next »

[Dacke]

Since the copy-physical-things-discussion is coming back to life all the time, I feel I have to state the obvious. It is both practically and theoretically impossible to copy physical objects, you can only make new objects that are very, very similar to the original object. It is called the  "No cloning theorem".

Personally I also think that anyone has the right to make new objects that are similar to objects they have gotten from someone else, as long as the one creating the new item does all the work and supplies all the energy and materials needed to create the new object.

About the EULA vs. copyright discussion: The entire discussion was about whether it is immoral to pirate, independently of IP and copyright. It had nothing to do with whether it is legal or not, we all know it is through the power of copyright laws. The interesting point was made by Movius that it is possible to think that IP is silly political fiction but that we still need to (morally) respect the agreements made between creator and buyer.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

The no cloning theorem looks interesting, I'll read up on it.

Would it be any less or more moral if it were a contract than if it were copyright law, though? If an action does harm, it doesn't matter if you did harm by breaking a legal agreement or by breaking a law, or even if there were no law against it, the effect is the same. Copying something someone else made when you know they don't want you to do it and would prefer you buy it from them instead would be disrespectful regardless of what laws exist or don't exist, "rights" notwithstanding.

[Dacke]

Would it be any less or more moral if it were a contract than if it were copyright law, though?

If you don't believe in copyright, like Movious stated he didn't. Yes, it would make a difference.

If an action does harm, it doesn't matter if you did harm by breaking a legal agreement or by breaking a law, or even if there were no law against it, the effect is the same.

I think everyone agrees, at least on the "pirate side" of the discussion. Laws do not define what is moral. What many pirates disagree with is the statement that piracy results in a net negative effect. If piracy actually leads to more bad than good I'm prepared to be against it. (I am actually having this discussion to get a better understanding of the topic, not to preach piracy.)

Copying something someone else made when you know they don't want you to do it and would prefer you buy it from them instead would be disrespectful regardless of what laws exist or don't exist, "rights" notwithstanding.

That is the most compelling argument I've heard from the anti-piracy side so far.

I'm not sure it outweighs other aspects, though. Is the creator's right to feel disrespected fundamental enough for me having to respect it? Saying something bad about a game is also disrespectful against the creator, but in this case most people would agree that anyone is in their full right to say bad things anyway.

The big question would be: how disrespectful of someone can you be before it becomes immoral?

[Craig Stern]

Have you ever heard of something called The Tragedy of the Commons? (Here's a Wikipedia entry if you haven't.) Think of the commons, abstractly, as the ability of game developers to survive by making games. If everyone exploits the resource without paying for it, the resource will disappear. It's not a perfect analogy, but you get the idea. Creative work is legitimate work that should be compensated, and if it is not, the people that create will no longer be able to create.

Probably a better comparison would be the free rider problem. Because it's nearly impossible to deal with piracy as a small developer with limited resources, I think the best solution is simply to make browser-based games that can be played for free, and make money off advertising.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

"Is the creator's right to feel disrespected fundamental enough for me having to respect it?"

I don't understand why "rights" are being brought up in this context. What does a right to feel disrespected even mean? Instead of thinking about the question in terms of what you have the right to do, the argument should be about what you should do. Rights are just an abstraction. There are millions of things which people have the right to do, but should not do.

Most of the discussion so far is on whether pirates have the right to pirate, but that discussion won't have a resolution because rights are so abstract: some people feel they have the right to free health care, other people feel they do not: some people feel they have the right to illegal drugs, other people feel they do not, some people feel that unborn have the right not to be killed, other people feel that women have the right to an abortion. Likewise, some people feel that people who create works have the right to determine how those works are disseminated, other people feel that they have the right to copy without restrictions. For every right there's an opposing right which can be claimed.

But all of that stuff about who has the right to do what is overly abstract, largely irrelevant, probably unproveable, and obfuscating the question of whether piracy should be done on an individual level, whether it's beneficial for a person or not, and whether it's beneficial to a developer or not.

[Movius]

If you don't believe in copyright, like Movious stated he didn't. Yes, it would make a difference.

I didn't say that I don't believe in copyright. Just that it's an intrinsic property of ownership of a real physical object.

[increpare]

Here's a current amusement related to intellectual property

If you want to register a song at GEMA (RIAA, ASCAP of Germany) you have to fill in a form for each sample you use, even the tiniest bit. On 12 Sept 08, German Avantgarde musician Johannes Kreidler will —as a live performance event—register a short musical work that contains 70,200 quotations with GEMA using 70,200 forms.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I also saw this today. There are companies that take any 3D model you send them (apparently excepting adult items) and "print" it in a 3D printer, creating a physical object, and send it to you. It's pretty limited and isn't really an ability to clone objects, but it's an ability to create identical objects based on a design.

[Dacke]

I also saw this today. There are companies that take any 3D model you send them (apparently excepting adult items) and "print" it in a 3D printer, creating a physical object, and send it to you. It's pretty limited and isn't really an ability to clone objects, but it's an ability to create identical objects based on a design.

I must ask this question, because I honestly want to know the answer:
Do you think that this company should be considered illegal?

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

First of all, I never said I agreed with copyright law, so I don't know why you think I think piracy should be illegal. I just think it's immoral and destructive. I also think racism is immoral and destructive, but I don't think it should be illegal.

Second, why should it be a bad thing to create 3D objects from design? The only problem would be if they started reproducing the works of people against their wishes, only then would they become immoral and destructive, and as far as I can see they haven't reproduced a work without anyone's permission yet. Just because they can do something doesn't mean that they will, some people (and even some companies) have respect for creators and have a code of ethics that they live by.

[Dacke]

I thank you for your answer

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Although keep in mind that I'm a voluntaryist (which is a kind of anarchist, basically) so I don't believe *anything* should be illegal. You'd get the same answer to me no matter what the crime was.

[Dreamerdude26]

If you want people to buy your game, make a good game. There have been far too many times, especially now a days, that games get hyped up so much to be the next big thing only to end up being pieces of crap.

[Don Andy]

If you want people to buy your game, make a good game. There have been far too many times, especially now a days, that games get hyped up so much to be the next big thing only to end up being pieces of crap.

Most of the game you seem to be referring to here ARE good games, just not as good as everyone falsely wanted them to be. Which is the definition of hype.

Overhyping a game is 50% the publisher's (or whoever does the marketing) and 50% the gamers fault. The publisher because he often gives only vague and exaggerated information and the gamer because he takes these vague pieces of information and pieces them together in an utopian image of what he wants the game to be.

And that of course leads to major disappointments.

Also, I HOPED IT WAS DEAD. WHY? WHY?

[KennEH!]

I'm a big pirate (almost as much as my gentlemanliness). I do have rules though. If I'm going to use what was downloaded a good amount of times, and I can get it (other country stuff or credit card stuff is hard to get) then I will buy it. My main problem is a lot of stuff I get is crap, or only good for a couple hours, a waste. Oh, and Microsoft programs, because they are thieving whores.