Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sir Pseudonymous]

And even if it was, that wasn't the point I was making. You changed my analogy to one about imitating a piece of open source software. Your description isn't even piracy.

Yes, it is. What you were describing was *theft* (which, as I've said before, devs don't give a shit about, because *theft* hurts retailers, who have already payed the devs (publishers, actually, who themselves have already payed the devs)). Pirating, quite literally (at least when downloading something), is asking someone else what a given piece of media or software looks like, and then recreating that by altering the state of your own possessions to match it.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

Likewise, the efforts of the commercial side to wipe out the freeware and especially the open source sector are also unhealthy for the culture, but they must be met in my eyes not by destroying the attacker but by protecting the attacked.

Or, y'know. Figuring out if that's actually happening or not, because it's fairly evident that it's not. Even Microsoft, who once upon a time looked for ways to disrupt and destroy open source, now have a preposterous number of open source projects of their own.

O.o
Interesting.
In my defense, I can only say that as you point out, once upon a time, they did try to disrupt it, and I have to admit that I have not kept up to date. So, yeah, my information is then outdated.

Grakelin: At least from my perspective, copyright selling is not an absolute necessity. But that is probably just my artist-centric perspective, where my main goal is to protect artists from harm via copyright violators. Of course, if the exclusive copyright became inalienable, that is, could not be given completely to someone else, that would have interesting consequences on the way commercial structures are developing......

I agree that piracy and open source are in their basic nature unrelated. However, in the consequence, I think that the "fear" piracy creates is likely to result in measures that hurt open source the most (like mandatory licensing). Well, at least that is the impression I have.

Deathworks

EDIT: Virex: I was thinking more about greater parts of source code as the text I responded to mentioned forking the word pad out of open office, I think.

[Blacken]

And even if it was, that wasn't the point I was making. You changed my analogy to one about imitating a piece of open source software. Your description isn't even piracy.

Yes, it is. What you were describing was *theft* (which, as I've said before, devs don't give a shit about, because *theft* hurts retailers, who have already payed the devs (publishers, actually, who themselves have already payed the devs)). Pirating, quite literally (at least when downloading something), is asking someone else what a given piece of media or software looks like, and then recreating that by altering the state of your own possessions to match it.

...and in doing so, denying the developers due recompense for the initial outlay of capital necessary to generate it.

Doesn't that much cognitive dissonance really, really hurt? How do you get around it? Do you just pretend it didn't happen?

Or is it just "...nah, they don't deserve it anyway"?

[DrPizza]

Deathworks: I agree with you. In fact, I'm not against copyright at all, but I do support open-sourcing, especially for projects that the owner is finished with. I'm still trying to decide for myself whether I think copyright should be sold as a commodity, though. For instance, should Michael Jackson have been able to purchase all of the Beatles' works and sell them, or would we have benefit more to have gotten it all for free once the Beatles were done with them? It doesn't actually fully matter either way, because cultural staples are cultural staples whether we pay for them or not, though it is interesting if one has a benefit over the other (besides a new person getting monies).

How can you have one without the other?  The Beatles weren't "done with them". They just wanted to monetize them differently--which is surely their right as copyright holders?

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Theft is not exactly the same as piracy. I'm sure you're an expert enough to know the difference.

You may attempt to draw semantic differences that don't exist, but I will not accept them.

[Blacken]

Theft is not exactly the same as piracy. I'm sure you're an expert enough to know the difference.

You may attempt to draw semantic differences that don't exist, but I will not accept them.

I know reading is really, really hard, but let's look at the full statement:

And a game is most definitely "software." You may attempt to draw semantic differences that don't exist, but I will not accept them.

Thanks for playing.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

He was trying to say that software was not a game. You dismissed.

You tried to say that piracy was theft. I dismissed.


Blacken, I went through your last 30 posts. You know what I found?

Almost every post outside of programming help was vicious and negative.
Many posts within programming help were vicious and negative.
The only posts where you were neutral or positive were where you were giving your own opinion and nobody contradicted you.

Relax, man.

EDIT: Personality types sometimes conflict strongly. I've found that certain personality types cause more friction than others, even against smooth personalities. In your daily life, do a lot of people grate against you? Even people who have a generally calm reputation?

[Sir Pseudonymous]

And even if it was, that wasn't the point I was making. You changed my analogy to one about imitating a piece of open source software. Your description isn't even piracy.

Yes, it is. What you were describing was *theft* (which, as I've said before, devs don't give a shit about, because *theft* hurts retailers, who have already payed the devs (publishers, actually, who themselves have already payed the devs)). Pirating, quite literally (at least when downloading something), is asking someone else what a given piece of media or software looks like, and then recreating that by altering the state of your own possessions to match it.

...and in doing so, denying the developers due recompense for the initial outlay of capital necessary to generate it.

Doesn't that much cognitive dissonance really, really hurt? How do you get around it? Do you just pretend it didn't happen?

Or is it just "...nah, they don't deserve it anyway"?

When it comes down to it, pirates either don't have the money to spend on media in the first place (like, say, people in third world countries and poor college students), they couldn't spend money on it if they wanted to because it's not available (like, say, people in third world countries, or, in the case of particularly old/obscure media, anyone), or they already spent their media budget on what they saw as the best value and are just pirating the shit from the bottom of the barrel/obscure shit they just happen to come across (the largest category).

Then fucking do without. It's not a hard concept. If you can't pay for it, don't take it. Piracy fundamentally disrespects the rights of the creator that we have established as a society. You bitch about your rights, which is funny because you're busily pissing on theirs.

Hypocrites.

Said nothing about rights there, that was in reference to attempts to circumvent first-sale, see below. Also see "they take nothing" and "are the fucking ones who give the most in the first fucking place".

So trying to paint them as freeloaders is slanderous and intellectually dishonest: they take nothing from the industry, and in most cases give more to it than non-pirates, who generally don't consume nearly as much media.

Prove it. No, seriously: prove it. Prove that pirated media is a net benefit for the industry. (Hint: you won't find it from a reliable and credible source.)

It's entirely anecdotal, but the overwhelming majority of pirates I know (college students, not having money? really? that's not it at all, they want to spend it on beer instead) don't buy games at all except where they have to, i.e. consoles. Looks like more lockdown really is the answer! Awesome!

Let's see... every fucking study done on the matter shows that the people who spend the most on media and the ones who pirate media are the same fucking people, with a handful of outliers on either side.

Now, used games do hurt the industry, in that they're essentially full price, but nothing goes back to the devs/publishers. They're also legally protected, and the recent efforts to fuck up used game sales are fucking disgusting. "Fuck your rights, I want free money! >:O "

Resale is 100% a consumer right, and I agree utterly that trying to stop game resale is a serious problem. But it does not excuse piracy.

Read for comprehension there. "Used sales" are what actually hurts the industry, whereas piracy has a negligible or mildly positive impact on it. Trying to fuck with used sales, however, is a disgusting fucking trampling on people's rights.

Remember that the average pirate consumes many times their *entire income* in media, and has a significantly larger percentage of that income devoted to buying/renting/otherwise viewing (theaters, concerts, etc) media than non-pirates in the first fucking place. So fuck that fucking "denying compensation" bullshit, it's intellectually dishonest to try to pretend that piracy has any fucking effect on their bottom lines (except, of course, in the case of commercial piracy, because in that case, someone is actually paying money (hence willing and able to do so), and only to someone who added no value to the material in the first place).

[DrPizza]

Remember that the average pirate consumes many times their *entire income* in media

I'll just leave that right there....

What is the analogue to a "theatres" and "concerts" for a software program?

That a music or video pirate may spend more on average than a non-pirate on music and video is irrelevant to the question of software piracy.

It's also not a defence anyway. Do music and video pirates spend more because they pirate? Or do they do it because they have more interest in music and video? You keep citing a correlation, but without a demonstration of causation, it's irrelevant.

I put it to you that music-and-video-lovers would spend ever more if they didn't acquire some of their consumed media through piracy.

[Virex]

Also, legalizing piracy isn't the way to go, because in that case nearly all honest payers will also stop paying (it's not illegal anymore after all), which can do naught but hurt the industry. Piracy has to remain illegal and people need to keep fighting piracy for the system to stay alive, no matter if they have any effect or not.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

Yes because necessities do not nor have ever existed, so clearly if it weren't for TEH EVUL PARATS everyone would be spending all of their income so some cokehead executives can buy more coke!

Even were you to somehow magically remove the ability for the small percentage of consumers who are already your best costumers to consume media at the rate they desire, it would either mean that a) they don't give more money to you than they already were, because they only bought what they actually valued to begin with, b) they do, but spend less on more material luxuries, thus harming another industry, and one with massive physical investment of capital, or, if they're aware that you're responsible for the whole mess, c) stop purchasing anything out of spite for your actions.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

YEAH, why can't they just huff company whiteboard markers like their employees?!

[DrPizza]

Yes because necessities do not nor have ever existed, so clearly if it weren't for TEH EVUL PARATS everyone would be spending all of their income so some cokehead executives can buy more coke!

Yes, because the only things people spend money on are "media" and "necessities". They have no other competing interests for their cash. No other economic trade-offs to make.

[Blacken]

[trolling removed- tt]

Remember that the average pirate consumes many times their *entire income* in media, and has a significantly larger percentage of that income devoted to buying/renting/otherwise viewing (theaters, concerts, etc) media than non-pirates in the first fucking place. So fuck that fucking "denying compensation" bullshit, it's intellectually dishonest to try to pretend that piracy has any fucking effect on their bottom lines (except, of course, in the case of commercial piracy, because in that case, someone is actually paying money (hence willing and able to do so), and only to someone who added no value to the material in the first place).

If you derive utility from a copyrighted work, you have a societal obligation to adhere to the license that the copyright-holder puts in place, or to not use it. That you feel you are superior to the law is your own business, but it does not make you superior to the law. You are deriving utility from something without due recompense to their creators. The excuse that oh, you pirate a lot and so you wouldn't buy all of it if you couldn't pirate it is utterly, utterly lazy thinking, and a fantastic excuse for continuing to screw other people. Do others' need to actually make a living somehow matter less than your need to play a video game?

[flames removed -tt]

Yes because necessities do not nor have ever existed, so clearly if it weren't for TEH EVUL PARATS everyone would be spending all of their income so some cokehead executives can buy more coke!

You know what else exists?

Manning up--being an adult--and doing without if you can't pay for what you want. But that's hard, so screw it, let's just fuck some people over!

Here's a hint: the overwhelming majority of people you fuck over when you pirate aren't these "cokehead executive" caricatures. They're developers and artists and sound guys and QA testers and everybody else whose effort is necessary to bring that product to market. And you are saying, "Hey guys, I just don't really give enough of a shit to pay for your stuff! Fuck you!"

Personally I find that morally abhorrent, but I guess I was raised a little better than some folks. When as much free content exists as does on the Internet, complaining that you can't afford what you want to pirate is so very, very dishonest.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

Yes because necessities do not nor have ever existed, so clearly if it weren't for TEH EVUL PARATS everyone would be spending all of their income so some cokehead executives can buy more coke!

Yes, because the only things people spend money on are "media" and "necessities". They have no other competing interests for their cash. No other economic trade-offs to make.

How are I misunderstand facetious hyperbole?

Also, rest of post edited in and whatnot, since unlike some people I realize that there's an edit button.