To save time...

[IEX Totalview]

Originally posted by Red Dog 99
Maybe, maybe not. But since piracy isn't going away, they're already starting to find out.

There is a difference between me paying Paradox for a game because it is the moral thing to do and paying for it because I want to support them. If I accept piracy is ethical, I only pay for the game if I feel I can afford it, whereas as it stands now I pay for the game because I want to play it. Common sense would tell you the latter generates more revenue.

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.

Of course. Anyone can generally do anything they wish, be it rape, murder or plunder, and there is little anyone can do to stop them, and sometimes punish them after the act. The focus of this conversation si the "oughts".

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.

Paradox is not a library or charity, it is a business. Once again, I support my local charity out of the goodness of my heart, when I feel I can afford it. I "support" Paradox by buying their games because I want to play them. The fact I can steal them without recourse has no effect on my decision of whether or not to purchase the game, since I don't consider stealing an option. This isn't because i want to be nice to Paradox, this is because theft is morally wrong.

 

[unmerged(17995)]

Originally posted by Red Dog 99
I'm sure I can see why a free exchange of relevant ideas might be disturbing to you, Rick.

On the contrary. I'm quite happy to see more and more of your ilk come out of the closet and make your extremely debatable ideas known.

And I, unlike you, believe that just as "freedom" isn't free, so too is it with ideas. Attack the system of copyright, and you attack the very system that makes it possible to hold thinkers accountable, assign credit, and ensure a healthy debate not just by those who own the press, but also by those who can subcontract to it.

Have a hunt through what happened in France during the revolution where they tried your brilliant ideas. Chaos, endless libel, the mass-publication of works in other people's name, and the destruction of any system of debate as we know it in favor of a stunted print industry that spewed out little else of worth but **** and left the ideas that made the revolution famous behind. The revolutionaries reacted by saying "whoops" and reinstating copyright. You're not a friend of free speech, my friend; you're a friend of free beer.

And anyway, this is a privately sponsored gamer's forum - for people who pay for games. It's not the barricades. If you want to stand up and debate, there are far better places to have it, and I'll let you talk all you want.

R.III

Speaking of free speech, the forum edited out the word p o r n, which I was using in a historical context...!

 

[unmerged(13742)]

Originally posted by Templar
>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.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I bought HOI & E2, and I'm looking forward to buying Victoria when it actually arrives. I think Paradox is a great company, and I'm pleased to support their work. I like this community, and it's fervor. I'm even sympathetic to the folks on these boards who feel strongly that there's a moral component to copyright violations, even if they get a bit evangelical about it from time to time.

None of that changes the fact that copying software is easy, free and unstoppable. I draw two conclusions from that observation: 1) we should rethink the way we've set up our copyright laws, and 2) if we try to legislate stuff we can't prevent out of existence, we're just going to make ourselves look silly.

 

[IEX Totalview]

Rick III:

I'm not trying to play mod here, but I really don't want this thread locked again. If you think someone should be banned (which is a call I am never comfortable in making), try sending a mod a PM instead of posting it publicly.

 

[unmerged(3423)]

>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.<

The concept of intellectual property has been developed over a long time. Copyrights and patent rights are key factors in the accelerating development of technological progress. It allows people to dedicate time to new developments as they are assured that they will receive a return on that investment.

If you strip away these rights, then research and development become cost burdens with no return, as you can simply copy someone else's work or innovation with little or no cost, and produce and sell material at a lower price as you do not have to repay development costs.

From another of your posts:
>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.<

Actually it is highly relevant. Your argument is that you are not obligated to get a product (Victoria in this case) from the original manufacturer - paying them for it.
Whether you get your illegal copy from downloading from the net, or from buying a pirated CD does not matter in more than minor degree. For people with your attitude it is only a matter of which method is more convenient for you.

The problem is not about the factory, or the source - the problem is people who feel that they can use the result of other people's work without paying for it, and against their wishes.

 

[unmerged(13742)]

Originally posted by Rick III
On the contrary. I'm quite happy to see more and more of your ilk come out of the closet and make your extremely debatable ideas known.

And I, unlike you, believe that just as "freedom" isn't free, so too is it with ideas. ...

Rick, our correspondence is getting better and better. Not only did you use the word "ilk" in a sentence, but you worked in p o r n, coming out of the closet, and Marie Antoinnete. I can't help but wonder what a bustier might do for you.

Jocularity - and free beer - aside, it seems to me that ideas are the only thing that really are free.

 

[unmerged(17995)]

Noted, Totalview.

Originally posted by Red Dog 99
None of that changes the fact that copying software is easy, free and unstoppable. I draw two conclusions from that observation: 1) we should rethink the way we've set up our copyright laws, and 2) if we try to legislate stuff we can't prevent out of existence, we're just going to make ourselves look silly.

A lot of folks seem to be getting killed with pistols up here in Canada; used to be that guns weren't used in murders at all. It's an enforcement problem, and a prevention problem, not a legal problem. Changing tech, same crime.

No, laws exist to manage technology, resources, and life around us. We are not prisoners of technology. We have a moral code; just because an act is possible does not mean it is desirable or necessary. It is in the nature of laws and legislation that most of it can't be enforced, and if you think otherwise, you haven't been looking at a lot of legislation lately.

The point is, "society" consists of people who choose to live by the rules, and piracy is the deliberate act of saying "I care more about me than I do the rules," which is particularly upsetting given that the purpose of these rules, when they were created, was explicitly to make it possible for the weakest parts of the knowledge economy to actually have rights, participate, and eat as well as the strong.

R.III

 

[unmerged(17995)]

Originally posted by Red Dog 99
Jocularity - and free beer - aside, it seems to me that ideas are the only thing that really are free.

And on the contrary: who can spare time for ideas if they can't spare change for food?

I'll rush down to the costume shop right now for that bustier.

 

[unmerged(3423)]

>None of that changes the fact that copying software is easy, free and unstoppable. I draw two conclusions from that observation: 1) we should rethink the way we've set up our copyright laws, and 2) if we try to legislate stuff we can't prevent out of existence, we're just going to make ourselves look silly.<

And software piracy may cause companies to fail, and people to lose their jobs...

I could paraphrase your arguments in almost infinite ways:

Driving above the speed limit is easy, free and unstoppable. I draw two conclusions from that observation: 1) we should rethink the way we've set up our speeding laws, and 2) if we try to legislate stuff we can't prevent out of existence, we're just going to make ourselves look silly.

and people die in car accidents.....

or:

drug abuse is easy and unstoppable. I draw two conclusions from that observation: 1) we should rethink the way we've set up our drug laws, and 2) if we try to legislate stuff we can't prevent out of existence, we're just going to make ourselves look silly.

and so on.

Laws are designed to prevent people from doing activities that society deems unacceptable. If you disagree with the law, you are entitled to try and get it changed, you are not entitled to break it.

 

[Dark Knight]

Sigh...

http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47436