internet piracy, what do seeders get?

[Vanaron]

They are the ones who genuinely believe in the sharing bullshit.

What makes it bullshit?

The fact that sharing implies having one copy between multiple people, thus preventing it being used by multiple people at the same time, as effectively as if there were multiple copies.

Whereas pirating software creates infinite copies that could potentially be spread amongst everyone in possession of an internet connection providing little to no incentive to purchase further copies of the game.

Its kinda like how pirates always argue that piracy isn't technically stealing. Its not technically sharing either.

It isn't stealing. The only reason it's considered to be wrong, it's because the people who made the product don't get to capitalize on the copy you get from "piracy", and that's only because the Movies/Music/Games industry refuses to acknowledge the obvious shift in the business model... They figure it's easier to keep this outdated model and try to make some on the outside by suing the people who engage on file sharing.

OT: Seeders (I'm not one, mind you) are just people who believe in the philosophy of file sharing. Or fans of the Movie/Song/Game trying to share it with other people.

 

[sheic99]

They get a go to jail free card

Not usually. Most of the time they're required to pay fines.

Spoiler: Should have gone with this

Edit: ok it's fixed.

no its not

The picture works for me.

 

[Timbydude]

It isn't stealing. The only reason it's considered to be wrong, it's because the people who made the product don't get to capitalize on the copy you get from "piracy", and that's only because the Movies/Music/Games industry refuses to acknowledge the obvious shift in the business model... They figure it's easier to keep this outdated model and try to make some on the outside by suing the people who engage on file sharing.

That...that makes absolutely no sense. The industry should shift to free distribution because you don't want to pay for your game? Last time I checked, the system works fine.

OT: They get the admiration of the ones who gain from their crimes, basically. It's kind of like a war against the oh-so-evil corporations who only want to take your money, and each seeder is basically a victory for the little guy.

 

[fletch_talon]

Its not absolutely wrong either. People share files all the time. Friends share music mp3 files a lot. That is legal because the actual files are the thing you buy and therefore are free to distribute because music is protected by free commerce laws like books and movies are. Games are in the same category. Piracy is nothing more than file sharing on a large scale.

The original creators have a right to the intellectual property, but all that means is that you can't sell it as your own work that does not stop you from sharing game files.

Yes and no, they also argue that intellectual property isn't property in a physical sense and to treat it as such is fallacious. So multiple people can access it simultaneously, unlike a shared physical property.

You and I can both simultaneously access a concept, such as gravity, without there being any contradiction. We share our knowledge of gravity and can both simultaneously access it, because applying physical laws to such a thing would be inappropriate and pointless. Only the metaphysical laws of 'knowledge', which courts ignore, govern what may or may not be practically achieved with knowledge, concepts and, the RIAA's favourite oxymoron, 'intellectual property'.

I think I can see where you're coming from, but I can't say I agree with those sentiments. I think games, music and movies deserve the same protection as anything else we can buy. With a chair, it can be shared, but only one person can use/own it at a time. With a game, it can be copied and distributed infinite times, each copy being identical to the last, not requiring physical proximity to the original file holder. For games, music and movies there is absolutely no incentive to purchase an original copy.

If I created a concept and it was developed into a game, I would expect to be compensated for it. Even if I did it for my own benefit and enjoyment I would expect to be compensated for my time if I were to distribute it beyond my immediate family and friends.
If intellectual property is not consider property of its creator (or whoever the creator sells it to) then what incentive is there to create games. Sure some people get enjoyment out of it, but unless they've won the lottery, they need to earn money as well and game design would be severly inhibiting their potential work time.

 

[Uber Evil]

I don't really follow the idea that they are gaining cred within the community. The only person that would gain cred are the original uploaders. All other seeds usually appear as an IP, and therefore ddon't have an identity. I assume most, if not all people people CBA to read and memorize the IPs.

 

[BGH122]

-Snip!-

I completely agree with you, but in order to properly enforce a moral law which correctly benefits creators we need to take a non-intellectually lazy route and examine the issue of intellectual property, not just go "heck, I cba to think about this so let's just do whatever the RIAA says".

People follow governmental laws because they're coerced and follow moral laws because it's the right thing to do. We should come up with a proper, functioning moral law against piracy, not just a law of economic necessity. After all, morals are what we do when no-one is watching and big brother can't be watching us all the time.

 

[Jadak]

It's honor among thieves. You give out at least an equivalent amount to what you download; give as much as you take.

This, at the very least I'll leave my torrents going until they break even, although I think this thread is geared more towards those people who put the files up in the first place, or those major seeders that will upload many times more than they download, if they're downloading at all.

 

[Jadak]

I don't really follow the idea that they are gaining cred within the community. The only person that would gain cred are the original uploaders. All other seeds usually appear as an IP, and therefore ddon't have an identity. I assume most, if not all people people CBA to read and memorize the IPs.

That depends where you're downloading from, certain sites have private communities where you must have an account in order to get the torrent, and everyone's upload/download statistics are recorded.

That said, there are still major providers for things in publicly accessible torrents, so I don't really buy the reputation concept either.

 

[shaboinkin]

To be honest, I downloaded a torrent that has 8gb worth of old DOS games. 85% of them you can't even find anymore unless you go to a torrent site. I uploaded about 1tb back so far. Why? DOS games are history. You don't just let history fade away like that!

And I have uploaded a torrent that contains all the solutions to this college physics textbook my professor gave me. I figured that if someone needs the help in it, why should I keep it from them?

 

[Vanaron]

It isn't stealing. The only reason it's considered to be wrong, it's because the people who made the product don't get to capitalize on the copy you get from "piracy", and that's only because the Movies/Music/Games industry refuses to acknowledge the obvious shift in the business model... They figure it's easier to keep this outdated model and try to make some on the outside by suing the people who engage on file sharing.

That...that makes absolutely no sense. The industry should shift to free distribution because you don't want to pay for your game? Last time I checked, the system works fine.

OT: They get the admiration of the ones who gain from their crimes, basically. It's kind of like a war against the oh-so-evil corporations who only want to take your money, and each seeder is basically a victory for the little guy.

1st of all, I do pay for my games (all of them!)... My steam account speaks for itself, and this is not about me.

And no, the system does not work fine, or else, what is all the Ubisoft, EA, Activision hate all about? When a company sees no choice but to restrict access to people who bought and paid for the product because of fear of people who might not the system is NOT working fine.

The "piracy" concern is not news, it's been around ever since we invented the gramophone. I am not making excuses for "pirates", whether you believe it should be legal or not, if it's against the law, it's against the law.

All I'm saying is that the business model is outdated, the Internet is living proof of it...

 

[Eldarion]

Its not absolutely wrong either. People share files all the time. Friends share music mp3 files a lot. That is legal because the actual files are the thing you buy and therefore are free to distribute because music is protected by free commerce laws like books and movies are. Games are in the same category. Piracy is nothing more than file sharing on a large scale.

The original creators have a right to the intellectual property, but all that means is that you can't sell it as your own work that does not stop you from sharing game files.

Yes and no, they also argue that intellectual property isn't property in a physical sense and to treat it as such is fallacious. So multiple people can access it simultaneously, unlike a shared physical property.

You and I can both simultaneously access a concept, such as gravity, without there being any contradiction. We share our knowledge of gravity and can both simultaneously access it, because applying physical laws to such a thing would be inappropriate and pointless. Only the metaphysical laws of 'knowledge', which courts ignore, govern what may or may not be practically achieved with knowledge, concepts and, the RIAA's favourite oxymoron, 'intellectual property'.

I think I can see where you're coming from, but I can't say I agree with those sentiments. I think games, music and movies deserve the same protection as anything else we can buy. With a chair, it can be shared, but only one person can use/own it at a time. With a game, it can be copied and distributed infinite times, each copy being identical to the last, not requiring physical proximity to the original file holder. For games, music and movies there is absolutely no incentive to purchase an original copy.

If I created a concept and it was developed into a game, I would expect to be compensated for it. Even if I did it for my own benefit and enjoyment I would expect to be compensated for my time if I were to distribute it beyond my immediate family and friends.
If intellectual property is not consider property of its creator (or whoever the creator sells it to) then what incentive is there to create games. Sure some people get enjoyment out of it, but unless they've won the lottery, they need to earn money as well and game design would be severly inhibiting their potential work time.

I understand that we need to buy games in order to support the artists and technical staff that works on a game. Thats just the decent thing to do. But since piracy is basically just large scale file sharing I can't condemn it either. The inter net needs to be free and we need to be free to share files and other physical media as we see fit. There is not enough difference between a file sharing site like pirate-bay and the simple act of sharing files directly person to person to create a distinction. Without a distinction we can't condemn some of it without condemning all of it.

 

[RMcD94]

I think I can see where you're coming from, but I can't say I agree with those sentiments. I think games, music and movies deserve the same protection as anything else we can buy. With a chair, it can be shared, but only one person can use/own it at a time. With a game, it can be copied and distributed infinite times, each copy being identical to the last, not requiring physical proximity to the original file holder. For games, music and movies there is absolutely no incentive to purchase an original copy.

Seems obvious to me they should sell it like they sell other items them. So one copy makes a profit. Like you do with chairs. If it cost £20 to make they sell it for £30 to the store who sells it for £50. Games should be like this. If it cost £2 million to make then sell it as such. (I think a good idea would be as soon as x amount of money is reached (possibly by donations), the game is released for free for everyone)) At least one pirate needs to buy it.

If I created a concept and it was developed into a game, I would expect to be compensated for it.

Today, and even more so in the future I imagine, people are more than happy to make games without money, just look at the huge flash game industry. Some make money from advertisements (Kongregate), and donations (Kongregate), as well as the occasional option to purchase extra content in games (Kongregate). I predict the future will be more like those sites (Kongregate).

what they don't seem to realise is it costs millions to make a decent game these days

Utter bullshit. There's thousands of fine, absolutely free legal games online.

 

[Decagonapus]

The media industry is, for the most part, unwilling to relinquish control of the physical copy distribution model they once had.

If you wrote a book, you want people to read it and enjoy it; it isn't (for the most part) ONLY about the money. So if someone reads it in a classroom setting or to their kids or in another public place, everyone is getting the benefit of the "Intellectual Property" with only one copy being purchased. You paid for the paper and the shipping, and thus its not illegal to read in public.

If a song is sent out as sound waves then its not morally wrong to retransmit those sound waves again. If I get a song and convert it to an mp3 for my favorite portable device. I could listen to it on my portable and on my computer at home. Is that wrong? What if a friend came over and used my computer and listened to that song? Is that wrong? Radio broadcasters don't pay double the royalty just because then have a repeater tower.

This leads to another question. Is there a maximum amount of people you can have in your presence while listening to a song. Could it be illegal to have more then 20 people listening at a given time for instance.

As far as seeding goes, I do it because other do it for me. As childish as it sounds, I share my toys with you and you share yours with me and we are both more happy then we could have been on our own.

 

[Caligulove]

They want to have information and games to be readily available and accessed by everyone.

That or they're the cocky ones who think its awesome just how much of the law they're breaking

 

[fletch_talon]

I understand that we need to buy games in order to support the artists and technical staff that works on a game. Thats just the decent thing to do. But since piracy is basically just large scale file sharing I can't condemn it either. The inter net needs to be free and we need to be free to share files and other physical media as we see fit. There is not enough difference between a file sharing site like pirate-bay and the simple act of sharing files directly person to person to create a distinction. Without a distinction we can't condemn some of it without condemning all of it.

Words cannot describe how strongly I disagree with you.
You're actually suggesting that we should allow people to access any and every form of digital media for free simply because the internet should suffer no restrictions.

There is a distinction for the record. Sharing with someone, as I stated before limits the product to being used by one person at a time. Two people can't read a book at once, or even if they can their use of it is inhibited by trying to do so. There just needs to be a similar restriction placed on games (like CD keys and regular online checks to ensure a game isn't being simultaneously run on two systems at once). Most importantly, any attempt to subvert these restrictions (keygen programs, cracks or programs which simulate the server for online registration/checks) should be deemed illegal and those who distribute them should be fined.

I think pirates are in the wrong. But I also think the punishment for piracy should be directed at the distrbuters not the consumers of pirated goods.