Downloading is a human right.

[Cry Wolf]

I believe it when I hear it from some more offical source, but I hope it's true. Copyright law is an absoloute joke.

Are the developers and artists getting the money the deserve, pirates? If not, throw some money at them. They'll be happy if you guys do it for the things you love.

I'm honestly baffled at what makes people pirate. Just pay for it if you like it, seriously. People could have avoided this if this happened instead of pirates sticking a middle finger at one party and forgetting the other parties affected.

The reason I jumped straight to piracy is that this just gave pirates some immunity. Pirating is not stealing, I get that. I don't get what's the issue with paying SOME amount of money to support what they love. Why are they letting the very things that they love not getting the money they deserve?

It's worth noting that on every torrent description I've seen - this is not even on the games themselves mind you, but on the cracks - advocating purchasing any material you enjoy. I've even seen a few with links to places you can purchase a title like Steam.

As for the second issue. It really shouldn't be too hard to see why people pirate other than cheap skating - they act as demos (many of us can't actually afford to drop $100 without assurance), ways to get access to media that isn't avaiable in your region (even in Australia we frequently have this issue) and, most importantly to me, a way of making education affordable and simpler. Piracy isn't all about downloading art illegally - it's also about the freedom of information regardless of copyright. A textbook I'll use once can cost me $100+ ontop of my already costly education. What are those of us from a lower income background suppose to do?

 

[Something Amyss]

"Hey! Artists don't deserve shit for their work if we can find other methods!" just seems childish to me. Yes the debate on piracy is multi-faceted, and let's not muddle piracy and open-source stuff

While we're at it, let's not knock down strawmen by pretending that the above quote is remotely true.

It's weird seeing someone simultaneously acknowledge the complexity of the situation, but also then do a blanket assault on straw-logic.

I seriously doubt more than a handful of people are actually all "fuck artists."

 

[Vault101]

I seriously doubt more than a handful of people are actually all "fuck artists."

no, they are "true artists do it for free!" which to me is essentially the same thing

Okay, I'm going to stop arguing because it was upon reading this that I realized I was dealing with a "differently abled" person.

heads up...you need to be less...."outright" than that otherwise you'll get smacked witht he banhammer..fast

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Well that's cool and all but people still deserve to be paid for their work.

If you're an artist "getting paid" is producing your work and having it appreciated. If it isn't and it's about the money, you're not what I'd call an "artist".

Amazingly though, I'm sure you still expect to get paid for doing YOUR job, right? It may not be all about the money, but being able to eat and have a place to live are nice things to have.

Yes, but that still doesn't establish the claim that artists deserve to be paid. I could claim that I deserve to be paid for doing handstands in the middle of the street while people walk by.

Except nobody wants you to do handstands. You obviously want the music/movie/game or you wouldn't have stolen it. If someone gave you a job doing handstands, then told you after you did it, that it was great, but they didn't feel like paying, you probably think that person was a bit of a douche.

An artist does his work because others want him to do it? That's a fairly modern way of looking at it, and not an accurate one. What makes an artist is the production of artistic works, not in any added stipulation about his getting paid for them. In contrast to say, the merchant, whose essence is in exchanging goods for money.

No the artist does not work because others want him to. he does it because he wants to. The art however is worthless unless someone wants it. Your absurd point of trying to compare painting, or sculpture to something like movies and games is pointless however. Leonardo only created David. Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel (and both were well compensated by the way). it takes HUNDREDS of people to make a high end game or movie. Are all of those people supposed to just do it for free and to make you happy? Are they supposed to send their children to college paid for in good feelings? I know it's hard thinking of anyone but yourself, but just try for a second.

I didn't say they are supposed to do it for free. All this discussion is showing is that we're incapable of considering a societal role outside of our own current (modern) concerns of making a living in exchange for services provided and the employment rights accompanying it. We have to level down everything so that it's all the same. It's not. Artists didn't spring into being 50 years ago. What their role actually was and is seems to be lost to everyone, including the artist.

 

[Something Amyss]

It says a lot about our modern era that an artist's role is narrowed down to a "job" in and of itself and therefore deserving of payment for services.

There's nothing modern about that. It's fine if you find it distasteful, but your statement is closer to novelty than the one you are commenting on.

 

[mduncan50]

Okay, I'm going to stop arguing because it was upon reading this that I realized I was dealing with a "differently abled" person.

heads up...you need to be less...."outright" than that otherwise you'll get smacked witht he banhammer..fast

I refuse to change it!! For I am an artist and shall not bend my works due to banhammering!!! And to be fair anyways, I think I was being very low key given the person we were dealing with.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

Well that's cool and all but people still deserve to be paid for their work.

If you're an artist "getting paid" is producing your work and having it appreciated. If it isn't and it's about the money, you're not what I'd call an "artist".

Also why are you putting artist into quotes? Note that my statement there doesn't mention artists.

 

[Something Amyss]

no, they are "true artists do it for free!" which to me is essentially the same thing

Which is a different discussion entirely. It's also inaccurate to paint them as the same, which isn't much different from the initial problem presented in Lilani's post.

This sort of broad-brushing is not helpful at all.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

Not to mention the stupidity of the opinion in thinking that copyright laws only protect art.

Please point out where I said that.

I'm pretty sure he was adding to what you said, talking about the guy you replied to.

Ah in that case my mistake. I thought it was directed at me.

 

[zehydra]

It's amazing how many people actually think that it is their right to have whatever they want. It does not matter to them that they are stealing something that others worked hard for, because those people are not them. That is what depresses me the most about the piracy problem. It's not that a bunch of idiots are stealing, or that creativity is being sucked out of pretty much any entertainment medium because of these pricks, it's the fact that they just do not give a shit about anyone but themselves.

Piracy is not theft.

Want creativity in an entertainment industry? Get rid of publishers. There you go.

So someone else made something, and is selling that something, and you instead decide to take it without paying for it. How is that not theft? And how does getting rid of publishers help with creativity? You can't tell me they're not making great games, because if they sucked, you wouldn't bother to steal them.

Just for the record, I don't pirate.

Secondly, piracy is not theft, because you're not "taking" anything. That is, when you pirate, you're merely deriving a copy of something else. The whole idea of "theft" cannot and should not be applied to intellectual property rights at all.

Publishing giants get in the way of good games

 

[Defenestra]

Until we genetically engineer a race of artists that are capable of surviving on photosynthesis, they need to get paid.

That said, the difference between downloading a copy of something and stealing a copy is very real. You did not cost the creator money to generate the copy that you have, and you have not denied a ocpy to a paying customer.

What's more, that you downloaded an unauthorized copy doesn't mean you haven't given the artist money. I've been known to obtain unofficial copies of units of art by an artist or artist set, enjoy them, and then plunk down money for the another lump of art from the same source without caring whether the set I purchased was actually to my taste.

Hell, you might be obtaining unofficial copies in order to replace official copies which you have paid for, but no longer have access to, due to their being linked to physical objects which you cannot access, as a consequence of natural diaster, bear attack, or not being willing to take the time to go through the nine boxes it might be in from the last time you moved.

Or you might just want to make sure the thing works on your system, so you can buy it later.

Or you might be securing an unauthorized copy because you want to enjoy it and do not have a lot of money (in which case, may I direct you to the metric crapload of art on the internet which is freely accessible because it is supposed to be, and you can afford a thing to play them on, so not being able to afford the things to play rings a wee bit hollow).

Or you just might not like paying for things. In which case, knock it off, you are making the rest of us look bad.


Piracy isn't stealing. It's cheating, and it's cheating that, if it actually does harm sales, does hurt gaming as a whole. But I'm in the camp that thinks this is a business model problem (As Neil Gaiman's experiment suggests), and that suing people or trying to get them put in to jail over it is the wrong tactic.

 

[BeerTent]

Piracy = stealing. That's all there is to it. Don't care what a law says, if you take a product (or a copy of a product as the case may be with digital products) you are stealing and depriving the creator their hard earned profits. I really don't get why people defend piracy. They are essentially defending theft, and are being smug self-righteous assholes at the same time.

Piracy DOES NOT help ANY industry. Just like breaking into a store and taking everything for free doesn't help. It actively harms the content creators.

It doesn't help any industry because the industries refuse to change with the times.

They need a new business model.

Please, elaborate.

While I agree that Joe-blow shouldn't get sued a quarter billion dollars for sharing a few music files, considering that musicians get a paltry sum of money for their work at best, but the way you come off to me is that "If an industry changed with the times, adopted a new business model or methodology, piracy could benefit them."

There's no way you meant that. I'm probably retarded for interpreting that as such.

Piracy is not theft.

Want creativity in an entertainment industry? Get rid of publishers. There you go.

You haven't a fucking clue how this works, do you? Not one single clue? Let's look at the Indie games scene, shall we?

Lets look at Decker. The guy who made Decker feels that his game should earn him some cash, so he implements a login system and made it a fuller game. Pops a "for sale" sign on his website.

Have you ever heard of Decker? Do you even know what's it about? No? Did you know anything about FTL before it found it's way on steam? Even if you heard of it, what would your impressions be? "Oh, just some space rts? Where you shoot another ship? No planet exploration? whatever."

One of these examples poured a considerable amount of money into their creation, actually became a studio. Both of these examples poured blood, and absolutely stunning amounts of time into their work. And without a publisher, neither would have gotten a single cent for their work unless they took off like Minecraft. Minecraft is an exceptional exception. Penny Arcade gave them free advertising, so it was no wonder the word of mouth spread.

Publishers are needed. While I'll agree with you that they shouldn't be gutless pigs about what they do, FTL would never have gotten more than a paltry sum for their work, and the studio would have died if they didn't have a publisher. I estimate that 70% of the games that are released today would never have seen the light of day without a publisher to advertise their work, and provide the help required to produce millions of discs, manuals, and cases for the game. Without a publisher, Consoles wouldn't exist. Are you a STALKER fan? Never would have heard of it without a publisher.

And on the first thing, you know that thing you do, when you install software? when you go through that, there's an agreement. Yeah, that's a legally binding contract. Let's take a look at one, shall we? For example, let's say we "procured" a copy of Mirror's edge. [http://eacom.s3.amazonaws.com/EULA+Standard+Aug+08+43170_1.pdf] When you install Mirror's edge, you agree to a legally binding contract.

So, you download it from a torrent site... "You may make a one time permanent transfer to all your rights to install and use the Software to another individual or legal entity: Looks like the original owner of the game already broke the EULA, which affects you. If you're using Torrents, you've busted Paragraph 1-C, "You are prohibited from making a copy of the Software available on a network where it could be used by multiple users." Whatever, let's keep going, you're concerned about Copy protection, so you get your firewall everything it needs to permanently block the game from the internet. You've broken paragraphs 3 and 4. While I may not agree with paragraphs 3 and 4, this does not mean you have a legal right to prohibit EA from gathering the information (vaguely) that EA acquires through it's software. Remember, this is a legally binding contract! For realsies!

Finally, the Software has DRM. What a pain in the arse! You go grab Reloaded's crack, and oop! Broke it again! "Our Software uses access control and copy protection technology. An internet connection is required to authenticate the Software and verify your license. EA reserves the right to validate your license through subsequent online authentication." Every pirate that says "I'm not stealing, I'm avoiding the DRM, and not paying! Because I'm an entitled fuck!" gets hit on this one. By installing that crack, you're breaking the licence agreement, and you've got unauthorized software installed on your computer. Which is illegal. Doesn't matter where you're at, your committing an action that could land you in court, where you can lose very, very quickly.

"By installing or using the Software, you consent to be bound by this License. If you do not agree to the terms of this License, then do not install or use the Software. Section 3 below describes the data EA may use to provide services and support to you in connection with the Software. If you do not agree to this use of data, do not install or use the Software. IF YOU INSTALL the Software, the terms and conditions of this License are fully accepted by you."

You've broken the license agreement, time and time again. If there was a bouncer between you, and leaping over tall buildings, the bouncer would probably slug you in the face. But there's no such thing, so you're just another thief that feels "entitled" to play a game, and not pay the artists, which poured piss, blood, and sweat into their work.

Piracy is theft. You're using a service you're not permitted to even use in the first place, for free. Before you say "Mirror's edge is $60. For what, 20 hours of entertainment?" consider that Go-Kart's is $100 for 3 hours. A ski-trip is $50 for 5 hours. A night drinking with me is upwards of $100. You're getting a good deal, and you piss on it and have the gall to say that "I'm not a thief." How is robbing not only the publisher, but the people who built the game and fucking with the industry not stealing? Explain this to me? I want to make a game, but I'd like to be fucking paid for my work. That programming diploma on the wall wasn't free, you know. I don't particularly enjoy answering calls in a call center because someone felt that my work is valued at exactly $0.

One last thing, a lot of groups like reloaded explicitly state, "We provided this to you because we want to prove we cracked the software. If you like the game, support the developers and buy it!" Would you?

 

[mduncan50]

Well that's cool and all but people still deserve to be paid for their work.

If you're an artist "getting paid" is producing your work and having it appreciated. If it isn't and it's about the money, you're not what I'd call an "artist".

Amazingly though, I'm sure you still expect to get paid for doing YOUR job, right? It may not be all about the money, but being able to eat and have a place to live are nice things to have.

Yes, but that still doesn't establish the claim that artists deserve to be paid. I could claim that I deserve to be paid for doing handstands in the middle of the street while people walk by.

Except nobody wants you to do handstands. You obviously want the music/movie/game or you wouldn't have stolen it. If someone gave you a job doing handstands, then told you after you did it, that it was great, but they didn't feel like paying, you probably think that person was a bit of a douche.

An artist does his work because others want him to do it? That's a fairly modern way of looking at it, and not an accurate one. What makes an artist is the production of artistic works, not in any added stipulation about his getting paid for them. In contrast to say, the merchant, whose essence is in exchanging goods for money.

No the artist does not work because others want him to. he does it because he wants to. The art however is worthless unless someone wants it. Your absurd point of trying to compare painting, or sculpture to something like movies and games is pointless however. Leonardo only created David. Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel (and both were well compensated by the way). it takes HUNDREDS of people to make a high end game or movie. Are all of those people supposed to just do it for free and to make you happy? Are they supposed to send their children to college paid for in good feelings? I know it's hard thinking of anyone but yourself, but just try for a second.

I didn't say they are supposed to do it for free. All this discussion is showing is that we're incapable of considering a societal role outside of our own current (modern) concerns of making a living in exchange for services provided and the employment rights accompanying it. We have to level down everything so that it's all the same. It's not. Artists didn't spring into being 50 years ago. What their role actually was and is seems to be lost to everyone, including the artist.

Okay, against my better judgement, I will bite. What great masters of art did not expect to be paid? Rembrandt? Mozart? Picasso? Chausser? Monet? They all sold their works or were commissioned to do them. Whether it be to private collectors or to galleries. All of them, even Leonardo and Michelangelo...hell, all the Turtles, made money off of their works. And that's why they were able to do so many great things. They created their art, they sold their art, and were able to spend money on food and housing, and y'know...art supplies, so then they could create more. But to you, when someone creates something, you say "You don't deserve money" and take whatever you want, and wait for them to create more so you can steal that too.

And since you are the decider of what an artist is, and who shouldn't get paid, lets think about this little site that we're on. There are lots of articles that come out on this site, and hey, writing is an art, so I guess all of the Susan Arendt, Andy Chalk and all those folks should be working for free! And hey there's lots of movies on this site too, and that's like double art!! People write that stuff and act!! Three even for Zero Punctuation's "animation". Well hell, I'm sure Yatzee, MovieBob, Graham, and the rest of the gang will keep entertaining us for free!!!

You don't seem to realize that when you make a world where art and entertainment are given no worth, then any art or entertainment we get will be worthless.

And with that, I really am retiring from this. Because I really do believe you're stupid, and I feel as if I hve become stupider for having interacted with you in any way. Later kids, keep up the good fight.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Human rights is eating, water, health, roof over your head, they are basic rules for living, not for idiots that want stuff without paying for it. An the thing that gets me is they never just say "i just dont want to pay for it" they always come up with these stupid bullshit reasons....which are mostly ill conceived and laughable in concept. I think we should all visit your house and still everything in it because its my right to do so. I also cant wait for one of these idiots to write a book or make a music album because i will copy the hell out of it and give it to everyone just so that they know what its like to lose money with people copying their work. But then, i guess if they actually did manage to create something worth buying then thats a whole different matter, no way would they put that out there for free. No they would use the law and make money off it and sue the hell out of anyone that steals it.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

Donations will not fund gaming. What is wrong with just buying the game straight up?

....[i/]pay?[/i]

PAY? for ....[b/]things?[/b]

[img/]http://www.aaron-powell.com/get/memes/what-is-this-i-dont-even-spiderman.jpg[/img]

Haha I got a good laugh from that =)

 

[zehydra]

snop

It's still not theft. It might be something immoral, but it's certainly not theft.

Theft requires that something which is stolen, i.e. no longer in the hands of the person it was stolen from.



I am really more against big publishers like EA and Activision than I am against smaller publishers.

I'd prefer there'd be no consoles at all (or at least make them cheaper and without subscriptions!!)


Publishers have little to no interest in creativity. That doesn't mean they aren't useful for getting a game known.

 

[Nemu]

While I disagree that "downloading is a human right", I tend to side more with pirates than I do with non-pirates as I am of the generation that grew up with CDs being priced high because "it costs a lot to produce them". Fine, okay, you tell me that they are priced $15 (average) because they cost a lot to be made (in reality it cost about 3 bucks, but whatever), and I have to accept it in order to own the music that I want.

Now, iTunes and Amazon (et al) offer the same albums for....$10-14 a pop, why? It certainly doesn't cost the same amount to "produce" these albums, so why are consumers forced to buy music that they like (in TERRIBLE audio-quality, btw) for CD-era prices? Because companies are greedy and are pissed that people grew tired of spending a ton of money for poorly produced/written/performed music. How many people have liked a song, spend 10-15 bucks on an album and HATE the album? Chance is chance, sure, but folks can't afford to throw money away these days.

I will gladly pirate an album by an artist, take a listen and if it's good, I'll buy it (bought 2 newly-released albums this week, even, not to mention an EP). If it's not, it's deleted anyway. I'm sorry that the artist is "robbed" of the pittance that he/she/they didn't receive from an album sale, but I'm no longer willing to spend a lot of money on something that I MIGHT not like.[footnote] Plus, it's no secret that musicians make their money on tour, if I hated the album, 9 times out of 10 I wasn't going to EVER pay to see them live, anyway.[/footnote]

 

[BeerTent]

snop

It's still not theft. It might be something immoral, but it's certainly not theft.
Theft requires that something which is stolen, i.e. no longer in the hands of the person it was stolen from.[...]

Okay, I'll nab your bank account credentials and take all of your funds. Oh! It's not theft! Nothing PHYSICAL was taken! No matter how many times people parrot this it's still false. By downloading this game, you are in possession of something that, by law, you're not permitted to have. Theft, is to steal. By definition, stealing is to take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it. While you could argue that torrents is "returning." You're not returning to the publisher, who is the individual providing the service or product. When EA finds that you have this metaphorical copy of Mirror's edge, they will nail you in the exact same manner if you "procured" a physical copy of the game from, I dunno, "The EA store." The only difference that instead of the disc, they take your HDD as evidence. (And if you're anything like me, videos involving a large number of midget "actors" might surface in there too...)

I am really more against big publishers like EA and Activision than I am against smaller publishers.

I'd prefer there'd be no consoles at all (or at least make them cheaper and without subscriptions!!)

Publishers have little to no interest in creativity. That doesn't mean they aren't useful for getting a game known.

I haven't much to say here because, that's all you. If you don't like a publisher, that's okay! But when you rob a middle man, you're robbing the developer too. If you don't agree with a publisher, don't play their games. Just because you don't agree with a publisher, this doesn't give you a right to circumvent Origin's DRM.[footnote]I'm also purely using EA as an example here. Because the EULA's are super easy to find.[/footnote]

Morality aside. Fuck morals, that's a personal thing that's not covered by law or the social contract... You do not have a right to posses something you've pirated. If piracy is not theft, then it's its own crime, punishable in the exact same method. I'd be more open to that statement if someone would say something other than "It's not stealing, man. It has to be PHYSICAL!"

 

[ClockworkUniverse]

The problem is, people usually don't get paid for the work through game purchases. Somebody ELSE who then funds the artists/programmers etc gets paid.

This is technically true, but if the person funding the project isn't getting payed, he's not going to fund the project, and then, if the project is large-scale, it generally just won't happen. Kickstarter is great at counteracting this, but it's not a limitless resource.

An artist does his work because others want him to do it? That's a fairly modern way of looking at it, and not an accurate one. What makes an artist is the production of artistic works, not in any added stipulation about his getting paid for them.

This is true. But the thing is, making a large-scale work of art, say a movie or a videogame, especially a high-quality one, takes a lot of time, even with huge groups of people. Enough time that if you do it, it's what you're doing full-time. Thus, if you want to finish the project, rather than dying of starvation halfway through, you need to be making a paycheck for it.

 

[Twilight_guy]

*In Inigo Montoya voice* I don't think this means what you think it means.

This sounds like ti has a buttload of qualifiers applied to it, so I doubt its as cut and dry and as you would like it to look.

That said, So0 long as companies are selling there products and making money, I'm happy. If that stops being true, I will start randomly murdering pirates because my profession will be worthless and I will be an angry bum.