Please! PLEASE Stop PIRACY in this group!

Vince wrote:
> "Interesting Ian" wrote
>> "Vince" wrote
>>> "Bent C Dalager"wrote
>
>>>> Games can, as any cultural item, be vital to avoid becoming a social
>>>> outcast. It's bad enough to be poor but much worse to not have any
>>>> friends simply because you can't afford the cultural activities that
>>>> other kids your age engage in.
>
>>> That might be a reason but not a justification.
>
>> I think the question here is whether it is unethical or not. Clearly it
>> is illegal, but is it unethical?
>
>> I don't see any argument that could be made to suggest it is unethical.
>
> Do you own a Software company?
>
> I assume not. If you did, and your sales were hit by Piracy you might.
>
> Have you ever written a Novel?
>
> Say you did, but I copied it and mass produced it, selling it much cheaper -
> would you applaud my initiative.
>
> Would I be depriving you of sales? Not really, because all the people buying
> the cheaper version couldn't afford the expensive one and they wouldn't have
> bought it anyway (apparently).
>
> What about singing someone elses songs without their permission, what about
> copying a work of art and passing it off as an original?
>
> By your rules these are all fair game.
>
>

Well there's one thing to be said for PC Games - he does prompt
discussion.

Thanks all for the chat - I'm bowing out. No-one's changed my opinion
but it was interesting all the same.

Bent C Dalager wrote:
> In article <1163456534.30774.0.DeleteThis@demeter.uk.clara.net>,
> Shawk <shawk.DeleteThis@clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote:
>> Bent C Dalager wrote:
>>> Anyway, what we're actually talking about here is technically larceny,
>>
>> Electronic copying of games? No it isn't - we're talking about theft of
>> intellectual property or infringement of copyright are we not?
>
> If there is such a thing as "theft of intellectual property" it would
> involve the unlawful appropriation if other people's IP rights.
> E.g. if you could somehow get the copyright to the LoTR movies signed
> over to you in some unlawful manner, that might constitute a theft of
> intellectual property. (But is more likely some sort of fraud.)
>
> Note that this would indeed constitute the removal of some form of
> property from the victim - even if that property is something so
> entirely abstract as an exclusive right.
>
>> "Intellectual property, often known as IP, allows people to own their
>> creativity and innovation in the same way that they can own physical
>> property. The owner of IP can control and be rewarded for its use, and
>> this encourages further innovation and creativity to the benefit of us
>> all".
>
> Can you name a source for this text?

Damn - I'd bowed out once but I'll provide the link on this occasion

It's from the UK patent Office

http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/faq/question1.htm

>
>> Copyright is a form of protection for that intellectual property as you
>> should know given you seem intelligent.
>
> Whatever the source, the key phrase is "this encourages further
> innovation and creativity to the benefit of us all". This paraphrases
> the basis for the copyright regime, and the point is that such
> encouragement is no longer needed and will in fact be detrimental to
> both innovation and creativity as we proceed into the information age.

I honestly don't understand where you're coming from with this - what
will there be in place of this 'encouragement'? If you want to expand
then I'll read it.

In article <1163457582.13899.0 DeleteThis @despina.uk.clara.net>,
Shawk <shawk DeleteThis @clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote:
>Bent C Dalager wrote:
>>
>> Now we are starting to see why the "piracy is theft" mantra is so
>> dangerous: it establishes analogies that are fundamentally false.
>
>Rubbish. Its simply a simplification that gets the message across
>without going into the mind-bogglingly dull details of IP and copyright.

It's not a simplification so much as an appeal to the public's moral
indignation over real theft in an attempt to direct those feelings
onto the entirely different field of copyright violation. The end
result is to give the public an entirely false understanding of what
the problem is all about. That is not simplifying - it's
misrepresenting.

>If I designed and produced some fantastic software and next day find you
>and all your pals have a copy without me having any control or
>commercial gain for it do you really think I won't be extremely pissed???

The world doesn't really need to care much how you feel about it. I
could exhale my breath and be extremely pissed about how other people
are breathing in the _exact same air_ that I just exhaled. That
doesn't mean laws need to be passed about who may or may not breathe
"my" air.

>> If you copy a game, however, you have not deprived anyone of their
>> copy of the game. Likewise, if you were to copy a pair of sneakers
>> (perhaps by making them yourself) you also have not deprived anyone
>> else of their sneakers. There is nothing fundamentally unethical about
>> either of these activities.
>
>Fundamentally unethical? - in whose value system? Taking without
>permission is still theft is it not?

In some cases and not in others. You really should look up "theft" one
of these day.

>It's still true today. Damaging in what way?

The complete clamp-down on pretty much all cultural development for
the last 50+ years is stifling our ability to build new culture upon
old.

Just try to make any kind of innovate cultural work that includes
Mickey Mouse - which was first seen in 1928.

>I'd love to hear your ideas for the new 21st freebie Century and how not
>getting rewarded for making software/music/films etc is going to
>encourage folk to up the pace of cultural development?

I never said people wouldn't be rewarded. What I said is that
copyright is not the way to go about it any more.

>Starving artists was 18th/19th century not 21st.

Artists still "starved" in the 20th and we're all set for the same to
continue into the 21st. This has little to do with copyright, which
tends to get signed over to corporate entities for a pittance anyway.

Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd DeleteThis @pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

In article <1163459517.2391.0 RemoveThis @proxy02.news.clara.net>,
Shawk <shawk RemoveThis @clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote:
>
>Damn - I'd bowed out once but I'll provide the link on this occasion
>
>It's from the UK patent Office
>
>http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/faq/question1.htm

The very bread and butter of national patent offices is IP, so they
tend to be heavily biased in the matter. I don't know about the UK
patent office specifically though.

Of course, the quote you cited looked decent enough.

>I honestly don't understand where you're coming from with this - what
>will there be in place of this 'encouragement'? If you want to expand
>then I'll read it.

You only really need to spend a few hours on YouTube to realize how
little encouragement people need to produce content.

But even aside from that, today, most of the cost in bringing a
product to market lies in distribution and retail. With these
activities moved over to online channels, I expect you can bring down
costs tenfold with pretty much all of the revenue going directly to
the author. It is therefore no longer necessary to have all possible
users of a given work pay money for it. Even if they don't have any
better ideas, most authors will be able to live comfortably on the
money they get from the early adopters/avid fans/etc. They may have to
spend more time bulding a community around their works - especially
the less popular ones will - but most authors will probably relish
closer connections with their readers/listeners/gamers/whatever.

The bottom line is that if you are capable of making products that
people actually want, and especially if you're in some segment of the
entertainment industry, getting paid is probably the least of your
concerns. Your main problems are, as always, publicity and
distribution. The Internet is likely to bring about some very
effecient solutions for those. And no prizes for guessing that this
will involve Google in some way or other

Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd RemoveThis @pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

"Vince" <vmelia DeleteThis @nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:GB66h.200973$3D1.102465@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> "Interesting Ian" wrote
>>
>> "Vince" wrote
>>> "Bent C Dalager"wrote
>
>>>> Games can, as any cultural item, be vital to avoid becoming a social
>>>> outcast. It's bad enough to be poor but much worse to not have any
>>>> friends simply because you can't afford the cultural activities that
>>>> other kids your age engage in.
>
>>> That might be a reason but not a justification.
>
>> I think the question here is whether it is unethical or not. Clearly it
>> is illegal, but is it unethical?
>
>> I don't see any argument that could be made to suggest it is unethical.
>
> Do you own a Software company?
>
> I assume not. If you did, and your sales were hit by Piracy you might.

Well yeah, if I suddenly lost the ability to reason. However I see no
reason to suppose I would lose my ability to reason simply should I happen
to own a software company. You appear to confuse self-interest with that
which is ethical.


Ethics is one of the major sub-branches of philosophy. I'm extremely good
at it. Yet it is also *extremely* complex. When it comes to ethics there
isn't just simply black and whites -- there's various shades of grey.

It is perfectly possible for certain actions to be ethical which at the same
time contravene *justifiable good* laws.

For example a few years ago this German guy working in a bank was discovered
siphoning money from those accounts held by the richest customers and
putting it into the accounts of those of the poorest customers. But the
amounts were small enough so that the richest customers never noticed the
decrease in their accounts but it made an appreciable difference to the
amount the poorest customers held.

Now what he did was clearly ethical but also clearly illegal. Moreover it
was justifiably illegal because arguably it is the very inegalitarian nature
of a society which is the economic driving force eventually trickling down
to benefit us all.

So we can have a good justifiable law but which nevertheless for some
individuals, on some odd occasions, it would be ethical for them to
contravene.

In the case of pirating computer games where it is out of the question you
can afford the game in question, but where acquiring the game by theft would
bring a great deal of pleasure to your children say, then since no-one is
actually losing out since you couldn't afford to buy the game anyway, then
it seems to me difficult to argument that theft in this instance is
unethical.

Indeed, as of yet, no one has provided any such arguments. Asking me to
imagine I own a software company does not constitute an argument I'm afraid.

>
> Have you ever written a Novel?

Nah, but I'm currently writing a book on the mind/body problem.


> Say you did, but I copied it and mass produced it, selling it much
> cheaper - would you applaud my initiative.
>
> Would I be depriving you of sales? Not really, because all the people
> buying the cheaper version couldn't afford the expensive one and they
> wouldn't have bought it anyway (apparently).


Well you recognise the problem. If people can read it for free (or reduced
price) then there is a good possibility that those who would have paid full
price for it to read will opt for reading it for free or for a reduced
price. Thus I am deprived of money. So I wouldn't be happy about that.

Likewise for computer games. You don't want people who could very easily
afford to buy the games to acquire them by theft. Because that's depriving
the people who make the games of money. But for those who could not
possibly afford the games I don't believe they should feel aggrieved.

The same for my book. If people genuinely cannot afford it, I would be
delighted if they ordered the book from a public library and read it for
free. Or downloaded it from binary newgroups, or whatever.

Bent C Dalager wrote:
> In article <1163457582.13899.0.TakeThisOut@despina.uk.clara.net>,
> Shawk <shawk.TakeThisOut@clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote:
>> Bent C Dalager wrote:
>>> Now we are starting to see why the "piracy is theft" mantra is so
>>> dangerous: it establishes analogies that are fundamentally false.
>> Rubbish. Its simply a simplification that gets the message across
>> without going into the mind-bogglingly dull details of IP and copyright.
>
> It's not a simplification so much as an appeal to the public's moral
> indignation over real theft in an attempt to direct those feelings
> onto the entirely different field of copyright violation. The end
> result is to give the public an entirely false understanding of what
> the problem is all about. That is not simplifying - it's
> misrepresenting.
>
>> If I designed and produced some fantastic software and next day find you
>> and all your pals have a copy without me having any control or
>> commercial gain for it do you really think I won't be extremely pissed???
>
> The world doesn't really need to care much how you feel about it. I
> could exhale my breath and be extremely pissed about how other people
> are breathing in the _exact same air_ that I just exhaled. That
> doesn't mean laws need to be passed about who may or may not breathe
> "my" air.

Talk about misrepresenting. You're comparing the theft of the software
I've designed to the 'theft' of someone breathing you air? Admit it -
you're just goading me into posting...

Goodnight Bent C

Bent C Dalager wrote:
> In article <1163459517.2391.0.RemoveThis@proxy02.news.clara.net>,
> Shawk <shawk.RemoveThis@clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote:
>> Damn - I'd bowed out once but I'll provide the link on this occasion
>>
>> It's from the UK patent Office
>>
>> http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/faq/question1.htm
>
> The very bread and butter of national patent offices is IP, so they
> tend to be heavily biased in the matter. I don't know about the UK
> patent office specifically though.
>
> Of course, the quote you cited looked decent enough.
>
>> I honestly don't understand where you're coming from with this - what
>> will there be in place of this 'encouragement'? If you want to expand
>> then I'll read it.
>
> You only really need to spend a few hours on YouTube to realize how
> little encouragement people need to produce content.
>
> But even aside from that, today, most of the cost in bringing a
> product to market lies in distribution and retail. With these
> activities moved over to online channels, I expect you can bring down
> costs tenfold with pretty much all of the revenue going directly to
> the author. It is therefore no longer necessary to have all possible
> users of a given work pay money for it. Even if they don't have any
> better ideas, most authors will be able to live comfortably on the
> money they get from the early adopters/avid fans/etc. They may have to
> spend more time bulding a community around their works - especially
> the less popular ones will - but most authors will probably relish
> closer connections with their readers/listeners/gamers/whatever.
>
> The bottom line is that if you are capable of making products that
> people actually want, and especially if you're in some segment of the
> entertainment industry, getting paid is probably the least of your
> concerns. Your main problems are, as always, publicity and
> distribution. The Internet is likely to bring about some very
> effecient solutions for those. And no prizes for guessing that this
> will involve Google in some way or other

It's a nice idea. Goodnight fella.

In article <GB66h.200973$3D1.102465@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Vince <vmelia.TakeThisOut@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>"Interesting Ian" wrote
>> I don't see any argument that could be made to suggest it is unethical.
>
>Do you own a Software company?
>
>I assume not. If you did, and your sales were hit by Piracy you might.

This is hardly any kind of decent argument. If I owned a grocery and
another grocery opened across the street, taking all my customers, I
"might" consider this to be unethical.

That doesn't mean it necessarily _was_ unethical though.

>Have you ever written a Novel?
>
>Say you did, but I copied it and mass produced it, selling it much cheaper -
>would you applaud my initiative.

The most important thing for an author is to build popularity. To this
end, _any_ distribution is good so long as it reaches new readers. The
ones who'd be most upset, I expect, are my contracted distributors.

>Would I be depriving you of sales? Not really, because all the people buying
>the cheaper version couldn't afford the expensive one and they wouldn't have
>bought it anyway (apparently).

More importantly, you'd be expanding my reader base.

If you're an author, you're in one of two positions: either you're
J.K.Rowling, or you want to become J.K.Rowling. The only way to get
there is by having your work read by millions and the only way to make
that happen is to spend $millions distributing it to them. The more
free help you can get in achieving this, the better.

Of course, once you're J.K.Rowling (*) you want to get total
monopolistic lockdown of your product so you can rake in $billions
rather than the $hundreds of thousands that you might be making.
Society has no incentive to give you the tools to do so, so you really
shouldn't be able to pull this off.

* - or Stephen King, or whoever, just so no one thinks I'm trying to
get at Rowling here.

>What about singing someone elses songs without their permission, what about
>copying a work of art and passing it off as an original?

I take it you think it is right that the girl scouts should be sued
for singing "happy birthday" then?

As for forging art, that has nothing to do with copyright. Neither has
counterfeiting money, for those who might think so.

Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd.TakeThisOut@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

In article <1163461988.18081.0 RemoveThis @despina.uk.clara.net>,
Shawk <shawk RemoveThis @clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote:
>
>Talk about misrepresenting. You're comparing the theft of the software
>I've designed to the 'theft' of someone breathing you air? Admit it -
>you're just goading me into posting...

I am, in fact, comparing a poorly motivated act of moral outrage with
a poorly motivated act of moral outrage.

More than this, though, there is some depth to the comparison of
exhaled air with a cultural work. When I exhale air, I give it up to
the world and it eventually becomes part of what the rest of the world
is built up of. When I publish a cultural work, I also give it up to
the world and it eventually becomes part of our cultural heritage.

It is as wrong that someone should own "their" little part of air in
the world as it is that someone should own "their" little part of our
collective cultural heritage. To allow such ownership is simply too
dangerous, and it ties us down far too much.

Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd RemoveThis @pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 11:41:08 -0500, "Chris B." <cbrbagallo RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote:

>pc games wrote:
>> I'm sick and in bed with a cold but this group had to make me
>> get up and write this...
>> Look at what this group has lately become
>> Piracy all around, and piracy growing day by day
>> Its a total shame
>> So please! please stop it! stop it!
>> Don't tolerate piracy in this group! Please don't! PLEASE!
>> For god sake I'm begging...
>>
>> I'm already sick but reading this group makes me even sicker.
>>
>> PS: Going back to bed...
>>
>How is stealing a GAME ever justified?

"the link between steam and piracy its cause steam is the first system
in the history of pc games to actively promoting piracy...steam forces honest
and true pc gamers to resorts to piracy to play pc games "
- sayNO2steam 22 Mar 05

Sounds like someone trying to justify it to me.

"Shawk" <shawk.DeleteThis@clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote in message
news:1163452536.44088.0@iris.uk.clara.net...
> Interesting Ian wrote:
>> "Shawk" <shawk.DeleteThis@clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote in message
>> news:1163446026.453.1@despina.uk.clara.net...
>>> Huh? I gave the starving man as an example of a possible justification
>>> (though it's still illegal). I said stealing games is never justified.
>>
>> Yes you might have said it. But you haven't *argued* for your assertion.
>
> You feel I need to argue the case that stealing a game cannot be
> justified? Strange set of values you have there.

It's a claim you are making. Either you are saying it is true by
definition, or some argument must be presented to justify your claim.

>
> As the guy putting the argument that stealing a game 'can' be justified
> against all international laws why don't you justify or argue your
> assertion. All I've had so far is that its OK to steal if you can't
> afford it and it'd be nice if everyone had luxury items. Hardly
> justification for theft.

I think I already made the argument. It's basically the idea of maximising
human happiness. If someone who cannot afford the game steals it, then he
is more happy than he otherwise would be if he couldn't play the game.

Now suppose he didn't tell anyone about the fact he stole the game. So
other people neither suffer financially nor are they upset by the thought
that this game was acquired by theft.

So by stealing this game he has become happier, and no-one else is any less
happy by his doing so. So the prima facie position is that his theft is
ethical since someone has become more happy by his actions (namely himself),
but no one has suffered as a consequence.

I don't think anyone has addressed this argument.

i am just feedup with all this piracy software and crack site...
i was just looking for a tool which can stop anti piracy..
i have found a great product http://www.trifuturein.com and it really
worked for me..
eS-Vault is really a great product to have ...

On Nov 11, 2:51 pm, "pc games" <pcgamer23... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm sick and in bed with a cold but this group had to make me
> get up and write this...
> Look at what this group has lately becomePiracyall around, andpiracygrowing day by day
> Its a total shame
> So please! please stop it! stop it!
> Don't toleratepiracyin this group! Please don't! PLEASE!
> For god sake I'm begging...
>
> I'm already sick but reading this group makes me even sicker.
>
> PS: Going back to bed...

Quoth The Raven; Interesting Ian <spam.me2DELETETHIS.TakeThisOut@ntlworld.com> in
<mk06h.24846$fz1.4184@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>
> "Chris B." <cbrbagallo.TakeThisOut@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:04ydnYaqSrC6YMjYnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>>>
>> How is stealing a GAME ever justified?
>
>
> I personally buy all my games but clearly in one circumstance it can
> arguably be justified; namely if one if very poor and couldn't
> possibly justify the financial outlay in actually purchasing the game.

i started saying that myself, but realy, if someone can afford the new
hardware to play a new game, but cant afford the game its self, they
have no business thinkng about new games. they should stay mid-range and
buy bargain bin games that suit their specs.

or get a deck of cards
--
Remove the _CURSING to reply to me

You wouldn't worry about what people thought about you, if you knew how
seldom they did.