Topic: HAY LETS TALK ABOUT PIRACY IN HERE

[oohhboy]

*facepalm

Thats not a facepalm, THIS IS A FACEPALM:

[Chozo Ghost]

I sure as heck don't think it had any impact on people trying to hack the system, they would have continued to do so even with OtherOS still on it.

I strongly believe that removing Other OS did have a lot to do with the system being hacked. The reason is because most pirates are only of average intelligence who for the most part would lack the know how and ability to hack the PS3. The only ones smart enough to hack something are your computer wizs. They're the ones who would be using the Other OS feature on the PS3. Now, when that feature remained they were satisfied, but I think when Sony took it out it awoke a sleeping giant and all these computer geeks banded together and began finding a way to hack the PS3 in earnest to bring back Other OS.

Sure, the pirates are going to reap the fruits of their effort, but the pirates didn't have the intelligence to pull off the hacking by themselves. If Sony hadn't awoken the sleeping dragon of computer geeks I would bet money the PS3 would have taken much longer to be hacked. But Sony had to rouse the ire of computer geniuses and that was like when the Persians pissed off the Spartans.

So its like this: the Pirates had the desire to hack the PS3, but lacked the know how to do it; the computer geeks had the know how but lacked the desire. Once Sony removed Other OS, at that point the computer geeks had the desire in addition to their know how, and the result is what we see here where it was completely cracked just a short time later.

The pirates are like vultures looting all the corpses after a major battle, but it was the Other OS crowd which had fought and won that battle.

[King of Twitch]

One problem Ian. None of this has anything to do with stealing.

Edit: rubbish grammer

You misspelled grammar.

[Spak-Spang]

I think Ian had the best well thought out statement. 

I also think everyones side and position is understood and arguing different opinions is useless. 

What I want to know is what effect will this have on the rest of the gaming community?  Will this allow for emulation to run rampant with the PS3 and PSP.  Will this basically hurt all 3rd party and 1st party games?  Could pirates figure a way to get Xbox games on the PS3 or what not?

Could 3rd party developers decide to not make PS3 versions of games because it will be easily pirated to the systems? 

I think the fact is it is still too difficult for the layman to pirate...however if an easy to install product becomes available then this could become more widely spread.  Look at DS piracy.  It is pretty rampant here in Korea, everyone does it.  This just seems to signal the same thing happening to the PS3. 

[oohhboy]

It's only due to the fact Ian's analogy is purely physical nature that makes it more relatable, therefore more digestible to the imprudent mind. Besides that fact this matter has got nothing to do with stealing, has almost no connection to physical property, is based on the assumption of infinite liability, relationships that don't exist and knowledge that essentially amounts to mind reading makes Ian's statement void.

It is the equivalent of "Would you steal a car?" or "Giving money to the rich will lead to the trickle down effect!" level of intellectual level of laziness and dishonesty that tries to reframe the debate into something that it isn't based purely on an emotional outcome reliant on a knee jerk reaction of agreement that is self reenforcing because a person isn't willing to admit they might be wrong.

I will relink a post I made earlier to avoid repeating myself. Feel free to drop the second half as it is only tangential to the issue at hand, however it does point to a higher issue that this forms a part of.

[Morari]

Piracy rarely has any significant effects on a system. Despite what publishes would like you to believe, piracy does not necessarily equate to lost sales.

With that in mind, I think you'll find that third parties don't really care. They'll still be making the same amount of profit regardless.

Ease of use doesn't have much to do with it either. As you mention, the DS is extremely easy to hack, yet it sells just fine. Likewise, the Wii can be hacked with a simply software mod. People can load up any P2P network they want for free music, but would rather pay $2 a song on iTunes. Piracy has no significant impact.

[Spak-Spang]

Yet, 3rd parties are blaming piracy for the DS as a reason for lost of sales.  I think it depends on how easy it is to pirate and how much the marekt embraces pirating on the system.  Both the PSP and the DS has a large problem with pirating, and the 3rd parties are reacting to it.  I think that is a very real reason why we see less products coming out for the PSP and DS. 

[Shorty McNostril]

While I'm sure that piracy is definitely a contributing factor, I think 3rd parties are mostly trying to shift blame from themselves because the majority of stuff they make is junk.

[BranDonk Kong]

I'd like to point out also, that the first (and now several) CFW for PS3 has been released...and it doesn't allow piracy. Now, keep in mind that since just about anyone will be able to make their own CFW that this will surely change, but it seems obvious that piracy is not the goal of the people that hacked the console to begin with.

[Morari]

Yet, 3rd parties are blaming piracy for the DS as a reason for lost of sales.  I think it depends on how easy it is to pirate and how much the marekt embraces pirating on the system.  Both the PSP and the DS has a large problem with pirating, and the 3rd parties are reacting to it.  I think that is a very real reason why we see less products coming out for the PSP and DS. 

That's nothing more than a scapegoat. Developers should make more appealing games, with better replay value. Publishers should charge less, especially for handheld titles. This is no different than when the music labels cry about piracy. It's the incompetence of an industry to react to changing distribution methods and ideals of value.

While I do not agree with him 100%, Gabe Newell has made a lot of very insightful statements throughout the recent past about just this. He realizes that piracy does not equate to lost sales. That most pirates are simply under-served customers. The remaining die-hard pirates are never going to buy your product anyway, so it's not worth wasting time and moneny fighting them. The way to combat piracy is to create a sense of value, which includes supporting the game longer than just releasing some junk DLC. It also means that things that create negative value, like overtly destructive and cumbersome DRM, should be left on the cutting room floor.

[ThePerm]

Gabe Newell is righteous

[Ian Sane]

Besides that fact this matter has got nothing to do with stealing

The way I see it it is stealing.  Sneaking into a movie or a concert does not deprive the theatre or promoter of any physical property either but it still rather blatantly dishonest and is an obvious attempt to get something for free that one would normally have to pay for.
 
I think of royalties and IP as more or less giving people credit for coming up with good ideas.  Do those that are all "well information is just free" ever actually HAVE any information of their own?  I don't tend to meet too many people that actually create things that support the idea of everyone being able to just grab it for free.  It seems more like freeloaders who contribute jack **** and want a free ride are more the types that defend piracy and are againt IP.  That doesn't apply to everyone but it seems to be pretty damn common.
 
The concept of one receiving some form of credit to one's ideas is nothing new.  Copyrights and patents weren't designed recently by a bunch of evil corporations.  And yet it seems like a very recent ideology that these concepts shouldn't exist.  In other words it seems right around the time that it became incredibly easy to pirate IP that the concept of how IP should not exist became more widespread.  Once the ability to steal became effortless the thieves needed some bullshit to justify their actions.  Suddenly everyone finds out if they don't steal because it's wrong or because they don't want to get caught.  I don't see it as any different then how all sorts of people become huge jerks on the internet (I don't mean anyone on this forum; I'm talking YouTube comment sections stuff).  Some people are nice and polite because they're good people and some people are only because they don't want to get punched in the face.  Once the threat of punishment is removed we find out who the gentlemen and the assholes really are.
 
I notice that there does not seem to be such an outrage over patents.  There is for software patents (which I think often abuse the system) but no one is on the internet making a big stink about people inventing an innovative new wrench and getting exclusive rights to it.  I think we don't see it because it doesn't affect the pirates.  There is no easy way to rip-off patents and it does not concern them.  But they enjoy ripping off movies, music and videogames so they've got an opinion about that.
 
The whole concept of copyright pretty much has to exist for us to have the vast amount of art and entertainment available to us.  I write songs and make films.  I have not made any money on either.  I'm limited by budget and time.  I can't afford to make something without major restrictions and I can't dedicate as much effort as I would like because I have to have a full time job to, you know, prevent myself from starving to death.  The financial incentive of copyright allows for this stuff to get made.  If you can make a living doing it then you can dedicate a full budget and schedule to it.  Therefore we have a model that rewards creativity and provides incentive for people to create such works.  Yes this can be abused and sometimes great work goes unnoticed while complete junk is successful.  But the alternative is that arts and entertainment become a gentlemen's pursuit that only the rich can fully pursue.  You want all these books and movies and songs and videogames to be made?  Well then you have to support the right for their creators to receive credit for such works and have the rights to sell them.
 
Though I do think that comparing this stuff to stealing a car is extreme.  There is a clear loss of resources in that example.  Piracy is merely a loss of hypothetical revenue which is not as serious.  With outright theft, each incident causes harm.  Piracy's harm is proportionate to how widespread it is.  One person, who wasn't really a potential customer to begin with, has virtually no effect.  But if it is more widespread you get something like China where it more or less impossible to sell IP at all.
 
I think the whole concept has been somewhat abused and bullshitted around by some big corporations.  Some people who have been caught have really had the book thrown at them while more severe criminals receive lesser punishments.  Some of the methods to combat piracy piss all over our rights and as much as I support the idea of copyright I do not support at all this new concept of buying the "licence" to use something.  Like with most things in life there are bad guys on both sides.  It isn't consumer rights vs. copyrights.  It doesn't have to be a battle and it shouldn't be.  The two concepts can and should co-exist and it only greed on both sides that prevents that.

[TJ Spyke]

Ian's post reminds me of the head of Cooks Source magazine who took others stuff that was posted online. When one of those people called her out on it, she tried to claim that everything online is free and that they should have paid her for editing the information.

[Morari]

I notice that there does not seem to be such an outrage over patents.

You're not looking then. Just like copyright law, companies abuse patents every day. Filing patents for products you never intend to actually manufacture, just for the sake of keeping your competition from making it instead? Or how about all of the patent trolls that simply sit back and collect fees on their obvious filings? There's nothing inherently wrong with patents, in fact they are supposed to spur and protect creative outlets so that individuals can compete. The problem is, once again, corporations. Greed needs to be kept in check, which means that corporations should be deprived of many of the luxuries they enjoy now.

The same goes for copyright. Copyright isn't a problem until companies like Disney get involved and extend it to the length of several lifetimes with unlimited renewals. This does not spur creativity, and in fact denies many of what would otherwise be an important element of copyright law: public domain.

I write and publish short stories. I make films as a hobby. I do a lot of graphic design as well. I offer everything for free on my website, with the option to purchase physical copies that include non-essential extras and trivia. It works just fine for me, and I make enough money from it to be comfortable. The money isn't what makes me happy however, it's the fact that people are genuinely interested and enjoying my work. Art isn't a commodity, it's meant to be shared, experienced, and built upon. It's meant to be free.

[broodwars]

The same goes for copyright. Copyright isn't a problem until companies like Disney get involved and extend it to the length of several lifetimes with unlimited renewals. This does not spur creativity, and in fact denies many of what would otherwise be an important element of copyright law: public domain.
 
...
 
Art isn't a commodity, it's meant to be shared, experienced, and built upon. It's meant to be free.

Meh, personally I don't have a problem with Disney continually renewing their copyrights.  Maybe it's just because I'm a lifelong fan of the company, but I like that not just anyone and everyone can put out a crappy cartoon with Mickey in it and make money off it.  I like that the integrity of the character is maintained by the company that created him.  Likewise, if you've seen the Disney Treasures DVDs, you know that no individual and few companies preserve their assets like Disney does for their early cartoons.
 
That's a nice ideal about art, but it's nowhere near realistic.  In the real world, artists need money to eat and have something approaching a lifestyle.  They have a right to make money off what they produce and what they own, and a right to tell other people that they can't infringe upon that right.  And yes, that includes corporations who create and maintain their products.  Just because you don't like the actions of some corporations, that does not mean that you get to dictate to them what rights they have or deserve.

[Ian Sane]

Art isn't a commodity, it's meant to be shared, experienced, and built upon. It's meant to be free.

I see it as slightly different.  I see it as meant to be presented.  I want people to enjoy my work.  But whether or not I charge for that doesn't really matter.  I personally enjoy the creative outlet it provides and that is what makes me happy.  But I would love it if I could do this for a living, not for the money, but so I can do what I love instead of dedicating so much time to an unrelated career that I have to stick with to support myself.  I made a movie over the last few years and I'm very proud of it but it was a lot of work to get done on virtually no budget and working around everyone's work schedule.  I think of what I could do if I had some money to work with and a full-time job's worth a time and I get excited thinking about that.  I could really concentrate on the story and the writing if I didn't have to constantly think about how to fit this or that in the budget or where to film this or who I know who could play this character.
 
Copyright allows for a situation where if I caught a break and there was a lot of interest in my art I could do this full time.  It can allow for abuse by corporations but it can also provide an artist with the freedom to be an artist by allowing his art to also be his livelihood.

[Morari]

I meant free as in speech, not free as in beer.

Regardless. Copyright law is a perversion of what it was originally intended to be. No one but large corporations benefit from the way it is now. That's not good for creativity. It's not good for anyone but some rich pricks at Disney. Of course, Disney is more than happy to use work from the public domain... look at just about anyone of their films and you'll see that they almost all use fairy tales that have since entered the public domain. That's how art works. Disney stifles creativity by never allowing their work to enter the public domain however. It's counter intuitive to society, and definitely not what was originally intended as copyright.

[Ian Sane]

Regardless. Copyright law is a perversion of what it was originally intended to be.

Well that I can probably agree on.  So I think the ideal solution is for copyright law to revert back to its original intentions, not abolish it outright.  Often in life I find I may respect the spirit of a law but not necessarily its execution.

[Morari]

I never suggested that we abolish copyright. It needs to be restricted (reverted?) to a usable state however, that way it can actually encourage innovation, instead of allowing corporations to eternally stifle it.

[King of Twitch]

Disney stifles creativity by never allowing their work to enter the public domain

Say what

[UncleBob]

That's nothing more than a scapegoat. Developers should make more appealing games, with better replay value. Publishers should charge less, especially for handheld titles. This is no different than when the music labels cry about piracy. It's the incompetence of an industry to react to changing distribution methods and ideals of value.

And that's nothing more than BS.  If you don't think something is worth the price being asked for it, then you don't buy it - but you also don't get to enjoy it anyway.  That's not how grown-up, responsible people function.

Blaming companies for people stealing their product?  Really?  What's next?  "She was asking for it, wearing that short of a skirt!"?

[ShyGuy]

The only evil is THE MAN all else is pure. It's Anarchist philosophy.

[Chozo Ghost]

Meh, personally I don't have a problem with Disney continually renewing their copyrights.

Actually, that's not really the issue. Its that Disney (and other companies) pressure Congress to pass legislation to extend the length of copyrights. Where do you draw the line? The only limitation is that copyrights cannot be indefinite, but Congress could theoretically pass a law extending copyrights to 1 billion years (which would be the same for all intents and purposes).

Disney stifles creativity by never allowing their work to enter the public domain

Say what

Its especially funny because I don't think Morari realizes the stupidity of his post. Not being able to copy someone else's work is "stifling creativity"? WTF?? Creativity isn't creativity unless its original.

Then again, he does have a point because it seems like most of Disney's "creative work" is stuff they themselves ripped off from the public domain (works such as Grimm's Fairy Tales, and so on). Then they toss in a few singing mice and call it a day. Its really ironic if you think about it.

[Morari]

That's nothing more than a scapegoat. Developers should make more appealing games, with better replay value. Publishers should charge less, especially for handheld titles. This is no different than when the music labels cry about piracy. It's the incompetence of an industry to react to changing distribution methods and ideals of value.

And that's nothing more than BS.  If you don't think something is worth the price being asked for it, then you don't buy it - but you also don't get to enjoy it anyway.  That's not how grown-up, responsible people function.

The blame does lie on the shoulders of the industry. What customers could be made of pirates are ignored. On the other hand, the die-hard pirates are never going to become customers anyway. They are not worth the effort or money to temporarily stop. These industries put all of their work toward preventing piracy. They should instead focus on making products of positive value, and doing what they can to reach their under served customers.

Disney stifles creativity by never allowing their work to enter the public domain

Say what

Its especially funny because I don't think Morari realizes the stupidity of his post. Not being able to copy someone else's work is "stifling creativity"? WTF?? Creativity isn't creativity unless its original.

Not copying someone else's work. Building from it, interpreting it. Just like Disney has done with every old fairy tale they've made films of. Nothing is original, and creativity does not necessarily rely upon it. Everything has a basis somewhere... that's how history works.

[TJ Spyke]

Just be glad that the last time they extended copyright length. With the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, which put it at 95 years after creation for corporate-owned copyrights for stuff made before 1978 and 120 years for stuff since then; for individuals it is the life of the author plus 70 years.  This means that the first Mickey Mouse cartoon (mentioning that because Disney lobbied so much for the bill that it was nicknamed the Mickey Mouse Act), Steamboat Willie (released in 1928), won't be public domain until 2023. Under the 1976 copyright laws, that was gonna happen in 2003. So you can bet that in about 10 years you will see Disney once again trying to extend the copyright length.

The reason I said we should be glad it isn't worse is that some people, like Sonny Bonno (who supported the bill when he was in the Senate) wanted copyright protection to be indefinite. When this was discovered to be unconstitutional (since the constitution specifically says "by securing for limited Times" in regards to copyright and patents). At least the 1976 law limited it to 95 years.

What I find annoying is that Disney adds very little to the fairy tales they use (for example, just about the only thing they added to Snow White was the names of the dwarves since they were nameless in the original dark tale) and then would sue other companies for doing the same thing. It reminds me of when Universal proved that King Kong was public domain (so they could remake the movie in 1978 without paying for the rights) and then sued Nintendo and other companies for Donkey Kong.