Sims 3 Leaked Online
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Piracy is a blight on the published works of all types and variations. Books get pirated as well, but generally it is to expensive and worth while for this to occur frequently. Your local library also greatly diminishes the profit margin from such action. However DVD, and previously VHS, have long suffered from the copy and distribute for free problems, or for slight financial gain. I want to point out the financial gain, I will be coming back to it in a moment.
Now VHS did not suffer anywhere as nearly as DVD did due to the lack of populous internet during VHS's time. DVD's found its way to the internet, and slowly made their way onto peoples hard drives, and from then on to knock off discs as well. This is where the DRM battle begins, mainly with the advent of region codes. This battle still rages on fiercely. Now enter the 2000's and gaming is really starting to pick up online. At the same time, illegal copies of discs were showing up everywhere as copying a CD was easier then a 6-7 floppies. Serial codes become common, but are easily cracked. Internet authorization comes up, but is proven to be horrible due to the common use of random key cracks which results in denial of service to legitimate users. In some cases service was provided, but in many cases they were forced to purchase a new license if they could not prove definite ownership. Then DRM really took off, mainly as a result of the semi-successful approaches made in the music industry.
Like a hammer, DRM seemed like a tool that worked swiftly and bluntly. It enraged the pirate community because things like authentication pioneered by Steam and the limited installs of the disc pioneered by EA in an effort to stop the third world piracy and knock offs of their products, where initially successful.
Those of us who did not really care about authentication or DRM because we were not doing anything wrong to start with stayed quiet. Those who walked a line did not, and EA was attempting to cultivate good will. We can see how that went.
Now it is true, little Timmy stealing, sorry; acquisition of a product through means which circumvents perceived equitable exchange, does little to the game market as a whole. EA, Steam, etc... are more concerned with the mass production of pirated copies seen overseas, which is the real impact of this Sim's leak, and why American publishers are weary of publishing overseas. They tend to get burned when they do.
For all the arm chair lawyers who have spouted hints that courts have ruled on Torrents and such (Which I could not find any ruling of but my database only covers California and Federal rulings and I am not going to shell out the 120 dollars plus per state to access those databases, nor am I going to look case through case in 49 other states to find out if there were any for the sake of a post, so I will accept the possibility that there has been one, but I will not consider it as canon until a case name is provided that I may research and look up.) the only case I could locate which has any baring on this topic, mainly because all P2P rulings have used this as the yard stick ruling, is the Napster Case at is related actions. While this was a very complex case, the end conclusion was this: Any service which contributes to the illegal distribution of copyrighted or otherwise protected works of intellectual property is subject to the same treatment under law as to those who committed, both by the distribution and the reception of, illegal distributed intellectual materials. (Paraphrase referencing Ruling of A&M Records Inc. et al. Vs Napster Inc. as well as reference to in Re Napster Copyright Litigation Summary Judgment Memorandum and Order) In Re Napster Copyright Litigation Summary Judgment also includes this quote: "Even in the absence of an employment relationship, a defendant incurs liability for vicarious copyright infringement if he or she 'has the right and ability to supervise the infringing activity and also has a direct financial interest in such activities.? Id. at 262 (quoting Gershwin Publ?g Corp. v. Columbia Artists Mgmt., Inc., 443 F.2d 1159, 1162 (2d Cir. 1971)).'" This has been expanded to mean that in such cases as a torrent might fit into, that users who knowingly, with willful intent to assist in the distribution of an illegally distributed work of copyrighted material, is not only acting as receiver, but also distributor. If they contribute bandwidth as well, using a server client, to the distribution, they could also come under the aspect of a supervising service. This has not been tested yet at trial yet, but my firm is about to move forward with a case based on this premise, and the judge's unofficial tentative ruling seems to favor this interpretation.
What this means is the act of using a torrent automatically sticks a user with up to three charges in the civil system, on top of two potiential criminal charges. You'd rather have Larceny applied against you, trust me.
So, in the end, companies are justified in attempts to control the distribution of copyrighted materials, and the illegal receiving of, and transmitting of carries a much harsher penalty then theft possibly could.
Also, if you don't believe the companies are coming after you, they are. As the FBI and local agencies catch the individuals, they get brought to court by the companies. My firm has four research attorney's, and 3 trial attorney's dedicated to carrying these cases to court, and I am in court almost everyday, so that should tell you that it is only a matter of time. This is not meant to scare any of you, just that I've paid off my student loans and could use a vocation...
Now VHS did not suffer anywhere as nearly as DVD did due to the lack of populous internet during VHS's time. DVD's found its way to the internet, and slowly made their way onto peoples hard drives, and from then on to knock off discs as well. This is where the DRM battle begins, mainly with the advent of region codes. This battle still rages on fiercely. Now enter the 2000's and gaming is really starting to pick up online. At the same time, illegal copies of discs were showing up everywhere as copying a CD was easier then a 6-7 floppies. Serial codes become common, but are easily cracked. Internet authorization comes up, but is proven to be horrible due to the common use of random key cracks which results in denial of service to legitimate users. In some cases service was provided, but in many cases they were forced to purchase a new license if they could not prove definite ownership. Then DRM really took off, mainly as a result of the semi-successful approaches made in the music industry.
Like a hammer, DRM seemed like a tool that worked swiftly and bluntly. It enraged the pirate community because things like authentication pioneered by Steam and the limited installs of the disc pioneered by EA in an effort to stop the third world piracy and knock offs of their products, where initially successful.
Those of us who did not really care about authentication or DRM because we were not doing anything wrong to start with stayed quiet. Those who walked a line did not, and EA was attempting to cultivate good will. We can see how that went.
Now it is true, little Timmy stealing, sorry; acquisition of a product through means which circumvents perceived equitable exchange, does little to the game market as a whole. EA, Steam, etc... are more concerned with the mass production of pirated copies seen overseas, which is the real impact of this Sim's leak, and why American publishers are weary of publishing overseas. They tend to get burned when they do.
For all the arm chair lawyers who have spouted hints that courts have ruled on Torrents and such (Which I could not find any ruling of but my database only covers California and Federal rulings and I am not going to shell out the 120 dollars plus per state to access those databases, nor am I going to look case through case in 49 other states to find out if there were any for the sake of a post, so I will accept the possibility that there has been one, but I will not consider it as canon until a case name is provided that I may research and look up.) the only case I could locate which has any baring on this topic, mainly because all P2P rulings have used this as the yard stick ruling, is the Napster Case at is related actions. While this was a very complex case, the end conclusion was this: Any service which contributes to the illegal distribution of copyrighted or otherwise protected works of intellectual property is subject to the same treatment under law as to those who committed, both by the distribution and the reception of, illegal distributed intellectual materials. (Paraphrase referencing Ruling of A&M Records Inc. et al. Vs Napster Inc. as well as reference to in Re Napster Copyright Litigation Summary Judgment Memorandum and Order) In Re Napster Copyright Litigation Summary Judgment also includes this quote: "Even in the absence of an employment relationship, a defendant incurs liability for vicarious copyright infringement if he or she 'has the right and ability to supervise the infringing activity and also has a direct financial interest in such activities.? Id. at 262 (quoting Gershwin Publ?g Corp. v. Columbia Artists Mgmt., Inc., 443 F.2d 1159, 1162 (2d Cir. 1971)).'" This has been expanded to mean that in such cases as a torrent might fit into, that users who knowingly, with willful intent to assist in the distribution of an illegally distributed work of copyrighted material, is not only acting as receiver, but also distributor. If they contribute bandwidth as well, using a server client, to the distribution, they could also come under the aspect of a supervising service. This has not been tested yet at trial yet, but my firm is about to move forward with a case based on this premise, and the judge's unofficial tentative ruling seems to favor this interpretation.
What this means is the act of using a torrent automatically sticks a user with up to three charges in the civil system, on top of two potiential criminal charges. You'd rather have Larceny applied against you, trust me.
So, in the end, companies are justified in attempts to control the distribution of copyrighted materials, and the illegal receiving of, and transmitting of carries a much harsher penalty then theft possibly could.
Also, if you don't believe the companies are coming after you, they are. As the FBI and local agencies catch the individuals, they get brought to court by the companies. My firm has four research attorney's, and 3 trial attorney's dedicated to carrying these cases to court, and I am in court almost everyday, so that should tell you that it is only a matter of time. This is not meant to scare any of you, just that I've paid off my student loans and could use a vocation...
DamienHell said:
Too bad my virus protection stuff is messed up, I was about to have me some Sims 3.
I have a solution for there problems, STOP FIGHTING! Let them steal if they want to the more you put to stop them the more they enjoy it. there like griefers.
I've read through the whole thread now and it seems that nobody has acknowledged another major reason to be against piracy: It also hurts the legitimate customers.
1. You can bet that video game companies raise the price of their products to make up for the loss (whether real or not) through piracy.
2. Along with the increasing production costs for games, this scares developers and publishers away from creating/publishing fresh game concepts, which are perceived as riskier investments.
1. You can bet that video game companies raise the price of their products to make up for the loss (whether real or not) through piracy.
2. Along with the increasing production costs for games, this scares developers and publishers away from creating/publishing fresh game concepts, which are perceived as riskier investments.
people pirate pc games so much because in the first place you cant really... try pc games, you know? I know plenty of people who pirate, then buy the game after if they like it. A lot of gamers rent a game if its out before buying it becuase it might be worse than expected you know?
I didin't pirate at all for greed when i was young (i don't do it much now days) You know why i pirated? Because i didin't have any damn money at all, I was one of the kids with no allowance. My parents bought what i wanted if i asked them But the only thing i wanted was a fresh copy of a game and that was a no-no becuse my parents don't like me gaming.Malygris said:
There you have your damn proof about piracy not only being about greed.
And on the game, I also heard this was a early version. I told my sister that sims was out on the internet, So her friend downloaded it. Anyways so i tried it. To be honest i found it alot more likable then any of the sims games so far, What Asehujiko said on the top of his page is not much true.
1. You CAN build own houses, Actually this tool has been enhanced alot
2. I see everything that the dev promised in this game
3. Since it is a early version the uninstall might not work properly?
Anyways also things i liked about the game pretty much:
-The ability to roam anywhere in town
-No loading screens (except when you start the game or go into create-a-sim) Loading screens was what kept me from playing Sims 2, I would have to sit out 20 min to just get in the game.
-The personality trait system
-The improved tools
-The fact that you don't have to hold your sims hand trough normal day chores anymore, If they have to pee, they will goddamn go pee without your help. You can put your focus on alot more important stuff, Offcourse sometimes you have to hold your sims hand still, but not so frequent
-Create-a-Style
-The Challenges that pop up here an then.
Parts that wasen't so good:
-I encountered some bugs, These prolly will be patched away so i don't see any problem.
-You could not place new houses or build your own city's, you have to roll with whats avaible. (hopefully this will be included in the final release)
-Alot of The Sims 2 expansion content missing that should have been here (but we know how Maxis is about expansions) like pets. Tough they did include some expansion features, Nice.
I liked it, If you are a big sims fan you will probally like it too.
I say it could be worth the money. But will you be ready to pay for a upstream of expansions later?
You know what? good. EA is terrible, and so is their DLC nonsense. They're witholding game items and making you pay for them on their online store, like the damn coffee machine! The store items will show up online somewhere anyway since PC gamers don't put up with that BS. Remember Oblivion's horse armor? HA!
I keep hoping they'll be pirated into collapse but it doesn't seem to happen.
I keep hoping they'll be pirated into collapse but it doesn't seem to happen.
I'm mainly responding to this thread to post my thoughts on games piracy. I'll keep it brief.
None of us are perfect and most of us have pirated a game in our lives. I haven't for quite some time now and I'll tell you why. I met a musician who had been affected by piracy. Once you have met someone who has worked on a product and had their work stolen, you'll never pirate again.
The people working on this game are people. EA is full of people. EA is not faceless, EA is a business but it is full of people who don't kill puppies, eat babies or rape virgins. They are people trying to get a product out there, a product they have worked hard on. They are not being given the chance to reap what they sew.
Pirating games is essentially the same principle as asking a farmer to give away his corn for free. The farmer has worked hard to tend his field and should not have the end result of his work diluted. But EA, you argue are not farmers in Iowa, they are a corporation seeking to control as much as they can and make as much profit as possible.
Of course they are. It's an SEC listing rule that you have to do what's best for your shareholders in all situations. The fact that the heads of EA are looking after their bottom line rather than the broader gaming community does not mean that the team working on the game has not worked hard.
Any person who creates a product is due what their product is worth. If the joy and fun they give people is worth one dollar, they deserve one dollar. If the joy andfun the give people is worth a Billion dollars they deserve a billion dollars. Not a penny more, not a penny less.
In a capitalist society, any product is worth what people are willing to pay for it. What pirates do is dilute a product's inherent worth. If you create a billion dollar product and put in all the effort that requires, then you deserve a billion dollars.
Now, the creators will never know how much they could have reaped from what they sew.
None of us are perfect and most of us have pirated a game in our lives. I haven't for quite some time now and I'll tell you why. I met a musician who had been affected by piracy. Once you have met someone who has worked on a product and had their work stolen, you'll never pirate again.
The people working on this game are people. EA is full of people. EA is not faceless, EA is a business but it is full of people who don't kill puppies, eat babies or rape virgins. They are people trying to get a product out there, a product they have worked hard on. They are not being given the chance to reap what they sew.
Pirating games is essentially the same principle as asking a farmer to give away his corn for free. The farmer has worked hard to tend his field and should not have the end result of his work diluted. But EA, you argue are not farmers in Iowa, they are a corporation seeking to control as much as they can and make as much profit as possible.
Of course they are. It's an SEC listing rule that you have to do what's best for your shareholders in all situations. The fact that the heads of EA are looking after their bottom line rather than the broader gaming community does not mean that the team working on the game has not worked hard.
Any person who creates a product is due what their product is worth. If the joy and fun they give people is worth one dollar, they deserve one dollar. If the joy andfun the give people is worth a Billion dollars they deserve a billion dollars. Not a penny more, not a penny less.
In a capitalist society, any product is worth what people are willing to pay for it. What pirates do is dilute a product's inherent worth. If you create a billion dollar product and put in all the effort that requires, then you deserve a billion dollars.
Now, the creators will never know how much they could have reaped from what they sew.
Uhh, sorry...but that's text-book greed. Google defines greed thusly: Excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves.Mr LS said:
You wanted (Not needed) something you couldn't afford, so you acquired it illegally. You didn't deserve it, because you didn't pay for it. Greed. Lack of money isn't an excuse to get things you would normally have to pay for.
I honestly don't see your point here. The most important thing for the developers is to make money. Do they actually care if someone got their game without "deserving" it? They can deny people their creations, but why would they want to? If they can't make any money out of it anyways why deny them their fun? It's just being a prick because you can.Baby Tea said: