next »

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Eh, I don't think crime can end crime, just as war can't end war. A better way to fight piracy is non-violent resistance. Just refuse to pirate and hope people will follow your example. "Be the change you seek in the world" and all that.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I saw this image just now and thought of this thread, haha:

[charon]

Maybe you just aren't that familiar with the state of developing technology, but building stuff on the atomic scale is one of the fastest growing areas of technology right now.

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.

I've never heard information used to mean anything that can be copied exactly until this thread.

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?).

That sounds a bit crazy to me. How can something not be information now and become information later, merely because of the development of some ability? So plums are information to civlizations more advanced than ours, and games are not information to civilizations not yet advanced enough to copy computer data?

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.

[Don Andy]

I saw this image just now and thought of this thread, haha:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

xkcd is truth.

[Dacke]

Both money and plums can be copied, it's just that we don't yet have the technology to copy plums except through their own self-copying technology.

I find your view on copying is extremely confusing. Let's say I supply the energy needed to create an object, but makes the new object in the exact image of an object someone else has created. Would you say that I have stolen the object?

Does this also mean that I am not allowed to plant a stone from a plum I bought from you as that would mean I was copying your plum?

[Movius]

blah blah

I agree that intellectual property (most obviously in the form of patents) is a fiction conjured out of the socialist aether.

Fortunately though games are actual real property involving tangible, physical objects. So any debate about intellectual property is irrelevant here.

[Dacke]

I agree that intellectual property (most obviously in the form of patents) is a fiction conjured out of the socialist aether.

Fortunately though games are actual real property involving tangible, physical objects. So any debate about intellectual property is irrelevant here.

That would be the capitalist aether.

It is the one making the copy that supplies all the physical elements, so if there is any "stealing" going on it is purely that of IP.

[Movius]

That would be the capitalist aether.

It is the one making the copy that supplies all the physical elements, so if there is any "stealing" going on it is purely that of IP.

My mistake. Clearly patents and the like (being government-granted monopolies and existing only on their say-so,) are indicative of the free-market. It's all clear now.

Also if you can acquire a game without someone either; a) selling/giving you their physical property or b) letting you access or otherwise make use of their property, then you are a greater person than I.

[muku]

Also if you can acquire a game without someone either; a) selling/giving you their physical property or b) letting you access or otherwise make use of their property, then you are a greater person than I.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. Obviously in order to copy something you need a specimen of the source material, you can't just will it into being by force of your mind. What's your argument?

Also, this:

Fortunately though games are actual real property involving tangible, physical objects. So any debate about intellectual property is irrelevant here.

So are games distributed purely digitally on the internet not actual games?

[Eclipse]

If I create something, I gets to decide what is allowed to do with it. I gets to say how much money people must pay to use it. I gets to decide under what conditions people might use it. Turns out that when we're talking about my creations, I am the boss of you.

You're calling pirates selfish and greedy bastards, but do you have any idea how selfish you sound here?

he sounds normal. That's truly the minimum, if you create something, you needs to have the power to decide if, when, how and for how much people pay to use your stuff.

It's not matter of how greedy you are or not, it's only matter than if an indie developer think he's not getting what he deserve he will stop to make this job for living. Simple as that.

I really hate not only who pirate indie games but also the guys that talk shit about small games, they are so stupid they just can't imagine how much work, blood and passion even the crappiest game has.
So talking with me, pirating a game is always theft, even if you were not intended to buy it in any manner, and those pirates are the scum of all the gamers

[Dacke]

My mistake. Clearly patents and the like (being government-granted monopolies and existing only on their say-so,) are indicative of the free-market. It's all clear now.

Socialism would be the government claiming that all inventions belong to a) The state or b) Everybody.

Capitalism has it's main focus on individual ownership. It is possible that some schools of capitalism wouldn't agree with the current construct but it is definitely derived from the idea of ownership as a natural right (which is the historical root of capitalism).

Also if you can acquire a game without someone either; a) selling/giving you their physical property or b) letting you access or otherwise make use of their property, then you are a greater person than I.

That is indeed quite possible. I simply access the copy of person Y who has used a) or b) to get a copy from person X, who made the game. This could be considered a version of b), if Y is considered to own it's copy of the game (which is the natural way to look at it if you see games as physical items). If Y indeed is the owner of it's own copy there should be no problem with Y letting me make my own copy of that copy.

[Movius]

What is person Y's copy of the game stored on? good will?

[Dacke]

What is person Y's copy of the game stored on? good will?

I can't say I understand what you're getting after. It is probably stored on a hard drive that is also owned by Y.

Y owns a hard drive and a game.
Y stores the game on the hard drive.
Z owns a hard drive.
Z makes a copy of Y's game from Y's hard drive to Z's hard drive. (With Y's blessing, in this case)

Where exactly did physical theft occur? As far as I can see it can only be considered theft if you accept the concepts of intellectual property or copyright.

[Eclipse]

Socialism would be the government claiming that all inventions belong to a) The state or b) Everybody.

Capitalism has it's main focus on individual ownership. It is possible that some schools of capitalism wouldn't agree with the current construct but it is definitely derived from the idea of ownership as a natural right (which is the historical root of capitalism).

you know, that's pointless and doesn't make any sense with piracy and the modern market.

I'm not surely a capitalist saying that a worker needs to get what he think he deserve, now if a worker is not an employee he needs to get that directly from the ones that makes use of his products, simply as that, let socialism and capitalism out... also because any socialism is ALWAYS on the worker's side, not on the consumer one.
That lazy dumb ass that pirate games doesn't deserve anything for any idealistic reason in the world, also if you want to apply socialism, it's needed to say that the state needs to put money in to finance anything is made, if not, there's no socialism and what you work on belong only to you  

[increpare]

Possibly salient question

"Is it better for any economy to create artificial scarcity of a limitless resource in order to increase earnings?"

[Eclipse]

What is person Y's copy of the game stored on? good will?

I can't say I understand what you're getting after. It is probably stored on a hard drive that is also owned by Y.

Y owns a hard drive and a game.
Y stores the game on the hard drive.
Z owns a hard drive.
Z makes a copy of Y's game from Y's hard drive to Z's hard drive.

Where exactly did physical theft occur? As far as I can see it can only be considered theft if you accept the concepts of intellectual property or copyright.

Absolutely No.
When you buy a game you get an end-user agreement license (EULA) that strictly prohibite you to make that, buying the game you agree to the license.
Also, when you buy a disc you're not actually buying the game itself, but only something where the software is stored and a license to use that, you can't make copies because it will violate the license, and the ones that download\copy it CAN'T do that because they receive the eula only actually buying the game, there's no copyright inflingment, but there's theft, or a violation of the terms of use if you want to see that from this side, because you're using something you're not intended able to.

[Movius]

What is person Y's copy of the game stored on? good will?

I can't say I understand what you're getting after. It is probably stored on a hard drive that is also owned by Y.

Y owns a hard drive and a game.
Y stores the game on the hard drive.
Z owns a hard drive.
Z makes a copy of Y's game from Y's hard drive to Z's hard drive. (With Y's blessing, in this case)

Where exactly did physical theft occur? As far as I can see it can only be considered theft if you accept the concepts of intellectual property or copyright.

Who said anything about theft? I'm talking about fraud.

Y buys a game where Y agrees to pay gamemaker X $XXX for ownership of one copy of the game (which X created and owns) on the condition that Y provides nobody else with a copy of the game.
Y owns a copy of the game on his storage medium of choice.
Y produces a 2nd copy of the game which he gives to Z, knowing that it breaches the agreement he reached with X.
Y commits fraud.
If a) Z knows this to be the case. He is complicit in the fraud.
b) Z doesn't know this to be the case. He is also a victim of Y's fraud and deletes his ill-gotten copy in order to not be complicit in the fraudulent activity of Y

[Dacke]

you know, that's pointless and doesn't make any sense with piracy and the modern market.

I'm not surely a capitalist saying that a worker needs to get what he think he deserve, now if a worker is not an employee he needs to get that directly from the ones that makes use of his products, simply as that, let socialism and capitalism out... also because any socialism is ALWAYS on the worker's side, not on the consumer one.
That lazy dumb ass that pirate games doesn't deserve anything for any idealistic reason in the world, also if you want to apply socialism, it's needed to say that the state needs to put money in to finance anything is made, if not, there's no socialism and what you work on belong only to you 

The capitalism/socialism-statement was a counter to Movius' statement that IP and copyright are fundamentally socialistic ideas. I wasn't saying that piracy is made legitimate by socialism (though I personally feel they have some interesting elements in common). What I said was that concepts of IP and copyright are consequences of a capitalist system, where everything you produce needs to be considered property in order to keep the system functional.

As to your specific views on socialism, I don't think they are entirely accurate but I don't want to get too off topic. It might make an interesting, separate, discussion in the future.

Absolutely No.
When you buy a game you get an end-user agreement license (EULA) that strictly prohibite you to make that, buying the game you agree to the license.
Also, when you buy a disc you're not actually buying the game itself, but only something where the software is stored and a license to use that, you can't make copies because it will violate the license, and the ones that download\copy it CAN'T do that because they receive the eula only actually buying the game, there's no copyright inflingment, but there's theft, or a violation of the terms of use if you want to see that from this side, because you're using something you're not intended able to.

What I was responding to was the claim that copying software is some kind of physical theft that is wrong independent of IP-concepts. I find the whole pirate-discussion interesting and the key question is whether IP is a legitimate concept or not (which it might very well be) but I think it's very wrong to claim that piracy is the same act as physical theft.
 
If you want to go technical: you don't actually sign any EULA when you buy the game but rather when you install it. That would mean that it is ok to copy games and hand the copies away as long as you don't install it yourself. No, it is indeed the copyright-laws that place the actual limitations on your right to make copies.

[Dacke]

Who said anything about theft? I'm talking about fraud.

Y buys a game where Y agrees to pay gamemaker X $XXX for ownership of one copy of the game (which X created and owns) on the condition that Y provides nobody else with a copy of the game.
Y owns a copy of the game on his storage medium of choice.
Y produces a 2nd copy of the game which he gives to Z, knowing that it breaches the agreement he reached with X.
Y commits fraud.
If a) Z knows this to be the case. He is complicit in the fraud.
b) Z doesn't know this to be the case. He is also a victim of Y's fraud and deletes his ill-gotten copy in order to not be complicit in the fraudulent activity of Y

There you go, that's exactly the point I've been trying to get across. Pirating is not physical theft and if it is to be considered a crime I think fraud actually is a good comparison.

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.

[Movius]

There is no dictating of terms. No one is holding a gun to your head and saying "BUY THIS GAME UNDER THESE CONDITIONS OR I WILL PULL THE TRIGGER AND FIRE THE GUN. AS A DIRECT RESULT A BULLET WILL BE FIRED FROM THE GUN INTO YOUR SKULL AT SUFFICIENT VELOCITY TO PENETRATE THE SKULL AND INFLICT FATAL DAMAGE TO YOUR BRAIN." It is a voluntary agreement between two parties acting of their own free will..