Ya, ya; a lot of us yell pirating is wrong (even though some of us are hypocrites who have pirated stuff, you know who you are.) But, is it so wrong to pirate and use emulators for games that are 1. no longer being made or sold, and 2. games for console not even being made anymore?
"'Flogging a dead horse', (alternatively "beating a dead horse" in some parts of the Anglophone world) is an idiom that means a particular request or line of conversation is already foreclosed or otherwise resolved, and any attempt to continue it is futile."
Flogging a dead horse sounds so much better than beating a dead horse. Why would they even put that? It totally dilutes the awesomeness of your post, you should have just deleted that part.
I am not advocating piracy by any means but if we didn't have pirates who invented the printing presses we would all be less informed today. Gutenburg was a pirate. He took someone elses hard work and translations and mass produced them for the masses.
A library is a huge pirating centre. You don't pay for books but you read them and return them and the author gets nothing for his work or creativity. If it is a good story he gets exposure which helps him sell more copies of his books hopefully in the future.
While copyright holders fought libraries and the idea of renting in general, this is not entirely true. Libraries typically have legal copies of the products they are carrying for people to rent, not bootleg or illegal copies so the publisher was paid at least once or in some cases, the copies might have been donated from the source (publisher). A lot of libraries have personal donations but again, unless those books were taken out of the store under a trench coat, they were initially purchased.
Zehdon, flogging a dead horse would have worked if it had been your first post here, but it wasn't. Saying your piece and then trying to silence others afterwards, makes you hypocrite.
Telling people to stop posting about something while discussing it yourself makes you hypocrite.
I'm just curious: How is this a discussion? THe law is pretty clear on the facts here. If you didn't buy it, or someone did not buy a copy for you, then it is stolen. I've said what I believe to be right on the forst page, but there are people here actually arguing FOR piracy??? WTF??? If we don't buy the games, they will stop making them, because they won't be mamking a profit. You want new games coming out, well, you gotta pay for them.
Piracy, even the name itself, is a discussion. It is a very hot topic that businesses and consumers have been discussing for several years now. They're discussing with words, with policies, with laws, with lawsuits, with cases that are not open and shut and still working through the courts. You two act like you have some sort of magical knowledge everyoen else doesn't. You don't. Twilight's post has as much depth as a shallow pond. There might be some people who are advocating for piracy, but most the people discussing the issue that is piracy, are not. It's not just an act, its a society norm. It is well beyond simple theft, and if you two don't get that, then you should go work for Ubisoft. They've got pencil heads pushing bad policy there already and are probably looking for pats on the back.
I usually just sit back and let these topics go where they wish, but one thinkyou said that you don't get. You said "I believe", which makes what you said your own opinion, not fact and not a universal truth. The laws of men have been discussed, reviewed, and changed for thousands of years. Piracy is no different in this issue, secondly the fact games are still being made with the level of piracy we have this day and age coughchinacough, shows that piracy will not be the stopping point for games being made. Believing this is no differentthen believing that because guns are banned, people will stop killing each other.
Ok, I'll weigh in now.
You're not actually claiming to be informed about piracy and yet be completely unaware of the fact that certain industries are literally trying to ditch the term piracy and pirates right? What I said was to be taken literally. But please, don't stop on my account
Call them what you will, I really don't care. The rest of my post stands. And when you get done there, head back to Kryo's post, it's a hell of a lot more direct than my own.
You can stop drinking or sleep walking or whatever it is you are doing and try to read this properly. They, the industry that created the term, are trying to ditch the word piracy. That is P I R A C Y and the P I R A T E S that are associated with term piracy. As in the word, the words. WORD. That does not mean they are saying it's legal. Piracy and pirates has become a sexy term. It not like a phisher or a spammer or people that are generally hated by almost everyone. Pirates is too "cool" of a word to be used (not my opinion, just the fact). So let me try this one more time. You are obviously not aware of the fact that after a decade of failing at the mentality that you promote so well, the new tactic on the block is to rename the pirates. It is so refreshing to see you talk about something you know so little about. I guess this would make sense though since you like to lecture people and not discuss anything, because this isn't worth discussing right?
So let's recap. Your type of thinking, piracy is theft and that's that, has been at play for a better part of a decade. Let's see how did that work out for everyone? Let's see. Piracy is on the way out the door... no. Suing one out of tens of thousands every once awhile is creating a real sense of fear and .... errr wait, no. DRM is getting more effective and not punishing people who actually pay for their games... err this is a hit or miss but generally nope, customers are not being rewarded for their purchases and games are still cracked.
So let's go back to the reason why the people who thought it was a great idea to call it piracy, might be rethinking their steps shall we. What is a word exactly. In this case, it's cultural and it's backfired. It was meant to create one image and wound up creating another. So for them to even attempt to try and think about relabeling what we call pirates today, whether it works or not, is basically an admittance there is a social issue attached to the problem. Theft is still theft (and since you read so well enough to pick apart words you hate, I am sure you know that I have called it theft from the beginning), but there is something more to the problem when certain ages groups have more pirates than not pirates. There is a social norm at work here. An acceptance and a rejection of how software copyright is handled today. I really don't care if you agree with me or not, but I am not going to let you sit back and try to label anyone who discusses piracy as more than just theft as a pirate themselves and a waste of time.
And next time you have a question about what someone wrote, try using a question. Then again you would have to get off that high horse of yours and actually discuss something instead of lecture which might be a difficult task for you.
Ok, firstly before anyone calls me on it, now I'm being a hypocrite for discussing this issue after calling doing so beating a dead horse and calling Splitshadow out on it. So, Splitshadow - feel free to mock me as you will.
ummm I'm pretty sure that happened before pirating laws went into effect(like 500 years before) giving them ex post facto immunity.
Just to let the pirates know ...... the pirate bay ,isohunt and others lost in court and found to be stealing product and have been punished for it. And also its a riot to hear pirates using drm in their reasoning but then say that companies are trying to stop the word piracy... If that was true then drm and securom wouldn't exist.
I also like the argument... Everyone else is doing it so its ok. Heck there are people robbing banks and stealing cars every 10 minutes so I guess that s ok too.
p.s. not trying to say i'm abvove anyone. I was an offender back when cd burners were new but now have stopped...Got sick of not having inserts and cover art anyway. Not to mention I'm musician and have many musician friends trying to get their band off the ground and have seen first hand how much harder pirating makes things for these people.
Even if it did happen before pirating laws went into effect what they were doing then is the same as they are doing now. Taking somebody's intellectual property and mass producing it.
My point about a library isn't that they were lending stolen books to people. Or anything like that just that they buy a copy and can lend it to thousands of people. Which is against the EULA on most software. They usually say if you buy, only you may use on your computer and only may install a few times. After you have to pay royalities for the right to use the product you initally bought. That is wrong. Nevermind that a EULA says you have to abide by their restrictions. That is wrong.
If I buy a book I will lend it and have lended many books to people to introduce them to a good author or story. I am not going to pay a royalty to read it more than a few times either or have it only read in a certain room in my house.
Pirates are wrong. Any EULA which takes away rights from the purchaser and sets restrictions on them is wrong too. You can say don't use the program but most places if you open the box and start to install said program (which you must do to see the EULA) you can't return for a refund. That is wrong. What we need is an overhaul of the laws and systems in place. The pirates are wrong for taking programs and making them available for download and the companies are wrong for setting such tight restrictions. DRM's are wrong and just punish the people who buy the game, they don't stop any pirating.
If you buy a secondhand Ford car you don't have to pay Ford royalties. The person who originally bought the car did that. You can lend the car or give the car away if you like. Only difference is you can't mass produce them in your house or make them avaiable for anybody to produce.
Wrong. That's why it's called "copyright infringement" and not "theft".
Wrong. "Piracy" is a marketing term invented by book publishers to demean those who printed their own books. Using it in a serious discussion is akin to calling black people "niggers" when discussing racism: it may refer to the exact same body of people, but the connotations are *drastically* different and it just feels like a cheap ad hominem to anybody else who doesn't already agree with your line of thought.
Ad hominem and red herring.
Wrong. You're drawing a link between ethics and legality, and as anybody who's ever studied ethics can tell you, that's problematic on so many levels it's not even funny.
We're arguing whether copyright infringement in specific contexts is acceptable or not. Legality does not, should not, and *cannot* enter in such an argument. The reasons behind the adoption of copyright can, of course, but I already debunked them in the specific context at hand (copyright was born out of a desire to maximize the number of works in existence, maximization has been shown to occur at 15 years of protection, therefore any protection past that is ethically wrong).
In the minds of many: yes, and there is no inherent self-contradiction in believing as such so your counter-argument does not work.
It's not 'confusing' it, it's you oversimplifying it and, as such, failing to understand it properly.
Wait, so Zehdon, you're saying we should call them ninjas instead of pirates? I'd be OK with that.
Woo woo! All aboard the dictator ship!
Grats, you just killed any possible argument you may have provided with the word little.
Piracy is taking others people's work for free. There's no doubt about that. The reason some people see it as morally acceptable is because it causes no immediate harm. If you go hold up a liquor store, you're directly harming the owners of the store. If you pirate a CD of Elvis' greatest hits, you're depriving Elvis' great grandchildren of a few bucks. (They don't lose anything, the just don't gain anything) My example, of course, is just a best case scenario for piracy. It's much worse when people steal software that was made. The reason it is morally unacceptable is because if everyone did it, it would be problematic. (This is utilitarianism however, and you really can't solidify any moral argument unless you have a general moral consensus amongst the debaters)
whoa whoa, kill it with the black history crap right now. This is not about the become a racial discussion in any way form, or direction.
How dare you! We honorable ninjas never let our wrong doing be seen by public eyes; except in anime which by logic we screw the rules.
I think the copyright laws for music and art should be changed. If your father made a song, died, and then it made millions, the money shouldn't go to you. What did you do to earn it? Absolutely nothing. Art in general should no longer be copyrighted after its creator dies.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account