tail". Later on, it became slang for the current meaning and it's generally accepted that changing it back is silly.

*grabs doughnut*

Quote: Originally posted by High Plains Gamer
For t he purposes of this conversation,why don't we just call unauthorized copying treason. If you make an unauthorized copy of a piece of software, you are a TRAITOR!


Because the accepted word describing the concept is not 'treason'. It's piracy. The fact that it can refer to another act is meaningless, since everyone understands what we're talking about.

ETA: And you know what the difference is between the passage you quoted and this situation? Alice can't tell what Humpty-Dumpty means. You can tell what piracy means. Making something up =/= using a word to mean one of its established definitions.

Call it a metaphor if it makes you feel better; unless you hate all metaphors, too? I can see that happening.

"This tree is the wind beneath my feet."
"A tree is not the wind beneath your feet. A tree is a plant and is therefore not a gaseous element. It is matter. Wind is gas. Why not just call a dog a pineapple?"

You're probably very popular at poetry slams.

And can you really say that calling it piracy now is propaganda to make it sound worse? First search result for "pirate" is...



...Yeah, PotC really made piracy look bad.

But hey, I don't like the implications of a lot of English words! "Faithful" and "faithless" refer to how much faith you have in your god. I'm an atheist. So let's stop using "faith" to mean "to be true", because that's just Christian propaganda. "Wedding" means "transaction", as in a sale. It implies that the bride's father is selling her to her groom. So let's stop using it because of those implications! And hey, the word "dude" means "tourist", so let's stop using it for any other purpose! For that matter, let's just speak in Old English so that all words match their true meanings.

Doth thy hackles calm upon ye ver'y form of speech? Tis an excellent conceit of thine, expecting speech free of conceit, thou vexing melancholic. Thou art coarse as syrup sugar and rude as a Normandy peasant.



Any more complaints about the word "pirate"? Good, keep them out of this discussion. Or make another thread. I'm sure some of us would love to discuss the implications of various words.


Anyway, I think the main difference between a library and piracy is that you aren't expected to keep library books. Library books are like a demo: if you can finish it in the time allotted, then great. If not, buy it. And if it's good enough, you might buy it in order to keep it. Pirating a full game isn't a direct comparison, but a game demo is.

And I'm not disagreeing with you because I'm an idiot, I'm disagreeing with you because you're annoying and making all grammar nazis look bad. Plus, as someone who hopes to get published one day and make a living off of it, I'd like to get some compensation off of it. Otherwise, I need to work a full job to support myself and won't have enough time to write. And that will stifle the flow of information I'm capable of outputting, as well as others. Do you remember why communism as a system fails? Rewarding someone for their work provides better quality output. Now, when there are people getting more reward than giving quality, like Electronic Asshattery, then it's a good idea to cut them down to size. But by completely eliminating the reward system, you are going to get a lot of poor quality work.
Mad Poster
#42 Old 11th Sep 2013 at 6:12 PM
I'd like to see hard numbers on how many downloaders of illegal copies actually have purchased the legal copy, either before or after. When you can't get software without spyware, or can't use it without an always on internet connection, what percentage of the buying public buys it and obtains an illegal copy?

Eric Flint's essays on the subject as relates to ebooks are a bit older now (there's one by Janis Ian in the mix as well) but you can get them as a free ebook here: http://www.baenebooks.com/p-1861-prime-palaver.aspx and at the time he wrote them, it was pretty clear that free ebooks led to physical paper sales. Now with decent ebook readers that may have changed, but I wonder . . .

I don't know how representative of the population I am, but if I buy something I want a physical hard copy because I don't trust e-stuff to be available for, well, my lifetime, at a minimum. Might be because I switched from 8-tracks and record players to tapes to cds to mp3s . . . tends to make one a bit distrustful of the permanence of media, you know? On the other hand, if I have my physical hard copy and it doesn't work because it needs an internet service that isn't currently available, I get irritated, and believe that, while it may not be legal, it is not morally wrong to take steps to be able to use my purchase. I hesitate to spend a dollar on an ebook, but don't blanch at spending ten for a paperback, if I've got it.

Pics from my game: Sunbee's Simblr Sunbee's Livejournal
"English is a marvelous edged weapon if you know how to wield it." C.J. Cherryh
Site Helper
#43 Old 11th Sep 2013 at 9:22 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Sunbee
I'd like to see hard numbers on how many downloaders of illegal copies actually have purchased the legal copy, either before or after.
I believe that you're out of luck. It's very unlikely that such statistics exist.
Field Researcher
#44 Old 23rd Oct 2013 at 1:42 AM Last edited by Gutterfly : 23rd Oct 2013 at 1:54 AM.
I agree with the original post. The results of piracy are blown out of proportion considering that the majority of pirates are doing the deed because something (area of residence, finances, age, etc) is preventing them from lawfully acquiring the item. I know of loads of people who pirated expensive computer programs so that they wouldn't have to queue to use computers outside college hours (student licenses are still expensive), or who downloaded a lot of individual songs as a pre-teen but as an adult will happily fork out for Spotify, Netflix, and tonnes of DVDs, games and permanently owned digital media. Parents, a lot of the time, are apathetic towards the issue if it saves on pocket money. I'm not saying that the effects of piracy are exactly negligible, but it would make the paying population (people who really matter in this equation) less negative towards companies if they just released the item without DRM, compulsory registration and bloat. Things always get cracked eventually, so it's just buying the company a day or two at release (that is if the item is not leaked). It's fair enough to lower availability as demand lowers, but completely pathetic to create "piracy-induced" barriers that may make potential buyers feel put out enough to steal the item. You have to account for people who would run out of a shop with a can of Coke because the queue is a mile long, and while it's not right for them to do that, you're not really in a position to stop them without wasting even more money of your own paying for the extra security. Make it easy to do the right thing! If the experience of the product actually outweighs the effort expended to acquire the product, I still think that the majority is happy to pay.

My stance on piracy: As a content creator (real media such as ebooks and images, not game CC), I really couldn't care less who steals my work as long as I'm actually earning a wage. Admittedly this is as an individual, but the point stands that if I make enough to live on from doing what I love (or find easy), I am not about to whine about the yacht I can't afford. Profit is fairly unimportant compared to popularity and the reward of a comfortable lifestyle.
Instructor
#45 Old 26th May 2014 at 4:50 AM
Noop it's not as of a big deal as they make it out to be, i'm someone who watched movies and programmes online but i do for a few reasons 1. There is a certain mob of mothers that live to destroy our programmes on the tv by complaining constantly about every little thing to the point that the slightest bit of gore leads them to feel it will some how scar their children for life, they let the media completely scare monger them into insane paranoia. So almost 10 mins of our programmes ends up getting cut out of our programmes and we miss key points because of these silly over-protective mothers and 2. A lot of programmes are made in america and they have way way too many holidays, i watch Supernatural, The Vampire Diaries and The Originals and they have a holiday every 3 or 4 episodes, no joke lol it's a giant pain and if i watched the UK tv schedual not only will i have to wait longer for the next season to start but longer after every holiday too.

From being an active watcher on online programmes lately they have been trying to push people in to paying monthly for private VPN software that they will no doubt eventually block as well... when we watch programmes online we are watching AFTER they have aired too and the TV Licence laws clearly states that it is ok to upload and watch tv programmes AFTER airing on tv, but yoi aren't aloud during because it will hurt viewership, so... no it isn't as big of a deal when i know all they are after is more money. We cannot even buy any movies these days though because they have already taken all of our money, it goes all on bills and food these days so for them to expect us to buy movies and programmes while they already empty our pockets is sheer cheek so we have a right to use what is avaliable to us and that's free viewing.
 
Page 2 of 2
Back to top