Buying Used and Pirating...

Didn't we all make fun of you regarding this shit already, Mo0?

http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/jo...206&perpage=20

Oh, that's right. THE LAW etc. Where's Tritoch or Worm when you need them.

PS, here's an argument for you.

SINS OF A SOLAR EMPIRE

Ciao.

I could go down that route again, but Mo0's barely even trying this time.

Originally Posted by Mom Bomb

Because congresspeople are also recording artists/game developers/movie directors.

Lobbyists, Mo0. Have you heard of them.

Originally Posted by Mom Bomb

Which would you rather see, a company spending time making sure people actually have to buy their game, or a company spend all of their time making the game amazing only to see 90% of the people who play it pirate it because reddit users people online would rather download it for free? It's hard to make money to pay people to make great games if no one buys the game.

That article proves zip, and you know it. The creators say they've had plenty of sales through WiiWare, Steam, and their own website despite the high piracy rate. They've gotten emails confirming that people who pirated the game bought it later, and as the article writers point out it's impossible to tell how many of those pirates would've bought the game to begin with.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge fan of piracy these days. It does disgust me a little when I talk to people who've bought maybe one DS game while pirating 150+ (gotta catch 'em all) on a flash cart. I'm seriously considering putting the Homebrew Channel on my Wii with that new Bannerbomb thing, but that's more because Nintendo has all but given up on actually releasing games to the Virtual Console. Incidentally Mo0, you did hack your Wii not long ago.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by Mom Bomb

I'd love to hear them.

CDs not playing-back properly.

Loss of quality.

Most games with this restriction allow three or five installs. This limits users who have more than three or five computers in their home. Or you know god forbid you reformat.

Other software (such as FADE) slowly remove and degrade the protected software over time, eventually rendering it unplayable.

SecuROM aims to resist home media duplication devices, professional duplicators, and attempts at reverse engineering the game. The use of SecuROM has generated controversy due to the fact that it is not uninstalled upon removal of the game.


Those aren't even arguments just facts. I'm not going to go into the pages long debate of the fallacy that DRM protects artists and developers.

Ciao.

Heres the be-all, end-all with used material: Unless the material is "hole-punched" (which is when a distributor or store punches a hole through the back of the CD cover, usually on the UPC - to mark it as destroyed, promotional mailing, etc), you should never feel guilty buying used. It means that someone purchased it full price at one point and simply no longer wants it, the label already got their money for it.

As for bootlegging, well, I'm the cliche on that subject, so I won't repeat myself.

Originally Posted by YOU MAD

I'm not going to go into the pages long debate of the fallacy that DRM protects artists and developers.

Anyone who says that is an idiot. It protects the IP for the music label. (I disagree with DRM myself.)

Cheers.

Originally Posted by LeHah

Anyone who says that is an idiot. It protects the IP for the music label. (I disagree with DRM myself.)

Yeah, not even the artist can promote their music in any way without the consent of the label. Best example of the hilarious notions of IP and music labels would be Prince.

Ciao.

Rather than quotes, I'll just generally offer this mea culpa before I continue to make an ass of myself.

I realized as I used that article that it didn't prove anything aside from the fact that it was the easiest link I could find to something that said THIS GOT PIRATED LOTS. The mistake I've made in this thread consistently, and it's one I've made a lot lately, is I'm attempting to argue a general internet stereotype argument (DRM is 100% evil so I will pirate everything in protest) rather than the argument at hand, and it makes me look incredibly pro-DRM and anti-piracy.

It's not that I think DRM, especially the kinds that have been put forth, are the best thing ever and completely justified. I simply realize that, as a pirate myself, I'm part of the problem that DRM is designed to fight, and figure I (and pirates in general, hence my beef with, say, reddit) really have no place bitching about it. That's the argument I've been trying to make, sadly, which is not the argument the rest of the thread is engaged in.

I've said some dumb things in this thread already, and I hope the preceding wasn't more dumb stuff, because I really am just trying to make clear my thought process here.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by YOU MAD

Best example of the hilarious notions of IP and music labels would be Prince.

I don't know about all that. IP is important because theres more people than just the musical artist being paid - you have the pressing factory and the people who design the covers and a ton of uncredited people down the line.

I do think, however, that the industry is far too stiff about how to go about protecting their IP to remain how they are. Things will change drastically in the next five years or so because they have to if they want to keep taking our money.

Ciao.

Originally Posted by LeHah

I don't know about all that. IP is important because theres more people than just the musical artist being paid - you have the pressing factory and the people who design the covers and a ton of uncredited people down the line.

You also have contracts that secure all IP for the label so the artist cannot record without their specific permission, at least not under their current name or identity. I mean hell they even have contract stipulations like that for reality shows.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by YOU MAD

You also have contracts that secure all IP for the label so the artist cannot record without their specific permission

I think thats a fair contract though - in that if you're dumb enough to sign it, you deserve what you get - which is probably a fucking giant ass-fuck forward of cash in some cases or at least a contract for X number of albums.

Ciao.

Quote:

I think thats a fair contract though - in that if you're dumb enough to sign it

It's funny how you advocate non-piracy because of the welfare of artists, yet seem to think only morons can't read fine print. So many people are just happy to be signed somewhere and don't always have a lawyer or friend to provide a magnifying glass.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by YOU MAD

It's funny how you advocate non-piracy because of the welfare of artists, yet seem to think only morons can't read fine print.

Thats because the artists *I'm* backing tend to have the better part of a decade getting a higher education. I can't speak for what passes for the lowly rock band or rap artist that exists today.

Ciao.

Originally Posted by Mom Bomb

It's called copyright. You're allowed to copy DVDs all you want but the second you use a program to destroy copyright protection, you're on the wrong side of the law. This has been on the books for years. Whether or not the DMCA trumps fair use is still up in the air, but until a court rules in the other direction, then you're stuck, and unless you're a lawyer no amount of bitching's going to change anything.

If you wish to know why this is wrong instead of just sucking it up and taking it, look up someone named Michael Geist and do a little research on how copyright has changed from its original intent to what it is now (and what the RIAA and other entertainment moguls wish for it to be). Just because the law says one thing right now, doesn't mean it's right, especially considering how the world, technology and information sharing has changed with the advent of the internet. If it's true and laws can't be changed based on being outdatedness or wrongness, maybe we should go back to having slavery.

Quote:

Yes, yes (and how is this an applicable example to what we're talking about in any way), yes (as long as it's for your own use, under the Fair Use Doctrine), yes (again, private use only), and the last four are yes because you're buying something owned by someone else. What's your point?

Can I lend a game by bit-torrenting it to him while I'm in Africa and he's in Brazil? How is this different from mailing him the disk, or a copy of the disk if I want to protect the original copy?

Borrowing a book from the library means that I'm preventing a copy of that book being sold over the counter and the author making hard earned coin. I'd say that's pretty applicable.

What's fair use? Would sharing calling a buddy over to listen to a song you heard be fair use? How about giving him a "mixed tape" of cool songs? Maybe playing it over the ghetto blaster while you work out in the gym? Or playing it on the street corner while you play hockey?

Would private use be calling all of the buddies over and watching the big game a day later? Or how about taping a season of Friends for the girls? And how is that any different than downloading those same shows off the web?

All of these points "prevent the legitimate maker from getting money from future sales". And all of them have the same arguments going against them as downloading do, except for the "physicalness" of the item in question. Considering companies are making it their business to sell "fake" objects (see Steam, eBooks), I'd say it's a pretty important thing to think about.

How is having a picture of the Mona Lisa any different than owning the real thing? Maybe anyone with a copy of the Mona Lisa on their computer should pay royalties to the Louvre...

Quote:

I'd love to hear them.

Beyond reiterating everything that has been said in this thread (and elsewhere on the internet) DRM does not stop pirates in any, way, shape or form. Pirates get to play the same games as you, but without the hassle. Considering DRM and Copyright keeps me from doing to electronic information the same things that I can do to anything I own physically, it is anti-consumer.

Quote:

Because congresspeople are also recording artists/game developers/movie directors.

Because no one has received money for doing what the rich people would like...

Quote:

Which would you rather see, a company spending time making sure people actually have to buy their game, or a company spend all of their time making the game amazing only to see 90% of the people who play it pirate it because reddit users people online would rather download it for free? It's hard to make money to pay people to make great games if no one buys the game.

Piracy does not equal a lost sale. Everyone who pirates a game, song, T.V. show, movie, picture, et al. would not necessarily have purchased it in the first place. People get stuff because it's free, no other reason. I have lots of stuff in my house right now that I have taken because it was just going to be thrown out. Lots I haven't got around to using. And it doesn't mean that I would have gone out of my way to buy any of those items.

If you make a quality product, and continue to not only support your product, but also your fans, your product will sell. Considering this industry is geared towards day one sales however, no one is looking to the future with their games. Maybe one day World of Goo will make a bazillion dollars. Who knows, because only the money they make right now matters. Right?

Removing the trust from your audience drives more people away, towards piracy does however ruin business. Give people back their convenience and stop milking them for everything they can will instill more trust (albeit slowly) back into the industry.

Cheers.

Those arguments seem to be side stepping the main issue. It shouldn't be a contest to prove how much monetary loss piracy really digs out from under a company's profit, but simply the fact that if you're not willing to pay the price of admission, you don't get to see the show. Even if you'd never see a movie in a million years, the ease of sneaking in isn't a related factor to the moral dilemma of stealing a viewing. You have the price asked by the peddler and your willingness to purchase. It shouldn't be negotiable to say that you're not sold on that product for that price so you'll obtain it without cost through different channels.

And isn't it different than many of the examples provided? By the sheer volume and speed of availability, file sharing and torrents aren't comparable to most fair use examples. DVRing television and maybe having some friends over to view a program even when they don't have cable isn't quite the dent of dozens and dozens of files a day in every sort of media being available on day one to obtain without cost, both high and low profile releases, all with very limited know how of a few sites and programs and a few clicks of the mouse. And how people can't separate that from the occasional buddy who loans you his stuff, and you occasionally to him, that's beyond me.

I wouldn't say the practice should be villiainized as taking food out of the mouths of starving artist's children, but justified as valid? Same as handing over a newspaper you're finished reading? The difference is one against thousands.

Ciao.