next »

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Unfortunatelly when trying to copy real objects the scale at which you can build is the least of your problems. Maybe I am not familiar with today's science but I generally have a good grasp of physics and biology.

Yes, but the difficulties have been worked out theoretically. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_assembler for a summary.

Information, in order to exist somewhere else outside your imagination, needs a carrier, and the plum, in order to exist somewhere else outside your imagination, just needs to be. A plum is a plum. A book is not information, the words printed inside it are. Since the word 'carrier' or 'medium' implies a procedure of 'printing' information upon it, you can easily conclude than any information must be copyable (but I'm too lazy to derive this - is it not obvious?).

It's not obvious to me. To me, everything is both information and matter. You can't have anything without matter and you can't have anything without information. All matter has an informational aspect, and all information has a physical aspect. You can't simply separate the two and say that a game is information, because a game always necessarily has a physical aspect. Similarly, you can't take a person and say that he or she is just the mind, they also have a body, and the mind is inseparable from the body. To call matter simply a "carrier" for information is inaccurate, as is saying that a book and the words printed on it can be separated.

The meaning of words changes with time. This is a fact, I really hope you're not going to ask of me to prove it.

It's not a fact, it's bogus. The meanings (i.e. the referents, what words refer to) of words don't change over time, maybe many people believe that, but it's false. The uses of words and their definitions change over time, but the meanings do not. What a tribal group meant by "water" 100,000 years ago, whatever sound they used for it, is the same as what we mean by "water", they were referring to the same substance. The uses of words can change, but what they refer to cannot change. Something can't go from being information to not being information without it itself changing in some way, just as water can't go from water to not water without it itself changing in some way.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

The question we've all been discussing is whether being the creator of a game grants you the right to dictate how the buyers may use said game. Copyright is simply an implementation of such license agreements on a bigger scale, they are not separate things.

This isn't unique to IP, plenty of products come with agreements about how you may and may not use it.

Remember those bed mattress tags that say it's illegal to remove them? Sure, nobody went to jail for it, but it's illegal to remove them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_label

Similarly, you can't buy a cat or a dog and then torture it to death, there are rules about that.

It's illegal (I believe?) to unlock cell phones, so that they work with services other than the ones specified by the manufacturer.

Examples could go on endlessly, no matter which product you can think of, there are rules and agreements regarding its use, which you implicitly agreed to when buying it.

Implicit contracts exist, everything doesn't have to be explicit. A sign on the road with the speed limit is an implicit contract to go by that speed limit if you drive on that road. You don't sign anything that says you agree to follow their rule, but by using their product (the road) you implicitly agree to abide by their rules even if you didn't agree to the rules in explicit fashion.

[charon]

Unfortunatelly when trying to copy real objects the scale at which you can build is the least of your problems. Maybe I am not familiar with today's science but I generally have a good grasp of physics and biology.

Yes, but the difficulties have been worked out theoretically. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_assembler for a summary.

I still think your claim is like 'yeah we got the technology we got bricks and mortar so sure we can build any house or bridge or tower you like' and then I say 'okay in that case use the bricks and mortar and build me a life-sized replica of Earth'...

To me, everything is both information and matter. You can't have anything without matter and you can't have anything without information. All matter has an informational aspect, and all information has a physical aspect. You can't simply separate the two and say that a game is information, because a game always necessarily has a physical aspect.

We're dancing in circles.

I am saying that 'something is information' precisely because no method of actually copying physical matter has been invented yet, therefore only things that I call 'information' may actually be copied while things that I do not call 'information' may not.

Once matter may be copied in the same way information can be copied today, the word 'information' might lose its meaning entirely (and so might the word 'matter' when we speak of it), disappear from the vocabulary or whatever. Most likely, the culture and society will/would change, because something like that was never possible before - so far, only information could be copied, and matter could not.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

At least it's theoretically possible to build a replica of earth, whereas it isn't theoretically possible to bring a dead star back to life. Building replicas of planets should be no more difficult technologically than building replicas of plums, the difference would only be in how much material, energy, and time is required.

I don't think information and matter would lose their meanings -- they would still refer to the same things: the substance itself and the organization of the substance, which together are both needed to create an entity.

That doesn't change regardless of what the technology level is, entities will always be in part substance, and entities will always be in part the organization of that substance, and it doesn't make sense to me that the ability to copy the organization of an entity would make that substance primarily its organization, and likewise doesn't make sense to me that the inability to copy the organization of another type of substance would not make that substance information. Games, like plums, are substance with organization, and the nature of substance and organization don't change with the ability to copy the organization.

So call games information if you like, but I think that's setting up an artificial system which loses sight of what's going on in reality: games have substance and organization, like every other entity, and simply because that organization can be easily copied does not mean the nature of games is only the organization of substance and not the substance too.

[Ragzouken]

This isn't unique to IP, plenty of products come with agreements about how you may and may not use it.

Remember those bed mattress tags that say it's illegal to remove them? Sure, nobody went to jail for it, but it's illegal to remove them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_label

Similarly, you can't buy a cat or a dog and then torture it to death, there are rules about that.

It's illegal (I believe?) to unlock cell phones, so that they work with services other than the ones specified by the manufacturer.

Examples could go on endlessly, no matter which product you can think of, there are rules and agreements regarding its use, which you implicitly agreed to when buying it.

Implicit contracts exist, everything doesn't have to be explicit. A sign on the road with the speed limit is an implicit contract to go by that speed limit if you drive on that road. You don't sign anything that says you agree to follow their rule, but by using their product (the road) you implicitly agree to abide by their rules even if you didn't agree to the rules in explicit fashion.

From the very article you linked to: 'The wording of the warnings printed on some law labels has caused a common misconception in the USA that removing such a label under any circumstance is a crime, prohibiting consumers from removing labels from items they have purchased.'

It would be illegal to torture a cat or dog to death whether you bought it or not. The 'owner'/seller of the animal couldn't choose whether that law applied to their product, or impose restrictions on how the animal was treated either.

As far as I am aware, it is illegal to not build in a mechanism to allow a phone to debranded/unlocked for use with another provider.

The road etc isn't really a product, the laws that govern the road and things in that class of a example can't be really compared to sales and the likes. You don't buy a stretch of road or anything, you pass through it.

[Gnarf]

(I believe?)

Exactly. When it comes to these things, it isn't incredibly straightforward and clear cut.

The process of buying a game seems to be a bit like this: You pick up a game at a store and pay some money for it. When you get home you put the game-disc into your computermachine and find a file on it with some text saying that you're only allowed to play the game while having a pancake on your head. You laugh it off because that's not how human beings do business and install it on both of your computers even though it specifically tells you to install it on only one. I've no idea if you're actually breaking a law or not, I'm not a lawyer specializing on the Simon says field of law, too many retarded technicalities, don't have time for that.

I don't have a problem with agreeing that piracy, generally speaking, is a not very nice thing to do. Though I don't think it's the worst thing you can possibly do, and there are tons of gray areas. And no matter if it's really totally the creator's right to decide that no one gets to play a game unless they live in Finland and pay him money on the first Friday after a solar eclipse, I don't really mind that piracy makes it harder to get away with stuff like that.

It is also totally bad in some ways. Very.

And sometimes I break speed limits.

[mewse]

It's simply copyright law.  You don't have the right to copy something created by someone else.  EULAs don't enter into it (unless you want to make a supplementary argument, making it about contracts instead of copyrights.  EULAs probably wouldn't count as contracts if seriously tested in a court of law, because they don't represent a meeting of minds, are entirely one-sided, are not presented to the end-user until after the purchase decision has been made and the shrink-wrap opened, and many/most software shops don't accept returns of software which has had the shrink-wrap removed.  But IANAL;  don't make important decisions based upon my amateur analysis)

If you don't accept copyright law, that's fine.  But you have to understand that virtually everyone else in the world does accept it.  And you have to not be surprised when the rest of the world doesn't condone your actions.  Especially those of us whose work you're illegally taking. 

And you have to not be surprised when you're fined or imprisoned for your illegal actions.

[Gnarf]

Twas just this talk about implicit contracts that made me recall wondering if I was breaking some some law or something if I didn't uninstall and install Diablo II or something once a week and every other weekend (or never played it at my dad's). Companies are full of shit and that.

But yeah, carry on. Plums. Aristotle believed they were part substance, part potentiality and part actuality. Which might mean that the word "potentiality" is not one of them Stephen Colbert words.

[Ragzouken]

I accept that copyright law applies and that piracy in general is not friendly, but I reserve the right to be suprised if someone is excessively fined or imprisoned at all for non-commercial piracy.

[mewse]

I reserve the right to be suprised if someone is excessively fined or imprisoned at all for non-commercial piracy.

Well, that's your right.  But it seems a little silly to me.

People have already been sued, fined, and imprisoned for non-commercial piracy of music and movies.  Do you really, honestly think that software makers can be far away from doing what authors of other forms of IP are already doing?


Especially after enduring the taunts of the people performing the illegal activities, in threads like this one.  Just saying.

[charon]

At least it's theoretically possible to build a replica of earth, whereas it isn't theoretically possible to bring a dead star back to life. Building replicas of planets should be no more difficult technologically than building replicas of plums, the difference would only be in how much material, energy, and time is required.

I was trying to say that making a plum from atoms is like making a planet from bricks.
You may be capable of building nanobots like you're capable of building houses from bricks, but so far, noone has ever tried to build a planet from bricks.

So call games information if you like, but I think that's setting up an artificial system which loses sight of what's going on in reality: games have substance and organization, like every other entity, and simply because that organization can be easily copied does not mean the nature of games is only the organization of substance and not the substance too.

I decide to stick to my definition for as long as replication and transfer of games remains momentary over any distance, and replication and transfer of food remains limited to crop growing and ships travelling across the oceans.

I would still like to know what this 'substance of games' is. Until I do, it's quite difficult for me to find any arguments against its existance...

[Ragzouken]

I reserve the right to be suprised if someone is excessively fined or imprisoned at all for non-commercial piracy.

Well, that's your right.  But it seems a little silly to me.

People have already been sued, fined, and imprisoned for non-commercial piracy of music and movies.  Do you really, honestly think that software makers can be far away from doing what authors of other forms of IP are already doing?


Especially after enduring the taunts of the people performing the illegal activities, in threads like this one.  Just saying.

Still, I don't think anyone here could or would try to justify imprisonment or fines in the hundreds of thousands for household piracy. Even if I were wholly against piracy I'd be shocked and appalled at that level of punishment.

[Don Andy]

If you don't accept copyright law, that's fine.  But you have to understand that virtually everyone else in the world does accept it.  And you have to not be surprised when the rest of the world doesn't condone your actions.  Especially those of us whose work you're illegally taking. 

And you have to not be surprised when you're fined or imprisoned for your illegal actions.

Ehm, I'm certainly not arguing with the fact that it is basically forbidden in every country on this planet, but I think your giving the this specific law a bit more weight than it actually has.
It's not like they're dispatching SWAT teams to our houses to brutally bring us down. The worst I (for example) would get, would be the loss of pretty much all my technical equipment and a punch in the face from my father (since he would pay the fine, although I had to repay him, naturally). It would suck, but it wouldn't be life-destroying for me or anything (neither for my father, and he would pay the fine even if I told him not to, he's....financially secured).

Also, I think you're being a bit too optimistic about humanity in general. Virtually everyone in this world accepts copyright laws? Seriously? You don't actually believe that right? I'm not saying every second person on earth pirates stuff, but I'm pretty confident that virtually everybody has at one point in his life broken the copyright law in some way, and certainly didn't go to confession about it. I'm not saying the whole world is rotten, but it's not like everybody is a saint either.

Also, (and this is NOT addressing you personally, mewse, please don't misunderstand it), I'm also pretty sure that about 50% of the "pro-copyright" activists are scolding software pirates in one breath and then browse Frostwire for the newest songs of their favorite band in the other.
To be fair, I guess pretty much 50% of the pirates who say they got a reason or moral code to go with their pirating don't (I know there are much more than 50%, but those don't pretend to have on in the first place).
Uh, and if one of you guys (pirate or not) feels offended by the above paragraph, then I'm probably right. But I did not adress any of you guys directly here. I just made this guess based on my experience with people in general. The loudest activists against something are often the worst offenders, too.

Also, I like starting my paragraphs with "Also,..."

Ah, damn, this is probably going to drag me into a long and tiring argument again, that at the end will lead us right back to where we started.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Still, I don't think anyone here could or would try to justify imprisonment or fines in the hundreds of thousands for household piracy. Even if I were wholly against piracy I'd be shocked and appalled at that level of punishment.

It depends on the type of piracy. If someone has made millions off of pirating things and then re-selling them (or even just making millions off of ad revenue like the people at The Pirate Bay and other torrent sites do), that punishment seems okay to me. If someone just downloaded some games, a more appropriate punishment would be a fine equal to or slightly larger than (so that it's not just thought of as "buying the game late") the price of the pirated games.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

But yeah, carry on. Plums. Aristotle believed they were part substance, part potentiality and part actuality. Which might mean that the word "potentiality" is not one of them Stephen Colbert words.

Yeah, but also

[mewse]

It's not like they're dispatching SWAT teams to our houses to brutally bring us down.

They don't dispatch SWAT teams to brutally bring down people who pirate music or movies, either.

But these people do get found and prosecuted.  Not everyone, of course, but there are obvious examples, and they do get hit with serious fines.

Bottom line:  It's illegal.  Everyone agrees it's illegal.  People do get prosecuted for it, and it's only likely to be more frequent.  It's counter-productive, as it only encourages companies to distrust their customers more and more.  And it makes creators of the stuff you like actively dislike you, the pirate.

But hey, if you're okay with all that, then that's your choice.  Just don't be surprised if I sue you when you pirate my work, or if I'm not overly polite to you in the forums.  

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

It's too expensive to sue people over piracy though. It costs thousands of dollars to sue someone over something that only costs $15 or something. I think it's only done when the profits lost are substantial and the person being sued can afford to pay large fees, such as when middle-sized companies pirate Photoshop for their employees instead of buying copies (which happens pretty often).

[Ragzouken]

Still, I don't think anyone here could or would try to justify imprisonment or fines in the hundreds of thousands for household piracy. Even if I were wholly against piracy I'd be shocked and appalled at that level of punishment.

It depends on the type of piracy. If someone has made millions off of pirating things and then re-selling them (or even just making millions off of ad revenue like the people at The Pirate Bay and other torrent sites do), that punishment seems okay to me. If someone just downloaded some games, a more appropriate punishment would be a fine equal to or slightly larger than (so that it's not just thought of as "buying the game late") the price of the pirated games.

I can agree that commercial piracy could be deserving of those punishments, I wouldn't be so suprised if a commerical pirating operation was fined/imprisoned of course. In the case of pirate bay and torrent sites though I think they should have to prove they were making significant profit that went far beyond paying running costs or something.

[Gnarf]

That's kind of interesting. The Pirate Bay is making money from piracy. They make money from ads on their site and people come to their site to pirate things. So they're only making money from piracy indirectly, but it's very obvious that they are. At least I don't think anyone's denying that a lot of the traffic they're getting is like, people going there to be pirates that pirate things.

The Pirate Bay is, as far as I'm aware, not breaking any laws[1]. Yet all moral and ethics wise I have more of an issue with that than with some dumb kid downloading some shit game (which I still don't think is an incredibly nice thing to do). Which like, is illegal. Right? Not sure if I'm going anywhere with this, but. How do the "it's the law" guys feel about The Pirate Bay and that? Is it more alright to legally make money from piracy than to illegally do non-commercial piracy? Just interested like.



[1]: I dunno. Are they? I think they're not. I've certainly gotten the impression that they're not. What with how they got all police razzia'd and then they said that they were all doing legal things really and then they didn't go to jail or pay any fines and got their site up again and that.

[Bebop]

I might just add a little something about Steam. I think they're are doing with their system. It's hard to hack and there are more and more indie game coming in. I think it may become the safest for everybody.

(sorry for being out of subject or maybe repeating something)