Search Results

The best Lazah Bear I could do...

Ninja wizards... like this?

Spoiler

That's what you said. 0.0

A lot of people forgot the original point of the game was to last only a few weeks. More subtley, it actually brought us closer together.

Secondly, someone should innovate a new game.

I still look like that. :)

K... I guess you trained me right.

First of all, we need to get rid of this silly color... *delete key* THERE!

Thanks. I must correct you tho. I am not truly infallible. I do my best to achieve such a status, and try to live by the highest moral standards, so your misconception is justfied. Although, admitedly my flaws are arrogance and love of competition, and in the realm of fiction, even violent competition.

Indeed, and they invest millions of dollars into our economic system with the clear basic understanding that thier creativity can in turn yield cash rewards. If such laws did not exist, I doubt any for profit entities, (fancy word for corporation) would ever make games.

*Looks at Samsung and Apple*
Ok... am I trying to find something specific? All I really see is a couple of major electronic corperations.

I expected such a counter arguement. I was going to cite real world examples once someone countered this. People I know from past experiences who know pirating is wrong, willingly admit so, but justify thier massive collection of roms and burned CD's with "Well, why pay for something I can get for free" attitude. But Chevalier pointed out that a major electronic corporations strategy failed in one country due to pirating reasons. In other words, we draw what opinions from what evidence we choose to see. I saw your evidence, and dismissed it with firsthand experience I seen in the past.

You overlooked the fact that its an agreement. It is either directly written, paraphrased, and mentioned on all forms of media, either in the data itself, or on the packaging. Including, videogames, music and commercially distributed software within the United States. I am sure other regions refference other law enforcement agencies. In other words, its a contractual obligation, that if you replicate thier software without thier permission, you are simply ignoring the terms you agreed to by consuming that said product, and they have the legal right to prosecute you. I doubt even the most liberal mind would consider a breach of a contract both parties agreed to ethical.

I did. You just expected a more detailed explaination. You got it.

I implied breach of contract, breakage of the law, and basically ripping off someone who put massive investment to bring you a product you would never be able to make without thier initial investment. In other words, you should be thanking them for thier creativity by honoring the terms you initially agreed to. You admit buying software in the past legally.

Nice people play by the rules setforth. How is it fair that someone pays $50, the other pays a few cents? Your sense of justice is slightly skewed if you truly believe that someone follows through on a contract, and you ignore the said contract, and you both get the same product, simply because you did not play by the rules?

The follow through on what you agree upon if your mentioned code of morals is so noble. NPD runs in my family, I have an excuse...

Here is where your thinking needs to be adjusted once again. Video games are luxury items. Music is a luxury item. Software is a luxury item. It is not a "right" to own such things. Truthfully, I believe anyone who cannot afford such items, should learn to go without such items. Perhaps our society has left you a tad bit spoiled by our modern highly luxurious society if you think such items are a necessity. Learn to live without. In past generations, and even in modern generations of less fortunate societies, many lack electricity, let alone electronic gadgets built to entertain us.

Please do not call me that anymore.

It seems like you are trying to justify it. Is stealing somehow morally sanctioned in your idealic society? If such hurtful non-violent practices such as stealing, fraud, elder financial abuse, statiatory rape, breach of contract, and similar crimes do not justify laws, then I shudder at your concept of utopia.

Are you denying a company the right to secure a large investment the best way they know how, including legislature? Thier investment is made under the assumption that it will be purchased ethically, legally, and copy ever to be played will in turn net a profit for them. As for the latter half of your arguement, thats what the marketing division is for. To ensure that every copy made, is sold eventually. Companies may take losses, that is undeniable, but what your doing is different than making them risk a loss. You seem to suggest no ethical consequence denying them the right to make any return on thier investment.

Including, but not limited to, legislature.

I mentioned above to Slaughtermatic, Chevs post is evidence to the contrary, as are some of my first hand experiences. Now, if you have more evidence to the contrary, please inform me. But I consider a simulation involving some hardcore number crunching much less scientific than an entire corperation not being able to establish a successful business model due to the pirating problem being so bad.

Its encoded into the disk itself more often than not. Especially in games and movies. Besides, benefiting from theft is also illegal, and carries a punishment in itself. Also, in addition to being a contract, its a law. We discussed laws earlier.

We discussed the reasons laws exist, and why this law itself exist. I can not make it any more clear.

I dissagree. If piracy continues, it will have major micro and macro economic consequences. People will lose income, not only in the electronic/music industry, but in the logistical, and commercial fields as well. If enough income is lost, jobs will in turn be lost. Given the already strained economic climate, loss of jobs throughout multiple industries, or worse a major industry, such as gaming, completly collapsing, would lead to a increase in poverty. Increase in poverty increases crime, including violent crime.
So, either way could result in violence, my arguement promotes honesty and integrity. I do. Especially if your way actually leads to the spread of the attitude, "I can ignore the laws if its to my benefit." Lets face it, thats the main reason many people pirate, because it benefits the pirate. Not because they dissagree with the right to intelectual property.

Look above you... Slaughtermatic.

Maybe I made an assumption, but I got from that was that people pay what they think a product is worth. So, if they think its worth nothing, they will not pay for it. Perhaps a large leap.

I use what tactics I have been exposed to."Strawman" tactics I did not see before, and I was uncomfortable with them being used upon me. I see no arguement being made here, only a complaint as to my debating style.

Then my original post would have been as long as this one. Due to time constraints, I could not do so. I could do this more often, but my replies will be slower. It depends on how I feel.

This post seems to promote the banning and enforcement of piracy. If there is no income for art, large capital cannot be raised to make games of the quality we have today. If this was the 8 bit era, a little innovation and a small budget could make great quality games, Activision proved this when they seperated from Atari. But this is not. Video game budgets are commonly in the millions, a very difficult capital ammount for the Indygaming industry. Some indygames are of good quality. But truthfully, if such an economic structure were turned on its head, we would never see major blockbusters, or sequals (love 'em or hate 'em) to such blockbusters. There would never be another Final Fantasy epic, nor another Call of Duty Modern Warfare award winner. Don't get me wrong, there would be good games, I've seen some impressive deep indygames. But games of "blockbuster quality" would become extreamly rare. Hardly keeping art alive. But rather, restricting it greatly.

You are advocating this? I doubt anyone woud truly starve, but a majority, a VAST MAJORITY, of highly skilled programmers would leave the industry and pursue other careers. The market will adjust, at the expense of gaming as a whole. Thus, art itself would suffer. Think of all the great innovators who did great things for profit. Is it unethical to profit for having great skill? If so, I wonder how music, art, and theater would have evolved. I do not think it would be great. Think of all the Davinci's, The Clash, and other great artist the world would miss out on.

And those people are noble, trusting, and very much in the minority. The Clash was a punk band btw... They advocated anarchy a lot. And decided to go into music solely to make money.

You'd put people out of work, and limit the art in the world just because you do not believe people who come up with innovation have the right to profit off it?

I do not see the logic in that. If innovation and creativity does not give a business a competitive edge, why do business at all?

How would you know? The contract was between them and Square. And what if the said person had a commodity that was essential to your very survival? Say, they sold food, and there was a famine. Would you starve, or comprimise your principles and resort to violence against them? Thinking in theoreticals is fun isn't it?

Because it is as of yet "not socially normal". Its basically understood, that you "get what you pay for". People feel guilty if they do not pay for something. Others however, dispite social norms, do so without any form of guilt. I hereby cite the classic "take one" scenario, where a child takes a fist full of candy. Some people do not outgrow it. I've seen it first hand. I've seen lots of things in customer service industry. Not all people are not as noble as you would like to think they are. Some are, some are not.
Whats more, I will pick on those who have a very "complient" moral opinion, who depend on others to tell them whats right and wrong. Such ones would satisfy thier own selfishness, and justify it with silly reasons such as "I don't make that much money" and the like if they had the impression there was no moral wrong to it.

Artist are at the mercy of public opinion, however, I highlight once again that games (and for the most part, electronics) are luxury items. It will not hurt you to go without them. Do not "leech" off the producers who invested millions of dollars bringing you a finished product, with the understanding that its illegal to take his property without compensating them for thier work...

Enforcing a legal contract is somehow more wrong than breaching it to you.
Some pay out of "defiance to the system" such as the role you seem to be stancing, others simply because they want to have the luxury, without paying for it. I do not have statistics on which is which outside of my first hand experience (people I talk to). And truthfully, I never met someone of the "defiance" category IRL. Ironically... I keep company with an anarchist, who is very open about "I just don't want to pay for it, and I will never get caught." Wait... you thought you were the first anarchist I met, didn't you?

People pay out of compulsion for what is "right". People like me pay. Others justify not paying for it for themselves. And truthfully, the rule itself is laxly enforced.
Think of the current loose enforcemet of the law as a "morality beta test". Where people live without fear of punishment. The fact that piracy exist, and has gotten to the point where corperations are vehemently trying to enforce such rules, occasionally even them themselves resorting to unethical means (Microsoft, WarnerBros,) and even silly (Sony) means to do so. Keep in mind, I never, EVER heard anyone say they will not pirate out of fear of punishment. In fact, as late as September 10, 2010, ten online Pirates being arrested is still newsworthy, meaning, hardly normal. Think of the current situation as proof of a failed morality beta test.

Noted.

I mentioned a number of reasons it does hurt people earlier within this post. The most notable are the developers, designers, and even misc. grunts who work for the gaming company. But I will also use this platform to note some others, the truckdriver who delivers it, the truckers 8 year old daughter, nice customer service representative who works at GameStop and winks at you when you walk in the door trying to put herself through college, her boss who is trying to save up to run his own business, the governement (love them or hate them, they lose tax revenue on it), the policeman who arrives when you call him to let him know you heard shots fired next door, the paramedic who arrives when your neighbor is screaming in agony, just to name a few. Granted, all indirect, and in very small scale. But yeah, you saving yourself a little bit of cash, had all those consequences, all because you did not follow the rules I do because you dissagree with them.

No, they willl not. But they are doing thier best to protect such an investment. Even if that means legislature.

I just did. I just did not want to spend this much time on it originally. But its fine, I got good music playing. And... my my... a personal attack? But why? I just stated my opinion.

Illegal activity is illegal. And for the aformentioned reasons, unethical and imoral in this case.
If such a hack happened, and you had a basic understanding of accounting, you would know the money came from somewhere. In macroeconimcs of the privatesector, money (and to a larger extent wealth) works the same way the laws of phyics work energy. It is never gained or lost, it mearly changes hands. So no, do not sue them. But your account will be debited, as soon as those crafty accountants (you do realize figuring out where money came from and went is a career) and you will be responsible if you withdraw it. Unless of course, the said hacker was depositing out of his own generosity, in which case, why hack? He could just deposit it.

But its more fun to tell you.

I guess you arn't a villain. *Upgrades you to anti-hero* Now some people will cheer for you. But you still steal on a small scale.

No... I debate because I believe my oponents has knowledge, but has somehow been mislead. At least in this case. I have acknowledge all points sent against me, and respectfully refute it.


One more things, since I apparently do not cite material, here we go:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/08/internet-piracy-crackdown_n_708933.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clash

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinchi

I doubt it... Unless its art school. Btw, I told styx you spoke highly of him, and I was dissapointed in his derep/ragepost.

There are very smart men who work for these corperations. In gaming, a majority of them VERY liberal. My big question is, if piracy is not bad,...

I don't understand how people can justify stealing. I mean, at least admit your doing wrong. I just felt bad for the innocent children being...

Ah... We meet again... this time in a moral battle:

I shall defuse the argument of the people who justify piracy. To start, I agree with mixt, piracy is a crime, it is illegal, and it does hurt people.

According to the arguments presented so far by people who are pro piracy:

1. No one is hurt by piracy. There is no loss.

2. Piracy, according to a study, is good for business.

3. There is no violation of any agreement.

4. Due to the the first three, there is no moral violation.

5. Games are not worth buying in the traditional sense, so I pirate.

Let me defuse this one at a time. Commencing orbital bombardment...

1. People do get hurt. Hours of work, and immense budgets. Certain blockbuster games have budgets over 200 Million dollars. That is a MAJOR loss to start off with. Anyone who makes an immense investment in a project of something "intangeble intellectual property" has every right to ensure that such assets are protected to the best ability possible.

2. This was the easiest to defuse. The article itself has its own fatal flaw. "analytical modeling". Analytical modeling is a math formula done in place of actual research. But no where in the article does it mention real world data. Yes... I do believe science is a powerful tool... but it can be defiled and misused. I do believe testing to do with morality and human tendancies should not be done with real people with all the intangibles, not some formula punched into a computer.

3. "Warning: The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to five years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000." - The FBI. 'Nuff said. They enforce it laxly, but "just because I know I won't get caught" is never a valid excuse for a crime.

4. I defused all three. There is a moral violation. Own up to the fact that your an intellectual property pirate and admit your not the good guy. Do not influence those who actually have a code of morals who dissagree with you. They are right.

5. Budgets in the millions are the reason they charge $50 a game nowadays. If you can make a better game, with a smaller budget, without stealing someones intellectual property, do it. You'll be a millionaire.

/discussion

I did not lose sleep over it. I was tense at that moment, but was not scared after the guy was taken to the hospital. I think he was ok. He was cussing at the cops over his arm hurting. Thanks for the concern.

This is exactly what happened. I talked to one of my neighbors till she left. The police showed pretty darn fast.

Because the cops and ambulance were there and had him completly surrounded within a minute after the incident happened... like before we went outside. *facepalm* if you want a timeline. I was watching tv, shots ring out, we call 911, emergency services has us on like for a couple minutes, police show up and surround the car (I assume rendering first aide), we get off the line with emergency services, we walk outside, I consoul one of my crying neighbors, mom does not see the puddle of blood and I escourt her back in. Ambulance shows up, as they are handling it the dude screams in agony. I get on my phone and post this thread, police stay there about an hourish. I go to sleep. I wake up.

Sforzato: mixts strategy is not to prevent piracy directly, but to allow media to be traded more freely, therefore eliminating the need for piracy. No need for piracy equals no piracy. Its an indirect way of stopping it. It would actually be completly effective.

I actually advocate a registry key strategy because it has less potential of taking major losses. The reason mixt strategy is s effective for indygaming, is the scale is so small, it takes a lot less capital to make an indygame. I doubt this wll scale well at all.

I was trying to save myself from writing a verbose how freedom of speech works.