Sweden: Piracy Is Not A Religion
- Thread starter Earnest Cavalli
- Start date
How much should they be paid for their work? How much is their product worth - how much is their experience worth?FallenMessiah88 said:
I've put 13 hours into Magicka in a couple of weeks and it cost me £5. I've put 19 hours into Alien Swarm and it was free. Some modern AAA games have campaigns just 6 hours long and charge £40; I've only put 5 hours into Metro 2033 and don't feel like playing it again but it set me back around £15.
So, how much should I pay for my games? Evidently the prices charged don't reflect the use I get from them, and experience is subjective and can vary from person to person, from hour to hour, and therein lies the problem. If the product itself is free to reproduce, all you are paying is what the creators (or publisher or whoever) want, what they think it's worth, what they budgeted for. It's not uncommon for them to be wrong, to make mistakes. The current system isn't the be-all, end-all, and to demonise dissent is not a constructive way of continuing discussion on the subject, especially when your first argument is full of fail.
Would you please refer me to what place in the Bible, or other holy scripture, it says that's part of the religion? I fear that what you've found is something made up by the individual and not the religion itself.Wicky_42 said:
I have 3 issues. Firstly, that the different sets of privileges are not currently not equal (with the priest's tending to be enforced much more, at least in the United States).Akalabeth said:
In the United States, the Federal Rules of Evidence do not recognize doctor-patient privilege. (They do exist of-course, but they are decided in each individual state, and vary greatly.)
All fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government have enacted statutory privileges providing that at least some communications between clergyman and parishioners are privileged.
All fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government have enacted statutory privileges providing that at least some communications between clergyman and parishioners are privileged.
Secondly, Physicians, Attorneys and Therapists are all monitored by the government, and have to have passed various tests in order to practice. If they are found to be abusing their privileges, their licenses are revoked. There are no restrictions on who can become a priest except from the religious body they belong to, since these religious bodies all have wildly different rules with respect to this, anyone could become a priest, and anyone could therefore gain the privileges.
Finally, yes, I think they should all be abolished. If the government (I don't know why you brought up insurance companies, they were never affected by this) requires knowledge of what someone has told you, your profession should not affect whether or not you can give it (Of course that part of my argument at least is very debatable).
Life is complex, as is law, but this doesn't mean it has to be unclear. The law is one thing that must be kept absolutely consistent with its results, and personal opinion should be kept out of it as much as physically possible in order to prevent it from being manipulated.Akalabeth said:
Regarding libraries, do you really think they have sufficient funding to cover large fees on every single book they stock, or do you think that they are legally allowed to loan books for free once they have purchased them? I'm thinking it's the latter. Though I must admit to not knowing the status on DVDs, CDs and game loans.Hero in a half shell said:
Regarding the bold bit, what you were initially saying was that what they were selling was the experience, not a single license to use a piece of software. I've finished those games, I don't want to buy them partially because I've already experienced the bulk of their content, just as I would probably not buy a book I'd read through in a Library. The only difference experience-wise of distribution of digital copies online and playing through a game at a friend's is the scale; at the end of the day you're still getting the experience for free. If you want to talk about individual licenses, allowing only one person to experience the content at a time then that's a different thing, but at the end of the day the producer of the content is still only being paid the once for however many people view the content, which again violates your initial standpoint of "Everyone who experiences pays". See, in isolation that statement makes sense, but once you start thinking about how you expect to be able to use your entertainment issues start cropping up, and once copies cost nothing to make the only thing you hold up is the moral idea of an intrinsic value created by someone spending time on what is essentially a long list of 1s and 0s.
I will admit to not being well-read on these molestations and the legal bits surrounding them. In what way are the molesters protected?Wicky_42 said:
Also, please call it something else than "molest children before Christ." It makes it sound like you believe it's actually a part of the Christian religion.
first off, piracy is and has been illegal since like the 90's and Sweden is in a copyright agreement with the majority of the western world so if I try to make an obvious TF2 ripoff valve can sue me, or just take the servers down or something in that fashion.dogstile said:
Well no, the current price system is not in any way ideal. I too believe that games today are overpriced and that it should be tweaked in some way. However I will say that a games worth isn't exactly determined by how many hours you can put into it. I would gladly pay "full price" for a game thats only say 4 hours long if those 4 hours were some of the best I've ever spent with a video game. However, that is of course just all my personal opinon and like you yourself stated, experience is subjective. Some people might be perfectly happy with a 4 hour long game, while others won't.Wicky_42 said:
However, this is not about how much a company should charge for their products. Its about the principle that if you make something and you put a lot of work into it, people should pay you if they want to try it out.
I agree that the whole "playing it at a friends house" argument does somewhat nullify that argument, but are you really going to tell me that companies should just give away all their products for free, because I don't think that is going to be a viable business model in what is, essientially, a business.
So yeah, I agree that the current system does have it flaws. However, to demonise the opposition is not a constructive way of continuing discussion on the subject, especially when you're so quick to make assumptions about people you don't even know.
Mad Stalin said:
So it's alright to steal if the person you're stealing from is wealthier than you? What kind of amoral, idiotic, selfish, near-sighted, hypocritical, ignorant, and socially damaging philosophy were you raised on? Western nations institute laws limiting the rights of Muslims and Romani peoples, but you choose to defend theft by saying that making money from your product is grounds to have it illegally duplicated and "Shared"?
Not quite, you see, a lot of pirates nowadays truly don't buy games anymore, they only download, meaning that if they were never planning to buy it the one less copy sold argument is invalid since they weren't ging to buy it anyways. therefore the developers lose no money since they would never have gained the money even if the download was somehow prevented.Ghengis John said:
It's a very complicated issue, one i cannot quite form a definite opinion on
