To save time...

[unmerged(13742)]

Originally posted by IEX Totalview
Here's the problem with this logic. The box and the manual are not worth $40.

No, but maybe the whole package (game, box, manual, community, loyalty to Paradox) might be.

Originally posted by IEX Totalview
What you seem to miss is Paradox has real costs to pay. The only way people can pirate is if other, paying customers, are willing to shoulder the costs of development. If everyone pirated, no one couldp lay the games, since Paradox would be broke, so pirates depend on leeching off the efforts of Paradox and other, more ethical gamers, picking up the slack as far as paying for the costs of the game.

I appreciate Paradox's costs. I think wanting to make sure Paradox prospers is a great reason to buy their games. That doesn't mean that copying their games ought to be illegal, though. There are lots of examples (charities, libraries, etc.) of organizations that rely more heavily on some members of society than others. If I don't endow the wing of a museum, that doesn't make me a leech when I visit.

 

[unmerged(5110)]

Originally posted by Red Dog 99
It isn't the decreasing cost of piracy, it's the vanishing cost of publishing creative works. Our system of copyrights was established on two assumptions: a) that it cost a lot (relatively) to get a creative work published, so publishers ought to have their rights in the work preserved enough to realize a return on their investment; and b) those rights should be limited and should (after 14 years, originally) defer to the public domain. The goal of the whole system was to kickstart a cycle of creation, publishing, and improvement. If it doesn't cost anything to publish creative works, the first of those assumptions goes away, and the whole system of copyright falls open to reexamination.

Unfortunately, all the money just isn't in the publishing; it is in the programming of the games, which not only costs money (buying development software, 3d rendering software, renting office space), but TIME also. Remember that Johan and Patric, Dick, and the rest of Paradox need to EAT in order to live.

Just because the channels of distribution are free doesn't mean that these people no longer need the money to buy things to sustain their livelihood. I mean sure if tomorrow somehow someone could make up a system where the Paradox could still earn their profit while bypassing a box-and-packaging distribution system via Strategy First and all the other countries entirely, then I'm all for it. In the meantime, pirating not only hurts the distributors at Strategy First and the others, but also hurts Paradox because they are receiving ZILCH for their efforts.

Red Dog 99, do you have a livelihood? If you do, then you can probably understand how frustrating it would be if somebody took credit for your work, or worse, was able to duplicate your work free of charge.

For example if you made artwork, imagine if someone just photocopied all of your work and gave it to anybody who wanted it free, or worse, CHARGED people for it without giving you any money... wouldn't you see that as entirely unfair and robbing you of money that YOU should have earned?

Would you ever consider continuing in this line of work should that be the case?

 

[unmerged(13742)]

Originally posted by Rick III
Red Dog is a thief, using techno-centric McLuhanist hype and an information age corruption of marxist ideology to rationalize theft. No matter how old he is, he's another example of a childish, spoiled brat from a childish, spoiled society that is incapable of seeing anything beyond the pleasure of instant gratification.

End of story.

If he hasn't been bounced from your forum, I suggest you do, since clearly he is an enemy of our efforts to get decent games from Paradox. If he wants the empty box, though, I'll be happy to send him my box when I get my (bought copy).

The box won't cost him a thing.

R.III

"Techo-centric McLuhanist" certainly has a ring to it, but I'm afraid I can't embrace the Marxist part. It's not theft if it already belongs to me.

"End of story" sounds nice, but I can't help but wonder at the significance of your self-gratifying brevity. I mean, it's awfully masterful of you to wrap things up so neatly for me. Could you just come to such a role accidently? You imply there are others - like me, childish and spoiled products of our decaying culture - that you might also guide into the light?

 

[IEX Totalview]

Originally posted by Red Dog 99
It isn't the decreasing cost of piracy, it's the vanishing cost of publishing creative works. Our system of copyrights was established on two assumptions: a) that it cost a lot (relatively) to get a creative work published, so publishers ought to have their rights in the work preserved enough to realize a return on their investment; and b) those rights should be limited and should (after 14 years, originally) defer to the public domain. The goal of the whole system was to kickstart a cycle of creation, publishing, and improvement. If it doesn't cost anything to publish creative works, the first of those assumptions goes away, and the whole system of copyright falls open to reexamination.

We seem to be at a disconnect. You go on and on about the reduced price of publishing a game. Copyright is not there to protect the publishers as much as the developers. Paradox needs its product protected to recoup the costs of developing it, not the costs of publishing it, as you seem to believe. To this extent, I fail to see what diminishing publishing costs have to do with the need to protect Paradox's work.

Sorry you feel that way, but just because somebody might by my widgets if everyone the US was required by law to do so isn't a very good argument for actually enacting a law that requires everyone to buy a widget.

No one is asking people by required to buy your widgets, they just want to require people who take your widgets to pay for them. Your example makes no sense.

 

[Chilango2]

Originally posted by CzarAleks
I admit, I wasn't strong enough to resisto , I have waited for to long and I am too weak. As I write this I still haven't been to bed since last night.

Okay. I hate to be a bit hasrh here...

But this is a GAME. NOT drugs. "I couldn't resist" blah blah. All of us (including myself) have been waiting for this game for quite awhile.

I myself have experience on how to handle and get games from the warez scene back from my days in college (I stopped for a number of reasons, some practical, some moral). If I wanted to, I could have gotten this game, but I did not. Because I, and anybody else who is even a sembalnce of a mature adult, has the capacity to resist.

You COULD have resisted, I would argue that perhaps you simply did not have sufficent perpective and desire to DO SO. As great as the games are, both lame ass esxcuses for pirating software and folks itching to hand the pirites by the nearest tree (a sentiment I can understand, mind you.. but still) are both getting annoying.

Much more annoying, of course, are the folks with, frankly, lame excuses for theft of a creative work that had immense effort devoted to it.

 

[IEX Totalview]

Originally posted by Red Dog 99
No, but maybe the whole package (game, box, manual, community, loyalty to Paradox) might be.

As someone pointed out, the communirt is free. All that is left is game box, manual and loyalty to Paradox. Sure, diehard fans would pay to reward Paradox, but they could never make the money needed to produce more games if their customers were on the honor system.

I appreciate Paradox's costs. I think wanting to make sure Paradox prospers is a great reason to buy their games. That doesn't mean that copying their games ought to be illegal, though. There are lots of examples (charities, libraries, etc.) of organizations that rely more heavily on some members of society than others. If I don't endow the wing of a museum, that doesn't make me a leech when I visit.

Paradox is a business, not a charity or library. They provide a product (Victoria) and offer it in free exchange to anyone willing to pay them for it. No one will die without Victoria, it is entirely a luxury good, everyone is free to decide if it is worth the $40. They are not free to download it without purchasing it.

Comapring Paradox to a charity or library is comparing apples to oranges.

 

[unmerged(13742)]

Originally posted by XieChengnuo
... pirating not only hurts the distributors at Strategy First and the others, but also hurts Paradox because they are receiving ZILCH for their efforts.

I think ZILCH is overstating it a bit, and I'm certainly in favor of the development staff getting regular meals. Paradox is an easy example of a game company that will thrive in a free-distribution market - they have a niche they fill with great product. Maybe I'm personalizing this assumption too much, but I have a hard time picturing somebody who might be interested in the sort of game Paradox makes, let alone be enthusiastic about it, who would also not see the benefit to them of making sure Paradox got paid for their efforts.

Originally posted by XieChengnuo
Red Dog 99, do you have a livelihood? If you do, then you can probably understand how frustrating it would be if somebody took credit for your work, or worse, was able to duplicate your work free of charge.

I think there's a big difference between copying and taking credit or charging for somebody else's work. The copying's not preventable, and it's silly to waste our time trying. it's a neutral transaction - no money changes hands, it doesn't cost the pirate anything, and they don't get any return, unless you count bragging rights. There's nothing there for the state to attach to. Once somebody tries to make money off someone else's work (or claim credit for it), that's a different matter.

 

[unmerged(13742)]

Originally posted by IEX Totalview
We seem to be at a disconnect. You go on and on about the reduced price of publishing a game. Copyright is not there to protect the publishers as much as the developers. Paradox needs its product protected to recoup the costs of developing it, not the costs of publishing it, as you seem to believe. To this extent, I fail to see what diminishing publishing costs have to do with the need to protect Paradox's work.

Sorry - when I said "publishers," I meant anyone who produces creative work, not "game publishers" as distinct from "game developers."

Originally posted by IEX Totalview No one is asking people by required to buy your widgets, they just want to require people who take your widgets to pay for them. Your example makes no sense.

By making copying games illegal when anyone can copy the game for free, we're creating a market for games, just like requiring everybody to buy widgets creates a market for my widgets. Maybe there's sufficient interest in games - or my widgets - to support their manufacture without the artificial market, but just because there might not be enough demand to keep all the manufacturers afloat isn't a very good reason to impose a market.

 

[unmerged(3423)]

So your argument is that it's okay for Paradox not to get paid for the use of their product, as long as no one else gets paid!

Brilliant!

Let me see if I can detect any tiny flaws in this idea.

1) If Paradox does not get paid, then the company makes less money. If the company makes too little money, they stop making games...... hmmm.... good or bad result.... oooh, tough to decide.

2) Software piracy is NOT a charitable hobby some people have. Software piracy is big business. There are organisations that do software piracy on a commercial scale, producing and selling thousands of CD-ROM's of pirated software (and movies and music too for that matter).
Where do these people get the software from - the developers or the pirates?

3) Depriving anyone of fair payment for work they have done is simply morally wrong. You do not have the right to judge whether or how much you should pay for a game - you only have the right to decide whether or not you pay the price asked by the supplier and have the game, or not pay and not have the game.
Any alternative is operating outside of the law.

 

[unmerged(13742)]

Originally posted by IEX Totalview
As someone pointed out, the communirt is free. All that is left is game box, manual and loyalty to Paradox. Sure, diehard fans would pay to reward Paradox, but they could never make the money needed to produce more games if their customers were on the honor system.

Maybe, maybe not. But since piracy isn't going away, they're already starting to find out.

Originally posted by IEX Totalview
Paradox is a business, not a charity or library. They provide a product (Victoria) and offer it in free exchange to anyone willing to pay them for it. No one will die without Victoria, it is entirely a luxury good, everyone is free to decide if it is worth the $40. They are not free to download it without purchasing it.

I assume you meant they "ought not to be allowed" to download it, because the fact that they can - with impunity - is what's driving this whole conversation.

Originally posted by IEX Totalview
Comapring Paradox to a charity or library is comparing apples to oranges.

My point was that Paradox - and every other producer of creative works - is like a library or charity only in that in a free-distribution environment, they all get different levels of support from the public.

 

[unmerged(17995)]

The missing part in Reddog's infomarxist analysis is that Paradox was not set up as a library or a charity and therefore cannot survive as such, and no one has any right to decide they should be one without their agreement.

As for his hocus-pocus economics on Paradox "making" a market, his arguments apply just as easily to the "invented" market for land, since, of course, there is a surplus of space relative to people. So, please, everyone, invite him into your home. There's room enough for all!

R.III

 

[unmerged(3423)]

>By making copying games illegal when anyone can copy the game for free, we're creating a market for games,<

Correct, because people and companies would not dedicate the necessary time and effort on making the game unless there is a financial return on doing so.

>Maybe there's sufficient interest in games - or my widgets - to support their manufacture without the artificial market,<

There are many people out there who enjoy writing game software sufficiently that they will do it without requiring payment. You can find these games by searching for.... FREEWARE and SHAREWARE.

Please compare the games available in these categories to what is produced by Paradox.

 

[unmerged(17995)]

And frankly, I didn't sign up here to have to listen to this kaka. To paraphrase Tony Blair on criminals from way back, "the place for these pirates is outside of society."

Get this guy off the forum. The forum is for people who pay their fair share and don't screw Paradox's shareholders and employees. If Red Dog believes Victoria "without the frills" should be free, well, this is a frill. Goodbye!

 

[unmerged(13742)]

Originally posted by Templar
1) If Paradox does not get paid, then the company makes less money. If the company makes too little money, they stop making games...... hmmm.... good or bad result.... oooh, tough to decide.

You're right - Paradox's continued existence is a great reason to buy their games.

Originally posted by Templar
2) Software piracy is NOT a charitable hobby some people have. Software piracy is big business. There are organisations that do software piracy on a commercial scale, producing and selling thousands of CD-ROM's of pirated software (and movies and music too for that matter).
Where do these people get the software from - the developers or the pirates?

Where a CD factory in Taipei gets their software from is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it ought to be illegal for copy a creative work. That problem's about the factory, not where their source came from.

Originally posted by Templar
3) Depriving anyone of fair payment for work they have done is simply morally wrong. You do not have the right to judge whether or how much you should pay for a game - you only have the right to decide whether or not you pay the price asked by the supplier and have the game, or not pay and not have the game.

I guess another way to state my point is that the definition of what's fair has changed. Anybody who's interested in a game these days has choices: buy it for the list price, or download it for free. The existence of those options doesn't make the choice between them somehow morally suspect.

 

[unmerged(17995)]

Originally posted by Red Dog 99
I think times have changed. Where once it took a significant commitment of resources for a reader to print (duplicate) a written work, it's now free. That fact has an immediate impact on the question of whether and to what extent copyright law ought to protect the creator or the publisher's investment.

And what of the author's work? And what if the author - for his own reasons - chooses to sell the copyright to a publisher as a means of compensating for the author's work? If that happens, what difference does it make - except in that its easier for people like you to demonize publishers?

 

[unmerged(17995)]

Originally posted by Red Dog 99
You're right - Paradox's continued existence is a great reason to buy their games.

Oh, so it all makes sense to you after all. It's just that when something is stolen, the low low price is an even better reason to pirate their games.

 

[IEX Totalview]

Originally posted by Red Dog 99
Sorry - when I said "publishers," I meant anyone who produces creative work, not "game publishers" as distinct from "game developers."

In that case, I fail to see how game developing costs have been decreasing. it wasn't that long ago games good be written by a couple guys, now, even a small company like Paradox has seperate graphics artists and several programmers.

If anything, copyright protection is needed now more than ever.

By making copying games illegal when anyone can copy the game for free, we're creating a market for games, just like requiring everybody to buy widgets creates a market for my widgets. Maybe there's sufficient interest in games - or my widgets - to support their manufacture without the artificial market, but just because there might not be enough demand to keep all the manufacturers afloat isn't a very good reason to impose a market.

See Templar's reply, he phrased it better than I could have.

 

[unmerged(13742)]

Originally posted by Rick III
The missing part in Reddog's infomarxist analysis is that Paradox was not set up as a library or a charity and therefore cannot survive as such, and no one has any right to decide they should be one without their agreement.

As for his hocus-pocus economics on Paradox "making" a market, his arguments apply just as easily to the "invented" market for land, since, of course, there is a surplus of space relative to people. So, please, everyone, invite him into your home. There's room enough for all!

R.III

In a sort of backward, drooling on your bib way, you hint at a good point, Rick. Copyright is nothing like property rights. Copyright's a relatively recent innovation; I'm sure there are folks more qualified than me to outline how deeply ingrained property rights are in our culture. Reassessing the balance between what creative works get put in the public domain and what's privately controlled ought to be a public discussion about what's in all our best interests, not just ceded to whoever holds sway currently.

 

[unmerged(3423)]

>And frankly, I didn't sign up here to have to listen to this kaka. To paraphrase Tony Blair on criminals from way back, "the place for these pirates is outside of society."<

I agree entirely. Unfortunately the 'ethic' that red dog espouses is an attractively convenient one for people to justify piracy of software, music or films. Although it is probably pointless to argue with these people, it is not good to let them have their say without rebuttal as it may convince others that piracy is acceptable behaviour.

The one correct point that red dog has made is that it is relatively easy to obtain pirate software. It is also very hard for the producers and publishers to enforce copyrights - I only see Microsoft really active in doing so.
Copy protection on software is (so far) an ineffective solution.

This leaves social disapproval as probably the most effective means of reducing or preventing piracy. Sadly, this will not deter those without conscience, or those who choose to ignore morality and fairness.

 

[unmerged(13742)]

Originally posted by Rick III
And frankly, I didn't sign up here to have to listen to this kaka. To paraphrase Tony Blair on criminals from way back, "the place for these pirates is outside of society."

Get this guy off the forum. The forum is for people who pay their fair share and don't screw Paradox's shareholders and employees. If Red Dog believes Victoria "without the frills" should be free, well, this is a frill. Goodbye!

I'm sure I can see why a free exchange of relevant ideas might be disturbing to you, Rick. And I do think it's interesting you brought up frills.