To save time...

[IEX Totalview]

Originally posted by Red Dog 99
Piracy isn't some kind of moral offence - it's a paradigm shift in the relationship between publishers and consumers.

Shoplifting isn't some kind of moral offence - it's a paradigm shift in the relationship between merchants and customers.

Embezzlement isn't some kind of moral offence - it's a paradigm shift in the relationship between banks and employees.

Financial fraud isn't some kind of moral offence - it's a paradigm shift in the relationship between corporate officers and shareholders.

 

[daedalus]

Bah.. You guys are reading the whole thead and still dont seem to understand. Piracy hurts Paradox more than almost any other company. They are an small company, and each single copy of the game that it is not sold may mean that the company has to go down the drain. They are not M$, they can not afford to give a entire year worth of work away just to get a little promotion in the pirate underworld.
Each time you come here and underplay the effects of piracy you are telling me, others and yourselves that it is ok to steal from paradox. If you are getting the game for free, why do I and every other member of the forum have to pay for it? Hey, everyone, if piracy is ok, the buying a paradox game is only an act of charity.
But the true is that piracy is not only a moral issue, its a crime. Johan and others have kill themselves during a long time, and it is not their only goal to make us happy. They need to make a living, they have to feed their families, etc. And now you come here, and have the face to say is ok to steal from them?

SHAME ON YOU, THIEFS!

 

[unmerged(13742)]

I'm sorry, but I think you miss the point. All the crimes you list - shoplifting, embezzlement, and financial fraud - are about limited goods. A bakery's loaf of bread (that they paid for, with a shelf life, and potential customers) is tangible - they can only make and keep in stock so many loaves.

Copyright violation is a paradigm shift because the ability to copy any information at no cost makes it free for everybody. If somebody copies a book (or a CD or a game), the publisher isn't deprived of something tangible they could have sold to someone else. All they're out is a hypothetical customer, assuming the pirate doesn't eventually buy the book they just copied.

 

[unmerged(13742)]

Daedalus - it may come as some relief to you that under the new paradigm, trademarked idiocy is as readily copyable as anything else. You missed the point, too: we built a system under which copyright violations (software piracy) is easy and free. You can moralize all you want, but that doesn't put the genie back in the bottle or change current economic conditions for software houses. I think Paradox will succeed because they support their games and build communities, and they ought to be commended for doing so.

 

[unmerged(21298)]

Originally posted by treedom
I'm not going to judge you about this...too many people feel empowered to do so around here for some reason. But I think it's in bad taste to come into Patric's thread about piracy and talk about this, especially considering how upset Paradox is about this (and rightly so). Be a little considerate. If you've played the game, at least shut up about it till it's released. Don't rub it in their face.

I absolutely agree with you. I feel as guilty as a f*** about playing it, especially after I made my comments earlier in this thread about how I am not going to download the game, and that anybody that does is a bastard. That is why I posted, to get the weigth of hypocracy off of my shoulders.

Even though I deserve it, before any of you judge, what would you have done in my position. o

 

[unmerged(18269)]

Go to the guys computer and delet it..

 

[treedom]

Originally posted by AlexanderG
Go to the guys computer and delet it..

There are laws against vigilantes. People aren't supposed to take the law in their own hands.

 

[IEX Totalview]

Originally posted by Red Dog 99
I'm sorry, but I think you miss the point. All the crimes you list - shoplifting, embezzlement, and financial fraud - are about limited goods. A bakery's loaf of bread (that they paid for, with a shelf life, and potential customers) is tangible - they can only make and keep in stock so many loaves.

Copyright violation is a paradigm shift because the ability to copy any information at no cost makes it free for everybody. If somebody copies a book (or a CD or a game), the publisher isn't deprived of something tangible they could have sold to someone else. All they're out is a hypothetical customer, assuming the pirate doesn't eventually buy the book they just copied.

The point is that all three were ways of taking someone else's property, two of which did not involve physically stealing the property.

The fact is, Victoria belongs to Paradox and no one else. They can dispose of it as they choose. If they want to sell it for $40, that is their right. If they want to sell it for $140, that is also their right. If they want to put it in their vault, lock it away and never let anyone see it, that is their right. Morally speaking, Paradox took its own labor and fashioned a product out of it. What gives you (or anyone else besides Paradox) the right to decide how the product should be distributed?

Paradox expects, like anyone else who makes something, to control its distribution. After all, it is their work they are distributing. When someone copies or shares the work illegally, the fact that the copying had no mariginal cost to Paradox is not important. What is important is that person took it upon his or her self to decide, unilaterally, that Paradox should not control the products of its own labor, but rather they should. In effect, they have taken Paradox's property without permission or compensation, and acted like it was their own. That is why it is an immoral action.

Yes, piracy exists and is widespread, but those facts have zero bearing on whether it is a moral action.

 

[unmerged(18269)]

There are laws against vigilantes. People aren't supposed to take the law in their own hands

There are also laws against stealing things. Didnt stop this guy though.
And stealing from whom ? The 'Evil Microsoft' ? No. A bunch of friendly Swedes.
Disguisting.

 

[unmerged(13742)]

Originally posted by IEX Totalview
The fact is, Victoria belongs to Paradox and no one else. They can dispose of it as they choose. .... When someone copies or shares the work illegally, the fact that the copying had no mariginal cost to Paradox is not important.

I don't agree. If copying has no marginal cost to the publisher, then the only basis for frowning on copying is moral & ethical. It seems to me that we have copyright rules for two reasons: to make publishers' investments (ie, marginal costs) and to encourage new works. In a world where everything digital is duplicable without investment by a middleman, why persist in sustaining copyright rules set up in a different age?

Paradox expects, like anyone else who makes something, to control its distribution.

They can't control it. Publishing content in this environment is like tossing a bottle into the ocean. Paradox can lure buyers in other ways - through brand loyalty (by continuing to make great games), by improving the product (through patches or more content), or by working to make sure there's a strong, supportive community around their games.

 

[treedom]

Originally posted by AlexanderG
There are also laws against stealing things. Didnt stop this guy though.
And stealing from whom ? The 'Evil Microsoft' ? No. A bunch of friendly Swedes.
Disguisting.

Commiting a crime to undo someone else's is pretty questionable though.

 

[OriginalRafiki]

To start with summing up, I agree 100% with IEX.

Bringing in (or making up) a term like "paradigm shift" is quite far out, IMHO. It is a not-to-successful attempt as masquerading something that quite clearly is theft of intellectual property. No matter what spin you try to put on it, you can't change reality.

CzarAleks, I'm sorry, but I have no respect for what you have done, and no understanding for you coming here "to get the weight of hypocracy off of your shoulders". It's rude and so far beyond the borders of common decency that the border is no longer a line to you, it's a dot.....

If you had done something like this with the software I make for a living, I don't know how I would react, especially if you came into my own back yard and flaunted it like you're doing here.

OTOH, I guess it'll be interesting to see what happens with this thread with all the twists and turns it's starting to take.

Rafiki

 

[daedalus]

Some days ago some one came to my office and took some equipment from it, with out asking for it, and I dont still dont know who he was. It was cheap equipment, and I can replacement, but what really hurt is the feeling that your personal property has being violated. I do understand Paradox for being completely offended, as any person who has had thing stolen feels.

The whole pardigma explanition is BS. The true is that although copies of the software are infinite, it does not mean that the amount of copies you sell are infinite. They are limited to the amount of people who pays for the copy because they want to play the game. I dont pay for the game because I want a copy, it is because I want to play the damn game!
So if I can play the game without paying, and you tell me its ok, and its not a crime: why do I have to pay for the game? I does not make any sense.

Example: If a theater is showing a movie, and 100 people pay $10 to watch the movie. And if you know the owner will decide that 5 minutes before the movie He will let everyone else enter for free. Why in the world would pay for it?????? And the situation gets even worse if it is not the owner letting people enter for free, but a bum who broke open the back door?

You call it paradigm, I call it theft (and so does the law AFAIK)

 

[Derek Pullem]

Originally posted by Red Dog 99
I don't agree. If copying has no marginal cost to the publisher, then the only basis for frowning on copying is moral & ethical. It seems to me that we have copyright rules for two reasons: to make publishers' investments (ie, marginal costs) and to encourage new works. In a world where everything digital is duplicable without investment by a middleman, why persist in sustaining copyright rules set up in a different age?



They can't control it. Publishing content in this environment is like tossing a bottle into the ocean. Paradox can lure buyers in other ways - through brand loyalty (by continuing to make great games), by improving the product (through patches or more content), or by working to make sure there's a strong, supportive community around their games.

So its only morally and ethically wrong - oh fine then lets all pirate.

"Paradox can lure buyers" - how the hell do they do that if they can't make any money from publishing it in your fantasy world

They can make sure there's a strong, supportive community of ....pirates?????? Who will tell Johan how much they like his games as Paradox closes and goes bust.

Some really really strange views in this thread

 

[unmerged(13742)]

Originally posted by rafiki
Bringing in (or making up) a term like "paradigm shift" is quite far out, IMHO.

Sorry - please substitute "indication that times have changed" for "paradigm shift" if you think it'd read better.

My point is that reality has changed. Completely regardless of whether anybody likes it this way, the fact is that anything digital is copyable at no cost to the copier and no tangible cost to the producer. Calling copying theft when anybody can do it unstoppably and for free strikes me as a waste of resources.

 

[Darkrenown]

Originally posted by treedom
I'm not going to judge you about this...too many people feel empowered to do so around here for some reason. But I think it's in bad taste to come into Patric's thread about piracy and talk about this, especially considering how upset Paradox is about this (and rightly so). Be a little considerate. If you've played the game, at least shut up about it till it's released. Don't rub it in their face.

I don't think it's so bad to play is pirate version IF you've pre-ordered it. No one has offered me a copy of Vic, but I'd take it if they did, I have to wait untill the 22nd, maybe the 24th (no post on sundays ) for my copy. But yeah, this is not the best place to annouce you have a pirate copy even if you are buying the game the instant it is released.

What would be really great is if Paradox could set up a direct sales system like Stardock have. Hmm, since it was Strategy First that published Galciv, so it might happen if Paradox are interested. What do you say, Patric? Any chance?

 

[daedalus]

Originally posted by Red Dog 99

My point is that reality has changed. Completely regardless of whether anybody likes it this way, the fact is that anything digital is copyable at no cost to the copier and no tangible cost to the producer.

Wow, this man deserves a nobel in economy, he has completely reinvented to basic principles of economics!

 

[joak]

Originally posted by Red Dog 99
I don't agree. If copying has no marginal cost to the publisher, then the only basis for frowning on copying is moral & ethical.
It seems to me that we have copyright rules for two reasons: to make publishers' investments (ie, marginal costs) and to encourage new works. In a world where everything digital is duplicable without investment by a middleman, why persist in sustaining copyright rules set up in a different age?

Have you thought this through? The express purpose of copyright law was to encourage new works; the publisher's investments to produce the physical copy could always be defended by normal (physical) property laws. Illegal copying NEVER had any marginal cost to the publisher--the only thing that has changed is it now has minimal marginal cost to the pirate as well.

Your argument actually seems to support those who'd strengthen copyright law--publishers who say "We can't guarantee a profit by controlling the production, so we need stronger protections than ever on the content."

Originally posted by Red Dog 99

They can't control it. Publishing content in this environment is like tossing a bottle into the ocean. Paradox can lure buyers in other ways - through brand loyalty (by continuing to make great games), by improving the product (through patches or more content), or by working to make sure there's a strong, supportive community around their games.

So your argument is if Paradox makes a great game and patches it, people will buy it even if its available for free . . . why exactly? "Brand loyalty?" A pirate's offering the same brand, just for no cost. Patches and content have to be distributed also, so they become as easy to pirate as anything else.

Some of these arguments work for business software, but they apply to games not at all.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Originally posted by Red Dog 99
Sorry - please substitute "indication that times have changed" for "paradigm shift" if you think it'd read better.

My point is that reality has changed. Completely regardless of whether anybody likes it this way, the fact is that anything digital is copyable at no cost to the copier and no tangible cost to the producer. Calling copying theft when anybody can do it unstoppably and for free strikes me as a waste of resources.

So how much is Victoria worth to you. Nothing?

 

[IEX Totalview]

Originally posted by Red Dog 99
I don't agree. If copying has no marginal cost to the publisher, then the only basis for frowning on copying is moral & ethical. It seems to me that we have copyright rules for two reasons: to make publishers' investments (ie, marginal costs) and to encourage new works. In a world where everything digital is duplicable without investment by a middleman, why persist in sustaining copyright rules set up in a different age?

You are completely mistaken here. First, copyright is not neccesary to cover publisher's marginal cost near as much as it's needed to cover the developer's fixed cost. If the game sells less due to pirating, Paradox loses much more than the publisher, since they have already spent the money to create the game, whereas the publisher's expenses are closely related to the number of copies sold. When the game sells less, the publisher's expenses decrease, Paradox's stay the same. Who do you think loses most to piracy?

Second, by giving legal ownership in a created work, copyright law encourages and rewards those who create the work. I don't see how this changed due to any "paradigm shift". Copyright law allows Paradox to expect to be able to legally demand compensation for their work, so they not only pay back the money they invested in it but then have more to reward the risk takers (profit) and develop new products.

They can't control it. Publishing content in this environment is like tossing a bottle into the ocean. Paradox can lure buyers in other ways - through brand loyalty (by continuing to make great games), by improving the product (through patches or more content), or by working to make sure there's a strong, supportive community around their games.

The fact that some people will steal Paradox's work does not mean Paradox loses the right to control its distribution. It just means they are stealing.