Post by: Spak-Spang on October 29, 2007, 02:13:56 AM
# Arkdium Says:
October 30th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
It’s not fake people and I think this is completely right to do it and there is no problem with it, since you people live in a country where you can just go and buy the game in a store or just preorder it, as if it bread or milk, not everyone can do that, and I completely support that people who CAN’T buy original games do this kind of stuff. Sure, a Japanese company who is in fact the #2 company in Japan now (after Toyota I think) is loosing many millions from piracy, but if they don’t move their ass, and sell their games officially in countries that are in Latin America, or in Asia, or even in Australia and Europe, which they get the fing game with a very long wait.
Between, I have a modded wii too.
This guy is justifying stealing because it is supposedly only hurting a giant company and other countries are too poor to buy food? Or is it they are upset that capitalism and free trade has made products available around the world for everyone to enjoy? I don't quite understand.
But the main point I believe he is missing is that video games are a luxury. It is a hobby that you do not need to live. It can't be compared to food, shelter, water, companionship. You can't justify stealing a video game because you are poor. And this kind of stuff totally hurts more than company. If pirating was legalized and justified no games would be created because the companies couldn't make a profit. People would lose their jobs, and video games, movies, music in current form would seize to exist.
Perhaps that is looking at to too big. Instead, because of pirating we currently pay more for games than we would without pirating. But I guess that is ok, because everyone in all these countries that can buy video games are rich enough to drop whatever it costs us to play games.
Post by: UncleBob on October 29, 2007, 02:31:00 AM
Seriously, I've dealt with this same argument over music piracy for years. When people get it in their head that they're "right" to steal from others, you're not going to change their mind. Some people really believe in the "steal from the rich to give to the poor" train of thought.
Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on October 29, 2007, 02:56:50 AM
What a conundrum...
Post by: wandering on October 29, 2007, 03:26:51 AM
I agree with him. I've downloaded some pieces of entertainment that weren't released in the US, and I don't feel that bad about it.
Post by: Nick DiMola on October 29, 2007, 03:50:43 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
What he's saying is that it's okay to enjoy a pirated copy of a game, if that game isn't available for purchase in your country.
I agree with him. I've downloaded some pieces of entertainment that weren't released in the US, and I don't feel that bad about it.
I tend to agree with this idea as well. If importing was more reasonable I wouldn't even dream of it.
However, just because you are poor it doesn't really give you the right to steal something. But in the end, who cares? Your average consumer IS purchasing games. Most people would rather pay for something than steal it. We are generally moral beings and want to do the right thing.
If it really gets that bad and more people are stealing your product than buying it, clearly the price of your product doesn't match up with the expected price in the market and needs to come down, solving your theft issue. If games, movies, music etc. were more reasonably priced, people would be less likely to steal. Though, it is not always a guarantee that people will stop stealing, that is the most likely outcome. There will always be a group of people who are going to steal something no matter what the price is. Those people are definitely the minority though because if they were not all of these entertainment companies would not still be in business
Post by: KDR_11k on October 29, 2007, 04:52:42 AM
Post by: Strell on October 29, 2007, 05:11:49 AM
But if you're just going to download it and never buy it, then I personally have an issue with that.
We live in an age where people think all of their entertainment should be handed to them completely free. I must have missed the day whn everyone decided this was something that had absolutely no moral considerations attached to it. All I know is that, suddenly, it was perfectly fine to get all of your movies, tv shows, music, video games, eBooks, and software applications completely free.
Now, having seen this discussion crop up at tons and tons of forums, I have learned to not tempt the hornet's nest with moral discussions. Instead, all I can simply say is this: You are getting something for free that is not meant to be free, and there is indeed something wrong with that equation.
Post by: Ceric on October 29, 2007, 05:45:38 AM
Paying for things make for a lucrative market. Meaning more players will want a piece of the pie. Meaning more choice/competition. Having everything free sounds great but it just doesn't work like it should. This ain't Star Trek.
Post by: Strell on October 29, 2007, 06:01:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric
I agree that Stealing is Stealing is Stealing. Especially when it comes to luxury items. I work as a Computer Programmer. I like getting paid. I like getting paid decently, though I still can barely afford a house where I'm at with 2 incomes but thats another rant. If you want companies to make a quality product you pay for it. If you don't pay for it they'll just shovel out what the people who would pay for it wants.
Paying for things make for a lucrative market. Meaning more players will want a piece of the pie. Meaning more choice/competition. Having everything free sounds great but it just doesn't work like it should. This ain't Star Trek.
That's the thing, though.
The majority of gamers/net nerds/techies/the PC generation all seem to think that they hurt absolutely no one. They all think that every song/game/program/show is only making money for these big wig CEOs, who sit around all day in their plush leather chairs smoking cigars, bags of money piled around them with $ on them, and being serviced by various people of various races in sexual ways.
At some point, it became completely ok to download everything, because everyone is convinced that the creators/artists don't see a dime of profit ever. I.e., everyone thinks downloading songs sticks it to the RIAA, since the RIAA is run by jerks, and apparently they aren't going to give any profit to their bands anyway. So now it's painted in this pseudo "fight the man" sort of thing.
So these people think Iwata and Reggie - who already are most likely financially secure and overly-comfortable - are just going to lose out on some extra pennies.
That's the justification I tend to hear, if not a "f*ck you I don car" instead.
Again, I don't know where this idea came from, and how suddenly it was completely accepted by the majority of people on the net, but it's become a situation where no one feels any reason at all to get digital entertainment at a price any more. I just don't understand that reasoning. Maybe it's because I grew up in a time where I was completely unaware of methods to get stuff for free, or maybe it's because the Internet wasn't popular/useful in my childhood, or maybe it's because of other reasons, but I just don't know.
You people who think of yourselves of vigilantes are generally the first ones to whine and complain when something happens to ruin your fun. Like, for example, a firmware update that bricks your system, or a developer closing down because they couldn't secure enough sales, etc etc.
Keep pretending that sensationalized bullsh*t excuse you have, where you imagine all the people in the entertainment world as these careless spenders who have pockets so deep, they can afford solid gold toilets, and thus, even if you WERE stealing money from the artists, you can shove that aside with "OMFG, I DON'T HAVE A SOLID GOLD TOILET, SO I DON'T NEED TO PAY FOR THEIR STUFF, SINCE I'M A TOTAL BITCH."
Which is a shame. You should have one, to catch all the sh*t you spew out of your mouth.
Post by: Mashiro on October 29, 2007, 06:21:58 AM
Quote
Again, I don't know where this idea came from, and how suddenly it was completely accepted by the majority of people on the net, but it's become a situation where no one feels any reason at all to get digital entertainment at a price any more. I just don't understand that reasoning. Maybe it's because I grew up in a time where I was completely unaware of methods to get stuff for free, or maybe it's because the Internet wasn't popular/useful in my childhood, or maybe it's because of other reasons, but I just don't know.
I think the best way to put it into a way of understanding is this: it's a faceless crime. There's no physical stealing occurring and it's far easier to get away with downloading a song then say breaking into a wal-mart and taking the CD. The internet to many is conceived as a place with very little ownership over material and only recently (see: last couple of years) have companies been fighting back and staking claim on their copyrighted material.
I'll be the first to admit, I download some songs on occasion without buying it. More times than not though I will buy the CD (especially for movie soundtracks <3).
The most frequently downloaded music I acquire that I don't purchase legally is (as was said above) foreign music. The import CDs are rarely available in the states but it is something that if was made available I would be more than happy to pay for it through a normal retailer.
Quote
a firmware update that bricks your system
I still hate Nintendo for not making the Wii region free =(. Freeloader on Wii so I can play Naruto Shippuden ::cries:: Damn you firmware updates
Post by: ShyGuy on October 29, 2007, 07:14:18 AM
The only thing I pirate is Barbaro's treasure.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 29, 2007, 07:41:51 AM
On a side note one comment really bothered me on Gonintendo, I think it was a week or so ago when this piracy thing first started, some actually blamed Nintendo, yes Nintendo, for the pirated Mario Galaxy because they gave Gamestop a full version.
Post by: Kairon on October 29, 2007, 11:37:35 AM
Post by: Mashiro on October 29, 2007, 01:48:23 PM
Quote
some actually blamed Nintendo, yes Nintendo, for the pirated Mario Galaxy because they gave Gamestop a full version.
All I know is . . . back (way back) when I worked at Toys R Us in the "R'Zone" (the electronics area) if we ever messed with the kiosks in a way as to say remove the disc inside and take it home, we could get in massive trouble from Nintendo, so I mean you really aren't supposed to mess with the kiosks and what not.
The only disc I ever got to take home from a demo display was the ORIGINAL Nintendo Gamecube video disc lol. You know, the one that had that overly happy young male VA that was like "Hey it's Luigi's Mansion! Only on Nintendo Gamecube!"
I still have it somewhere . . .
Post by: that Baby guy on October 29, 2007, 03:33:36 PM
The only game I can think of that doesn't fall under this description is Earthbound Zero. I downloaded and played that to completion, and I may never have a chance of owning any legitimate copy of that game. If I do get the chance, I'll buy it right away, but if I don't, it's not my fault that the title is absolutely inaccessible to me in every other way. The second game this would happen with is Mother 3, for similar reasons to above. I'm not buying the Japanese version of Mother 3, because Nintendo refuses to translate and sell it here. If they do, I'll buy it in a heartbeat, and if it ever gets a re-release, I'd likely buy that, too, but if Nintendo won't let us get our hands on something, I see no harm in downloading it myself.
Now then, I also don't buy used copies of games I can still buy new, either. It's the same principle, IMO. Who gets the money from the used games? Not the developers or the publishers. GameStop, its subsidiaries, and companies like them do. If the game is no longer published, I'll buy it used, but that's the only case. I know that when you buy something, it's yours, but I still think it's dirty that a company like GameStop profits so well for such a crude business. And yes, they have every right to do so, but I have every right to think that's wrong, too, so there.=P
Post by: Spak-Spang on October 30, 2007, 02:33:03 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: thatguy
I agree that he's wrong, but I've got some common place views on piracy, I think. If I own a game, I don't think much about downloading it. I can tell you that the few games I have downloaded, I own, and would easily buy once released on the VC, despite owning them. I know it's illegal, but it literally does no harm. I only use downloading to access something like save states or look into a hack that was made.
The only game I can think of that doesn't fall under this description is Earthbound Zero. I downloaded and played that to completion, and I may never have a chance of owning any legitimate copy of that game. If I do get the chance, I'll buy it right away, but if I don't, it's not my fault that the title is absolutely inaccessible to me in every other way. The second game this would happen with is Mother 3, for similar reasons to above. I'm not buying the Japanese version of Mother 3, because Nintendo refuses to translate and sell it here. If they do, I'll buy it in a heartbeat, and if it ever gets a re-release, I'd likely buy that, too, but if Nintendo won't let us get our hands on something, I see no harm in downloading it myself.
Now then, I also don't buy used copies of games I can still buy new, either. It's the same principle, IMO. Who gets the money from the used games? Not the developers or the publishers. GameStop, its subsidiaries, and companies like them do. If the game is no longer published, I'll buy it used, but that's the only case. I know that when you buy something, it's yours, but I still think it's dirty that a company like GameStop profits so well for such a crude business. And yes, they have every right to do so, but I have every right to think that's wrong, too, so there.=P
You know this is still legally wrong. You buy the right to use the IP in the given form, but not the right to download it in another form. It is this slippery slope that is really dangerous for the industry.
Here are some said reasons people have for pirating/emulating and they can be flawed.
1)The game was never released in my country: It hasn't been released yet. But as the Wii has pointed out now Sin and Punishment and other games are available. Or Golden Axe 3 perhaps a better example has finally made its way over now. After you play the game you are going to decide if you like the game or not and want to buy it if it ever comes out. If you choose not to buy it you have stolen the game. Hell if you choose to buy it you steal stole the game for a period of time.
2)I already have the game in one form, I should have the right to play it in other forms: This is just a gross misunderstanding of the rights you have from buying an IP. You can't do whatever you want with the property, you can only use it in the form given to you. Think about it. I could say, hey I owned a Super Nintendo and at home I play the games there, but on the go I want to use my laptop to play my favorite games on the go....so you download the games. Well, eventually Nintendo puts those games out on the DS and GBA, but you don't want to play them because you have them on your laptop and it has a bigger screen. You are stealing that portable experience, that does not belong to you.
3)I will play the game until it is available and buy it once it is out. Really? You are going to buy the game you already have right now half beaten for free? Why? What if you decided you didn't like the game? What if you decided that it isn't worth $49.99 but perhaps in a year you will buy it when it is cheaper. Perhaps that is what you mean by eventually buy it anyway...once it is $20.00 in the bargain bin. It is still stealing.
Look, I know how easy and tempting it is to steal expensive software. I used to have photoshop and several other programs I would never afford on my PC. I used to justify it by saying hey, I need it for school. But I decided to get rid of all of it. Even songs and such I had no rights to...and it is frustrating, because I don't have a good photo editor or anything right now. But at least it is the right thing to do.
People should show respect for those artists and companies that are paying to deliver us the entertainment we love. And remember there are legal ways to try games out before you buy them to see if you like them. Renting, friends house, video game demo units, ect, ect.
Post by: Mashiro on October 30, 2007, 03:29:39 AM
Quote
1)The game was never released in my country: It hasn't been released yet. But as the Wii has pointed out now Sin and Punishment and other games are available. Or Golden Axe 3 perhaps a better example has finally made its way over now. After you play the game you are going to decide if you like the game or not and want to buy it if it ever comes out. If you choose not to buy it you have stolen the game. Hell if you choose to buy it you steal stole the game for a period of time.
Isn't that a TAD unfair though? Are we supposed to have a crystal ball for what international games are going to be released or not released? Back some years ago before Wii came out should I have not downloaded DBZ: Hyper Dimension to try it just because I should think (by defying all logic) the game will someday see a release on some sort of pay for downloadable service?
Quote
2)I already have the game in one form, I should have the right to play it in other forms: This is just a gross misunderstanding of the rights you have from buying an IP. You can't do whatever you want with the property, you can only use it in the form given to you. Think about it. I could say, hey I owned a Super Nintendo and at home I play the games there, but on the go I want to use my laptop to play my favorite games on the go....so you download the games. Well, eventually Nintendo puts those games out on the DS and GBA, but you don't want to play them because you have them on your laptop and it has a bigger screen. You are stealing that portable experience, that does not belong to you.
But what if I own Super Mario Bros on: NES, SNES (mario all stars), GBA AND VC? I'm not taking away anyones bread and butter if I have it on my computer as well. Even if it is wrong.
Quote
3)I will play the game until it is available and buy it once it is out. Really? You are going to buy the game you already have right now half beaten for free? Why? What if you decided you didn't like the game? What if you decided that it isn't worth $49.99 but perhaps in a year you will buy it when it is cheaper. Perhaps that is what you mean by eventually buy it anyway...once it is $20.00 in the bargain bin. It is still stealing.
I've done this before actually with the original pokemon. I downloaded the Japanese version of the game and I got about half way through it. Still picked up a blue and red copy on launch day =)
Post by: Spak-Spang on October 30, 2007, 03:41:26 AM
So yeah, even if it is unfair that is the way it should be.
And I understand stealing has always existed in some form. You could even argue borrowing someone else's books back in the day is stealing, but I think that is going too far.
Post by: nitsu niflheim on October 30, 2007, 03:43:04 AM
Post by: Mashiro on October 30, 2007, 03:45:05 AM
Is it legally wrong many years ago I downloaded a DragonBall game that will never ever see the light of day in America? Yes. Did I do it out of disrespect for the creators? No.
Would I buy the game in a heartbeat if it was readily available to me? You bet.
It's not the most terrible thing to do in those cases to me. It may be "illegal" but it's not the end of the world that I did such a thing.
Post by: that Baby guy on October 30, 2007, 05:42:25 AM
Post by: Spak-Spang on October 30, 2007, 08:28:52 AM
I guess I am just becoming more sensitive to this stuff because all of my friends are artists. Either musicians, photographers, film makers/graphic artists...and I look at the future of media and now everything is changing so fast, and that people are beginning to not just expect free content, but demand it...and feel they have the RIGHT to it.
That scares me...because soon we can and will be able to get anything off the internet quickly and easily...and if people don't have the convictions to monitor themselves then there is no way to stop the pirating on a mass scale.
Post by: denjet78 on October 30, 2007, 05:46:14 PM
However... that doesn't make the companies being stolen from completely the victim. These same companies are also constantly in the action of trying to limit your rights as consumers. Of trying to find new ways to force you to buy what they want you to buy how they want you to buy it. And they'll do it any way they can. They don't care what's right or what's fair. They only care about how they're going to be able to squeeze you for a few extra cents the next time. And then the next, and the next, and the next.
Just because something is codified in law that doesn't make it right.
If tomorrow the government passed a law stating that everyone had to purchase a copy of such-and-such DVD for whatever cost the company wanted to charge, would everyone here agree with it and just do as they're told simply because it's a "law"?
Post by: Kairon on October 30, 2007, 05:52:58 PM
Post by: that Baby guy on October 30, 2007, 05:59:22 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on October 30, 2007, 06:16:35 PM
Like, since they didn't pay for them, they wouldn't mind you putting it all in a pile and setting it on fire. "ey, they're not really yours, right?! LAFFO"
Post by: that Baby guy on October 30, 2007, 06:25:54 PM
Though that does sound amusing...
Post by: Kairon on October 31, 2007, 07:49:17 AM
Post by: Strell on October 31, 2007, 08:30:11 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: denjet78
Piracy is what you make of it.
And that's the beginning of the idea I was talking about earlier in this thread.
Quote
Certain people will always pirate simply because they can. It has nothing to do with cost. There will always be some level of piracy.
It's always hard for me to read text, because I can see several meanings in the words. Thus, I cannot tell if you are saying this as a cold fact, or as a justification.
Quote
These same companies are also constantly in the action of trying to limit your rights as consumers. Of trying to find new ways to force you to buy what they want you to buy how they want you to buy it. And they'll do it any way they can. They don't care what's right or what's fair. They only care about how they're going to be able to squeeze you for a few extra cents the next time. And then the next, and the next, and the next.
First off, at no point should it be phrased as an adversarial relationship. The fact that I hear this all over the net always gives me a little shock, because this is thrown out like it's valid. For the grand part of it all, the relationship is still the same it has always been: someone sells you something, and you want to buy it. I understand that things like DRM and the like are being put in place SOLELY to protect the companies and their IP, but that is NEVER a reason you should go off and start intentionally circumventing them.
For example, NBC was selling their shows on iTunes up until a few months ago. Their main reason for leaving? They weren't getting enough money per sale. They pressured Apple to raise the prices, but Apple refused. So NBC took their ball and went home, complained about how "there's pirated content on XX% of iPods out there," and started their own venture - Hulu.com (which has been an astounding failure so far).
One of the comments on digg.com about this whole thing? "Well, I used to buy their shows, but now I bittorrent."
You know, that's twisted logic. You COULD get something, and you STILL CAN get something, but now you might have to pay a higher price, so all of a sudden it's COMPLETELY ok to steal it?
You know, at my grocery store, Fuji apple prices all over the place. One week it's 79 cents a pound, the next week it's 1.19, then it's 1.39, and then it's on sale for 59, etc etc. By the above logic, once it goes over 1.19, I ought to be allowed to steal it, since those darn farmers sure are a bunch of bitches trying to limit my right to cheap apples.
The point is that all of this is ENTERTAINMENT. You don't need any of it. And the moment you start throwing out this weak justification about how "omfg, teh companies r steelin my torrentz" and the like, it completely breaks down.
You said earlier to call it what you will. It doesn't matter - it's pirating, it's getting something for free you OUGHT to have paid money for. There is absolutely no other way around it, and to sit back and claim the companies are evil, and thus two wrongs make a right, doesn't make you look correct. Oh sure, it's a socially acceptable answer, but that doesn't mean it's completely correct.
Final anecdote: I have a friend in the military. He does contracting work for them. He's one of the most straight lace people I've ever met. And even he sits down and pirates PSOne games, every DVD and TV show he can get his hands on, and has gigs of emulators. The funny thing is that he brags about how much money he makes and how simple his job is. Meanwhile, I make less money as an English grad (and most likely always will), but I buy everything I want. And even though he's a good friend, I still give him sh*t about it. He never has any answer for me.
Quote
Just because something is codified in law that doesn't make it right.
Is anyone arguing this? Because I see this response all over the place too.
Don't pretend that I'm giving these companies a pass for things like DRM, because I'm not. If you own a CD, you ought to be able to rip it to your iPod, stream it over a wireless network, etc. But that's a world apart from downloading it and giving it to everyone on your buddy list.
Again, this is entertainment. If you want to be totally Draconian about it, you don't really have that many rights. You have the right to buy it and use it in the manner it's meant to be used in. You have the right to get it replaced if it breaks prematurely. You technically have the right to back it up in case of unforeseen disasters. But you don't suddenly have the right to do absolutely anything you want with it JUST BECAUSE you own it, because then that's essentially asking for complete and total carte blanche.
Quote
If tomorrow the government passed a law stating that everyone had to purchase a copy of such-and-such DVD for whatever cost the company wanted to charge, would everyone here agree with it and just do as they're told simply because it's a "law"?
Throwing out hypothetical situations that don't have ANY CHANCE AT ALL of ever happening doesn't make your arguments any stronger. It actually makes them weaker, because you have to resort to throwing out completely nonsense that preys on the feeble imaginations of people around you.
Also, I can do the same thing. What if every entertainment company stopped distributing their merchandise in any retailer channels, and instead forced you to have to be registered with them, and further forced you to actually physically travel to a place of their choosing, where you had to present them a sort of ID card that THEY only had the power to authorize, and only THEN could you buy their product? And what if we take it a step further and say that they could look at your records, and actually refuse to sell it to you, because they found out you used an emulator back in the day?
I can take this "what if" a lot further, by the way.
Post by: Chozo Ghost on October 31, 2007, 08:51:25 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
You can't dramatically burn the stuff anymore, all the piracy is locked into their flash drives and hard drives... and burning one of THOSE is an unforgivable crime.
If that is what it takes for them to respect the property of others, so be it.
Anyway, that's a lot more lenient than letting them get sued into bankruptcy by the RIAA or whatever.
Post by: Kairon on October 31, 2007, 09:26:43 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Strell
The point is that all of this is ENTERTAINMENT. You don't need any of it. And the moment you start throwing out this weak justification about how "omfg, teh companies r steelin my torrentz" and the like, it completely breaks down.
I agree. I think it's pretty idiotic to steal stuff you don't need. "Wanting" something doesn't entitle you to it, and getting shouldn't be a destination, but a journey. Now, I'm flexible on this issue because I'm surrounded by piracy and I may even have some "I breathed but I did not inhale" incidents myself, but the most pirate-like thing I do today is youtube because it just doesn't make sense to get dragged further into the materialistic, media-oriented culture that piracy is indicative of.
Quote
Originally posted by: Chozo GhostQuote
Originally posted by: Kairon
You can't dramatically burn the stuff anymore, all the piracy is locked into their flash drives and hard drives... and burning one of THOSE is an unforgivable crime.
If that is what it takes for them to respect the property of others, so be it.
Anyway, that's a lot more lenient than letting them get sued into bankruptcy by the RIAA or whatever.
I dunno, sounds a little extreme, like the sort of stunt some radical college students might take to prove a point beyond all common sense, including property damage and dorm rules. &P
Post by: denjet78 on October 31, 2007, 02:12:07 PM
Quote
It's always hard for me to read text, because I can see several meanings in the words. Thus, I cannot tell if you are saying this as a cold fact, or as a justification.
Just fact, I wasn't justifying.
Quote
First off, at no point should it be phrased as an adversarial relationship.
Whether or not it is people still think that it is, which right there says that there is something wrong with the relationship. If it were really still the same as it's always been why is there so much anger and distrust from consumers toward corporations today?
As for DRM, that's simply idiotic to the extreme. It's not protecting these company's rights, it's limiting consumer's. The law says you have the right to make copies, but DRM stops you from doing that. Then the companies go out and get laws passed making it illegal to circumvent copy protection which makes your legal right to make copies void without them having to actually get that right revoked. Now who just did what to who? Will the DRM stop the pirates? No. Is is stomping all over everyone elses rights? Yes. Is piracy being used mostly as a smoke screen in order to milk consumes for more money? Hmm.....
Quote
If you want to be totally Draconian about it, you don't really have that many rights. You have the right to buy it and use it in the manner it's meant to be used in. You have the right to get it replaced if it breaks prematurely. You technically have the right to back it up in case of unforeseen disasters. But you don't suddenly have the right to do absolutely anything you want with it JUST BECAUSE you own it, because then that's essentially asking for complete and total carte blanche.
First off, where did this "technically" part come from. You DO have the right to make copes. It's the entertainment companies that have trained you to believe that you really don't have that right. Beyond that, alright. Let's be draconian. You really have no rights when it comes to entertainment. But do you know what entertainment is? It's an idea. You know what else are ideas? Art. Science. Technology. History. Who controls them? Who dictates our rights to them? All of them are simply ideas. These companies want to own ALL the ideas. They want to control everything. It's not just entertainment that is being restricted, it's everything. But you only really see people get upset over entertainment because entertainment is used to placate the masses.
Quote
Throwing out hypothetical situations that don't have ANY CHANCE AT ALL of ever happening doesn't make your arguments any stronger. It actually makes them weaker, because you have to resort to throwing out completely nonsense that preys on the feeble imaginations of people around you.
Also, I can do the same thing. What if every entertainment company stopped distributing their merchandise in any retailer channels, and instead forced you to have to be registered with them, and further forced you to actually physically travel to a place of their choosing, where you had to present them a sort of ID card that THEY only had the power to authorize, and only THEN could you buy their product? And what if we take it a step further and say that they could look at your records, and actually refuse to sell it to you, because they found out you used an emulator back in the day?
I can take this "what if" a lot further, by the way.
Hypothetical??? Who was being hypothetical? The government has already gotten into the business of forcing people to purchase products that they don't need. Right now, if I want to drive a car, I HAVE to have car insurance. Do I really need it? Nope. Is there a socialistic option that I can choose from since the government has decided to require it? No. I am being FORCED to buy a FREE MARKET product. Sound hypothetical any more? And right now they're trying to pass a law that would REQUIRE everyone to buy health insurance. Simply being ALIVE and not having health insurance would be illegal. Existing and NOT buying a FREE MARKET product, which in a free market you're supposed to have the choice of buying or not buying any given product hence the term "free", would make me a criminal whether I can afford it or not.
To be quite honest, I don't give a damn about "entertainment piracy" when the rest of the world is so quite clearly screwed up far worse than the idea of a couple of kids sharing a copy of the new Britney Spears CD online. Besides, I don't think anyone should have to spend money on that kind of tripe. To be honest, they shouldn't be wasting bandwidth on it either. SEND THEM PUNKS TO JAIL!
Post by: BranDonk Kong on October 31, 2007, 05:32:38 PM
Post by: Kairon on October 31, 2007, 07:56:59 PM
Post by: Maverick on October 31, 2007, 08:07:56 PM
*DERAILED*
Post by: Kairon on October 31, 2007, 08:08:52 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: denjet78
Hypothetical??? Who was being hypothetical? The government has already gotten into the business of forcing people to purchase products that they don't need. Right now, if I want to drive a car, I HAVE to have car insurance. Do I really need it? Nope. Is there a socialistic option that I can choose from since the government has decided to require it? No. I am being FORCED to buy a FREE MARKET product. Sound hypothetical any more? And right now they're trying to pass a law that would REQUIRE everyone to buy health insurance. Simply being ALIVE and not having health insurance would be illegal. Existing and NOT buying a FREE MARKET product, which in a free market you're supposed to have the choice of buying or not buying any given product hence the term "free", would make me a criminal whether I can afford it or not.
Post by: ShyGuy on October 31, 2007, 08:19:18 PM
Post by: Kairon on October 31, 2007, 08:24:59 PM
Post by: Spak-Spang on November 01, 2007, 03:40:38 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: denjet78
Originally posted by: StrellQuote
It's always hard for me to read text, because I can see several meanings in the words. Thus, I cannot tell if you are saying this as a cold fact, or as a justification.
Just fact, I wasn't justifying.Quote
First off, at no point should it be phrased as an adversarial relationship.
Whether or not it is people still think that it is, which right there says that there is something wrong with the relationship. If it were really still the same as it's always been why is there so much anger and distrust from consumers toward corporations today?
As for DRM, that's simply idiotic to the extreme. It's not protecting these company's rights, it's limiting consumer's. The law says you have the right to make copies, but DRM stops you from doing that. Then the companies go out and get laws passed making it illegal to circumvent copy protection which makes your legal right to make copies void without them having to actually get that right revoked. Now who just did what to who? Will the DRM stop the pirates? No. Is is stomping all over everyone elses rights? Yes. Is piracy being used mostly as a smoke screen in order to milk consumes for more money? Hmm.....Quote
If you want to be totally Draconian about it, you don't really have that many rights. You have the right to buy it and use it in the manner it's meant to be used in. You have the right to get it replaced if it breaks prematurely. You technically have the right to back it up in case of unforeseen disasters. But you don't suddenly have the right to do absolutely anything you want with it JUST BECAUSE you own it, because then that's essentially asking for complete and total carte blanche.
First off, where did this "technically" part come from. You DO have the right to make copes. It's the entertainment companies that have trained you to believe that you really don't have that right. Beyond that, alright. Let's be draconian. You really have no rights when it comes to entertainment. But do you know what entertainment is? It's an idea. You know what else are ideas? Art. Science. Technology. History. Who controls them? Who dictates our rights to them? All of them are simply ideas. These companies want to own ALL the ideas. They want to control everything. It's not just entertainment that is being restricted, it's everything. But you only really see people get upset over entertainment because entertainment is used to placate the masses.Quote
Throwing out hypothetical situations that don't have ANY CHANCE AT ALL of ever happening doesn't make your arguments any stronger. It actually makes them weaker, because you have to resort to throwing out completely nonsense that preys on the feeble imaginations of people around you.
Also, I can do the same thing. What if every entertainment company stopped distributing their merchandise in any retailer channels, and instead forced you to have to be registered with them, and further forced you to actually physically travel to a place of their choosing, where you had to present them a sort of ID card that THEY only had the power to authorize, and only THEN could you buy their product? And what if we take it a step further and say that they could look at your records, and actually refuse to sell it to you, because they found out you used an emulator back in the day?
I can take this "what if" a lot further, by the way.
Hypothetical??? Who was being hypothetical? The government has already gotten into the business of forcing people to purchase products that they don't need. Right now, if I want to drive a car, I HAVE to have car insurance. Do I really need it? Nope. Is there a socialistic option that I can choose from since the government has decided to require it? No. I am being FORCED to buy a FREE MARKET product. Sound hypothetical any more? And right now they're trying to pass a law that would REQUIRE everyone to buy health insurance. Simply being ALIVE and not having health insurance would be illegal. Existing and NOT buying a FREE MARKET product, which in a free market you're supposed to have the choice of buying or not buying any given product hence the term "free", would make me a criminal whether I can afford it or not.
To be quite honest, I don't give a damn about "entertainment piracy" when the rest of the world is so quite clearly screwed up far worse than the idea of a couple of kids sharing a copy of the new Britney Spears CD online. Besides, I don't think anyone should have to spend money on that kind of tripe. To be honest, they shouldn't be wasting bandwidth on it either. SEND THEM PUNKS TO JAIL!
That is not a fair comparison. Every Government and Country creates requirements for its citizens to be able to perform certain things.
Driving a Car requires you to have 1) A driving License so that you prove you can drive and 2) Insurance so that if/when you hit another car or get hit by another car you can be protected and get your damages back. It is designed to be free market to give you the cheapest insurance and the best options.
Also to carry a fire arm in many states you must get a conceal and carry permit. It helps make sure that the people with legal guns know how to use them properly.
But even with the forced purchases you bring up. You can still decide not to own a car or drive. You can decide not to own a gun.
But getting back to an apples to apples comparison the Government is not going to force you to buy a luxury item that is basically for entertainment. That is just crazy.
Besides that even if that did happen, how does that justify theft of DVDs or Video Games anyway?
Post by: denjet78 on November 01, 2007, 04:35:29 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Spak-Spang
That is not a fair comparison. Every Government and Country creates requirements for its citizens to be able to perform certain things.
Driving a Car requires you to have 1) A driving License so that you prove you can drive and 2) Insurance so that if/when you hit another car or get hit by another car you can be protected and get your damages back. It is designed to be free market to give you the cheapest insurance and the best options.
Also to carry a fire arm in many states you must get a conceal and carry permit. It helps make sure that the people with legal guns know how to use them properly.
But even with the forced purchases you bring up. You can still decide not to own a car or drive. You can decide not to own a gun.
But getting back to an apples to apples comparison the Government is not going to force you to buy a luxury item that is basically for entertainment. That is just crazy.
Besides that even if that did happen, how does that justify theft of DVDs or Video Games anyway?
It's your choice what you consider to be a fair comparison. I think it's more than justified simply because I see them both as luxury items. You don't NEED car insurance to live just like you don't NEED entertainment. You don't need a car either but at least the government hasn't left it up to private corporations to determine how people are given a license to drive. The system would completely explode were that to happen.
Driving a car requires you to have a license to ensure that you know how to drive. Insurance is a "what if" precaution. I may drive for 5 minutes and get killed. Or I may drive for 50 years and never even scratch my bumper. Do I really need car insurance? Either way, if they're going to require you to buy it, it's no longer part of a free market. The government has basically subsidized the product which ensures that it will never disappear because you are forced to buy it. And leaving car insurance to a so called "free market" once the government has made it mandatory is a HORRIBLE idea. Just look at what has happened to health insurance if you need any further proof. Prices are sky rocketing, corporations are cutting benefits left and right as well as terminating coverage for high risk clients while profits continue to sore to new heights. That's just bad business. Requiring people to purchase it would make the problem 10 times worse.
As I said though, piracy is what you make of it. Most people see it as greedy individuals who are simply unwilling to spend a few bucks on something that's considered luxury. I don't necessarily see it that way. I see it as consumers fighting against a system that is now set up to fight them at every turn. You no longer "own" almost anything that you buy. You're purchasing a license, which can be revoked at any time and for any reason. Corporations have gone out of their way to be as antagonistic as possible to their customers. Trampling over explicit rights, getting patent and copyright laws changed whenever they see fit, and now having the government actually force consumers to buy certain products. Isn't that something akin to a government sanctioned monopoly? Where does it end? When does it end?
The point is, you can't look at piracy in a vacuum. It's a symptom of a much greater problem. Consumers feel that they are losing control over their market, and they are.
Post by: Spak-Spang on November 01, 2007, 06:18:22 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: denjet78Quote
Originally posted by: Spak-Spang
That is not a fair comparison. Every Government and Country creates requirements for its citizens to be able to perform certain things.
Driving a Car requires you to have 1) A driving License so that you prove you can drive and 2) Insurance so that if/when you hit another car or get hit by another car you can be protected and get your damages back. It is designed to be free market to give you the cheapest insurance and the best options.
Also to carry a fire arm in many states you must get a conceal and carry permit. It helps make sure that the people with legal guns know how to use them properly.
But even with the forced purchases you bring up. You can still decide not to own a car or drive. You can decide not to own a gun.
But getting back to an apples to apples comparison the Government is not going to force you to buy a luxury item that is basically for entertainment. That is just crazy.
Besides that even if that did happen, how does that justify theft of DVDs or Video Games anyway?
It's your choice what you consider to be a fair comparison. I think it's more than justified simply because I see them both as luxury items. You don't NEED car insurance to live just like you don't NEED entertainment. You don't need a car either but at least the government hasn't left it up to private corporations to determine how people are given a license to drive. The system would completely explode were that to happen.
Driving a car requires you to have a license to ensure that you know how to drive. Insurance is a "what if" precaution. I may drive for 5 minutes and get killed. Or I may drive for 50 years and never even scratch my bumper. Do I really need car insurance? Either way, if they're going to require you to buy it, it's no longer part of a free market. The government has basically subsidized the product which ensures that it will never disappear because you are forced to buy it. And leaving car insurance to a so called "free market" once the government has made it mandatory is a HORRIBLE idea. Just look at what has happened to health insurance if you need any further proof. Prices are sky rocketing, corporations are cutting benefits left and right as well as terminating coverage for high risk clients while profits continue to sore to new heights. That's just bad business. Requiring people to purchase it would make the problem 10 times worse.
As I said though, piracy is what you make of it. Most people see it as greedy individuals who are simply unwilling to spend a few bucks on something that's considered luxury. I don't necessarily see it that way. I see it as consumers fighting against a system that is now set up to fight them at every turn. You no longer "own" almost anything that you buy. You're purchasing a license, which can be revoked at any time and for any reason. Corporations have gone out of their way to be as antagonistic as possible to their customers. Trampling over explicit rights, getting patent and copyright laws changed whenever they see fit, and now having the government actually force consumers to buy certain products. Isn't that something akin to a government sanctioned monopoly? Where does it end? When does it end?
The point is, you can't look at piracy in a vacuum. It's a symptom of a much greater problem. Consumers feel that they are losing control over their market, and they are.
I guess we will eventually agree to disagree. But to me you have to start with the lowest common denominator of the luxury item. In this case a Car. I do not need a car to live, but if I want one I must accept the rules to having a car. The government has said it wants all drivers to be 16 years of age or older, have a valid drivers license, and have insurance in case of accident. The insurance is both protection for you, other drivers, and yes even the government. If you aren't willing to pay for insurance then simply you don't need a car. The free market is still in place. I can choose to have a car and car insurance or not. Or you can choose to have a car and break the law without car insurance, but if you are caught you have to suffer the consequences.
There is a huge difference between car insurance and health insurance. Health insurance has been restricted to individual states not allowing true competition to exist across country. If the government would set standards for minimal health insurance requirements for companies then allow states if they wish to have higher standards, but not prevent companies out of state and such to compete you would have better health care insurance.
The difference is night and day, because look at how the care insurance is not skyrocketing in price, but is actually pretty reasonable. Where you believe it luxury or not. The fact is car accidents happen on a daily basis and if people did not have the assurance that other drivers will be able to cover the accidents they cause with their insurance then our commuting structure will be hurt...and one bad accident you didn't cause could bankrupt you.
There is no fight with consumers vs. business that is crazy. What is going on is IP owners are trying to insure their property is protected and not abused from theft or improper use. Those Licenses aren't so you can revoke them whenever you want. Actually the law sets up the rights to using the IP properly and if you use it which those grounds it can't be taken from you. It is not a us vs. them policy. But yeah, a business is not going to want you to buy a DVD and show it to 100+ people at an event just because you want to.
Post by: Nick DiMola on November 01, 2007, 06:32:21 AM
Post by: Nick DiMola on November 02, 2007, 04:56:56 AM
