Sorry your browser is not supported!

Nope, the issue is that human beings have had to create copyrights in the first place or all the other human beings would turn into mere animals and run away with your junk, stopping you from producing new junk in the future because you just starved to death in a ditch somewhere.

Human beings and animals are opportunistic, most if they see a chance to take something without consequence will simply do it. That\'s human instinct. That\'s why piracy is so rampant, and why it\'s so easy to justify to themselves.

As an intelligent species (when operating collectively (sometimes)) we\'ve decided that the useful members of society shouldn\'t be left to die in a ditch somewhere because a bunch of non-producing society members took their stuff without compensation. It doesn\'t benefit society. If you take my stuff, I can\'t create jobs in the future, the government can\'t take taxes off me. Society as a whole is negatively affected.

So now we have two forces in the world. Individual human beings, and the social framework they exist within, often without understanding that nature and reason of that framework.

Society is the line between acting in an animistic way by punishing the creative individuals, for well... creating! Or rewarding those individuals so they can go on and produce bigger and better stuff in the future. Who will pay higher taxes, and offer other human beings work so they can pay their taxes.

So in conclusion, society is the cure for ignorance. This is why copyright law exists. It's also why law dictates that ignorance of the law is the fault of the individual not the law itself. By doing this now one can stand up in court and say "I didn't realist repeatedly stabbing someone in the neck with an icepick was illegal." This same logic also means you can't stand in court and say "I didn't realise violating this guys copyright was illegal."



Just because it's done doesn't make it ok. Library's exist for you to freely read books. But on the same score the author is compensated because the library system pays for a special license to do so.



Very few users have actually paid for mIRC, WinRAR, WinZip, and other freeware/ shareware/ nagware products.

I know this because I've asked in the past in a room full of mIRC users. "Ok who is using a registered copy." I can easily be the only guy in there who has one.

Arrgh, backslashes!

Well that's mighty contradiction! You've just shown that human behaviour is entirely malleable.


Or more accurately: groups of individuals either cooperate, coexist or compete. Which supports what I was saying about the nature of "piracy", users are being made to believe they are part of a separate group from the developers, therefore they don't feel bad about taking from them without compensation. It is pure tribal mentality.


This is ignoring a lot of factors. The cultural "tribal mentality" that I mentioned above unfortunately has an impact on free software too, people feel less inclined to pay because they associate free software developers with proprietary software developers. This is something that will take time to change, I'm sure Bay12 would make a lot more money if free software were the cultural norm, but we've already seen that it is viable today even if it is not as profitable as proprietary. There will be fewer and fewer people who use free software purely to avoid paying if the free software movement continues to grow.
Another factor is that the percentage of users who pay is irrelevant. I don't own photoshop so I'm not going to make an account on the photoshop forums to post "Hey, I didn't pay for photoshop." Whether or not I use the software is irrelevant, it is digital software, it doesn't matter how many people are using it at once and there are no production costs for additional copies.

Obese87 please don't paraphrase, quote fully or not at all. That first quote isn't accurate at all, you've mixed two separate paragraphs.



That's wrong in my view. My competition is other tutorial makers, not the pirates. They are not creating anything, they are redistributing pre-existing materials without author permission.

Tribal mentality doesn't apply, it's a bloke or maybe a couple of friends sitting at a computer downloading stuff. This is individualistic behaviour. They are alone, and they feel they can't get caught, or at best are unlikely to be caught. There maybe a few situations where someone is persuaded to illegally download for a group of friends. But these days piracy is so easy that anyone can do it with a google search, or as I like to call it.

Googlebay.

As for bay12, there is a direct correlation between the quality of free software, and paid for software epically in games. You can argue about playability which games like minecraft have in bucket loads vs graphics. But the fact is to get top end graphics you need professional artists and developers.

Lets look at some free software vs paid.

LibreOffice vs Microsoft Office 2013

I used libreoffice for many years, recently I moved over the microsoft office 2013... I'm not going back. The interface is better, the support is better, and frankly it just produces much nicer documents with much less fuss. And that's just writer, access is superior, as is excel and powerpoint.

Linux vs Windows.

Lets face it, I use linux for my servers, my raspberry pi, but I don't use it for my desktop. It lacks good software, windows interface is better, and it's easier to work with. My speed issues vanished as soon as I went SSD.

2013 Open Source games vs 2013 Paid for games

Take a look at flightgear, graphically it doesn't come close to xplane or microsoft flight simulator 2010, Simutrans isn't bad but it still looks like it's 4 years old. Dungon Crawl stone looks like ascii had a bad kebab. Unknown horizons looks good but still at least 5 years old.

FOSS games are slow to develop, lack the resources to wow, and often the game play is terrible. There are some exceptions, but not many. In fact some of the best open source games were previously older commercial engines. Quake 3 for example.



Err, yeah that's the whole point. If you do a whois on people on IRC you can usually see the client that user has logged in with. Try it yourself, then try asking them if they paid for it.

As for no production costs for digital copies that's absoutely pure nonsense. As soon as you buy a peice of software, what's the first thing you expect?

UPDATES! BUGFIXES! SUPPORT!

Those are on going costs, each and every single one. My book is being written to include iOS and Mac OS instructions. Those instructions cost me nearly £1000, including Mac Mini, iPad Mini, and developer accounts. £350 of that was from donations, the other £650 came from a completely desperate project. The book's accutal earnings have gone on small things like electricity, rent, etc.

So please don't sit there telling that digital copies don't cost me anything. 1 copy costs me £3.20, 2 copies cost me £6.40, 10 costs me £32, 100 cost me £320. It mounts up. Every single person who uses that book without paying for it as denied me what little profit margin I might have made.

Honestly, you're on a game making forum, I'm suprised you can say anything like that. Anyone who's tried to make a game here has almost certainly spent money on DarkBASIC, AppGameKit, model packs, FPSC, whatever. Every second that person spends writing their game, is time they could have spent getting an hourly wage.

It is wrong actually, it should be, "Individuals either cooperate or compete."
They don't have to make programming tutorials in order to compete with you, any activity that benefits one party and not the other is competition.


There's the tribal mentality right there: "It's okay, everyone does it."

Comparing software preferences is a moot point. LibreOffice does everything I need it to do and more, it even has several features that Word lacks, such as the ability to export .pdf files (maybe it can do this now? I don't know), and because it is libre software anyone can write extensions for it to perform custom tasks. Citing any proprietary functional software (that is used to produce work) is foolish because libre software is inherently superior in that it can be modified by anyone to cater to their needs.
Games, I'll give you that one, in the graphics department at least, you certainly don't see anything close to proprietary games from free software games. However, there are some great games out there. I highly recommend Battle for Wesnoth, it's the best turn-based strategy game I've ever played. There's even a version for smart-phones.


I'm sure there are a lot who don't pay, but what additional cost is incurred because of that?


With free software the community can handle those things themselves.

I understand your concerns about making enough money from the work you've put in but it sounds a bit like you're keeping your seeds in a box afraid to plant them in case you lose them. I think trying to combat piracy head on is only going to hurt you in the long run. I'm sure there are better ways to deal with the issue that doesn't put up walls, and provides you with an income at the same time.

The loss is one of earnings. That user is using software, books, videos, whatever. He she has benefited from the use of that product, but I have not benefited from them using that product. So the loss is whatever margin of profit would have had, had they paid me.

There's more than one way to steal from someone. After all, if you camp outside someone's letter box waiting for a money to arrive in their post. Then technically you can argue that the person is no worse off if you steal it because it's money they never received.

You can take things at face value, or you can ask.

"What would have happened if he had received that money?" Instead of saying "You never had the money so no harm was done to you."

Well in my case I'm probably get a new cooker for starters!

Now lets look beyond piracy and look at another very famous author who didn't receive his money.

Tetris

In 1984, Alexey Pajitnov was working as a programmer at the Russian Academy of Science, a research and development center. His field was artificial intelligence.

Purely to amuse himself he created the falling-block game Tetris over the course of just a couple of weeks. Everybody in the office got addicted to it and over the next few years deals were made to sell the game abroad.

It has since sold more than 70-million copies, earned a couple of billion dollars in revenue and is available on nearly every single video game-playing device in the world.

Pajitnov's superiors did make him a deal, they would help him get the game published in the West, and they would keep the money. The Soviet government did graciously say that after 10 years they would revisit the issue and maybe see about sending him some of the cash, but long before that deadline was reached, the Soviet government itself collapsed.

This story does sort of have a happy ending. Pajitnov did manage to secure the rights to Tetris in 2004. Twenty years and countless millions in missed royalties later.

Sound familiar in any way? Guy created a sensational game that went down in the history books. The Russian government takes it from him and lands all the loot (bit like pirate bay making a mint of advertising while giving away everyone else's products).

Now you have to ask yourself, what could this man have done with the funding of tetris? What business could he have built, what other games might he have designed. What advances in artificial intelligence might have come around? Have we missed out on a game even more addictive then tetris? Perhaps he would have gone onto making someone even more ground breaking.

The trouble is we will never know.

The other question is, what did the Soviate union do with this money?

Another question is. what is pirate bay, or the other networks doing with this money? Are they putting it into creative projects? Are they aiming to innovate and invent in the world. Or are they simply putting it all into legal fees, paying themselves off?

Because I promise you, I have loads of ideas. I've got a 9 book fiction series planned, and a series after that. To get those written and selling I need money to get them proof read. With enough capital I could knock out a book every six months, and in the process I would create employment for others. I would generate tax for the government. I could advertise the work myself.

Besides that I've got books in the pipline for Raspberry Pi, AppGameKit, DarkBASIC Pro, C, and even other products.

If I had the cash I'd throw 25 grand at The Game Creators and get Windows Mobile 8 implemented. I'd help fund other projects on these forums.

But while people are not paying for my work, I can't begin to create other revenue generating projects. I can't help myself, and I can't help the people around me.

As for the pirates, however many there are. For the sake of saving themselves a few quid they stiffle creators who can innovate. Not just me, there's better people around than me, and they are affected by this as well.

So please stop looking at what you believe to be obvious and dig a little deeper. Take a look at the possibilities. Ask yourself, what could I be denying myself?



Then you've not been reading the same posts I have. I'm not afraid to plant seeds. I just don't have enough soil to let them all sprout.

More importantly, I don't have enough soil to give to anyone else so theirs might sprout. I don't care about money, I care about having the resources to do the projects I feel would befit myself, and those around me.

Anyone? you mean the small percentage of the user base with suitable programming experience.

Fair point Kevin, I use office to write documents. Usually with a deadline attached. The least thing I need to do is write a softwares codebase when I'm trying to knock out 4000 words.

Well that's hardly fair. Surely libreoffice is up to the task of a 4000 word doc.

Aren't you afraid someone might steal your posts? In the time you've taken to try to get your points across to us you could have surely contributed to any number of projects or written up a couple thousand words for your document.

Consider the time that everyone here is voluntarily giving away to try to make their point. Think of all the people who view the conversations and don't pay (with a post in response). Do we only draw the line when money is involved? I don't think so. I would give a fruit to a friend, or another human being, who is simply hungry. They could die right after that and never contribute anything for the contribution I gave to them. This does not harm me or take anything away. So clearly the line is not there... I'm sure most of us have done gratis projects. We're not harmed by someone taking them and using them for their own purposes ... because we don't say we want money from them? So it must be when we put effort into a project and then say "we want to be paid for this effort." That seems odd. It sounds like it devalues the project itself. (And I'd argue that it does, but this is not the thread for that argument.)

So let me skip forward to paid for projects. Yes. The content creator surviving is important. You still have the Internet, and a cat (though if the cat is starving I'd recommend asking for some help; you're okay with others asking you for help, so you should also be okay with asking for help--no double-standard then)...

Let's say you've spent a bunch of time making one of these: . Great! Now let's assume you've got a duplicator that has practically zero cost to run. So now you can have these: (24). Excellent! Now a pirate somewhere takes time to buy your content. But, then he makes his own duplicator. He spends additional time and effort to try to remove this odd thing called "DRM." It stands to reason that, having spent all this time on removing the project that he might want to sell it so he can get paid for the work he's done. Surely if he does this then he's diverting sales to himself. He would then be profiting on both your own work, and his. Of course, he might just release the part that removes the DRM, but that rarely happens in practice. (Though I would much prefer that solution!) But wait, he doesn't do any of that that. What does he do? Releases it, gratis. He has this duplicator that duplicates it almost exactly. The difference is that one version has DRM and the other version doesn't. The version he's distributing looks almost identical to your version, but is more practical for the end-user. The DRM-conscious end-user decides then to download the DRM-free version the only way they're aware of; through piracy. The pirate actually did a service to the end-user that, even if you may have been willing to do, did not. The pirate might even say, as many pirates do, "if you like this, please support the creator." So, he paid for your content, made it work the way millions of users would prefer for it to work, and then advertised to you. But he's still morally wrong because he... stole potential sales? It has to be potential sales because look at this, not only did the pirate not actually remove from any of your copies of the content, but you still have the ability to make twice (or any other number of times) as many copies of the content as you had before. You've still got all these: (24). But, you could have had one of these if just one or two more people bought your project. The fact of the matter is though, you might have had even less sales because of a lack of piracy. Sure, it could've gone the other way, but as you said, you can't prove that. Being a rational person, I prefer to use empirical evidence when I analyze such matters for myself. But we're not relying on empirical evidence here, are we? We're all just doing "what if." We don't know.

So, let's assume it's the worst (realistic) case. Let's say you've got this content: . Only one person buys it. That person then breaks the DRM and distributes the DRM free version. Thousands of other people get the DRM free version. Here's my analysis on that:
(1) The audience you're selling to is out of money.
(2) Your product isn't good enough to gather sales on its own.
(3) You don't have enough advertisement.
(4) Your product is too expensive.
(5) People don't like DRM being enforced. (As is evidenced by Xbox One and the efforts done to petition against Digital Restrictions Management in HTML5.)

Solutions:
(1) Refactor your product so it matches the type of audience you can make a profit from.
(2) Improve your product.
(3) Get more advertisement (there are gratis methods of doing so; even just asking for reviews or giving gratis copies away to some bloggers can do this).
(4) Reduce the price of your product.
(5) Remove DRM.

All of that, with the exception of point 5, is common business sense. If you can't do any of that (and I refuse to believe that none of those options are viable) then chances are your product just shouldn't be a paid-for system.

A lot of anti-piracy tactics just hurt the end-user as outlined in my prior posts. Taking time away from them (and by the way, you can't get time back like you can money).


According to Wikipedia, after Tetris, he went on to make (or work on):
Welltris
Faces
Hatris
Knight Move
Wordtris
El-Fish
Wild Snake
Knight Moves
Ice & Fire
Tetrisphere
Microsoft Entertainment Pack: The Puzzle Collection
Microsoft Pandora's Box
(all of the above was BEFORE the year 2000).
AFTER he got the rights to Tetris in 2004, according to you, he didn't make anything even remotely related to Tetris. Actually, his involvement in the industry slowed down. After 2004 he only made four relatively small games:
Hexic HD
Dwice
Hexic 2
(five year pause)
Marbly (released just this year)

And actually, it seems that for all of these games he's only the "Original concept" guy or a designer.

He seems to be well-off and the evidence suggest he's been that way ever since Tetris.


Yes, anyone. Programming isn't hard. Anyone can be a programmer. It sure took a lot of time to figure out how to read! Man, this logic stuff sure is difficult. Sure, implementing a complex feature out the door is going to be too big of a task for a first time programmer, but at least then they'll have something they can do. A lot of people are just too apathetic to do anything. Even this children's cartoon has it right: The two most important things are freedom and peace of mind. And as Benjamin Franklin said (paraphrased), "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both." In this case, "security" can be interpreted as convenience -- the security of not dealing with difficulty.

VLC got £47,056 to implement support for Windows 8. That's hard evidence of a free software project getting non-restricted funds for the task they wanted to do. (I feel this is more relevant in the other thread, but the quote was mentioned here, so I'll respond here.) Average Joe has options for getting what he wants done. People don't realize this. You can vote with your wallets. Or you can contribute the code straight-up. There's even a game engine that's completely gratis but the developers still make money by people sponsoring development of certain features. The most funded features get put in first. These models are acceptable, and do work. This does apply for content creation as well.

----------------

It is not the job of an open Internet to implement mechanisms for restrictions. If you allow these travesties of "security" to take place, you are sacrificing your own liberty and imposing on millions of users beyond the content you produce. You are in effect infecting not just your customers, but also yourself, your family, your friends and neighbors, and generations of people to come. If you insist on using this restriction technology, do so with existing mechanisms and be sure to let your users know you don't trust them.

That may sound harsh, but that's truly what is happening.

Many times. That's when I've gone and bought my own copy.

I think that if there is a way to completely control peoples content, then it will ultimately make content more affordable. So I am for it.

The only issue that I have ever had with DRM was buying Skyrim on a disk and having to connect to the internet to play it(fair enough), only to be forced to install a multiple gigabyte update which more than doubled the cost of my game simply through internet data charges. That had me pretty dark on Bethestar and steam.

I think that Hardware products should work with minimal data exchange with the online DRM.

Copying software isn't the same as stealing revenue. You could apply the same scenario to a free software developer. It's more like a busker playing music on the street, not everyone puts money in the hat but is that a loss of income?


I agree. There are "pirates" who genuinely have the mentality of thieves, but that's no reason to treat others who share and help each other as criminals. That popularises the idea that taking without paying is a form of protest against creators, instead of a way of allowing everyone to share information, even those who cannot afford to pay.
It always annoys me when people get a humble bundle and say, "I got all this for $1! Haha suckers!", they are abusing the system because they don't understand that it is designed to let as many people play as possible while supporting the industry, they've been taught that buying as cheap as possible is the best thing to do regardless of what they could afford. That selfish attitude can only be tackled by creating a culture of sharing; building higher walls to keep the pirates out is only going to make them more determined to climb in and steal your stuff.


If someone lacks the skills to write their own extensions they could pay someone else to do it. Paying for an extension to pre-existing software is a hell of a lot cheaper than having to start from scratch because you can't edit the proprietary software you're using.

That's a poor comparison. The street performer goes into it, knowing that people are going to come, listen for free and not pay. That would be more comparable to shareware; try it out, and donate if you want to.

Copying software that you don't need (ie., to live and breathe), is absolutely stealing. All you guys are doing here is playing the semantics game. You can color it how you want all day long; it's still going to be taking something that you did nothing to get. The guys inside the prison say it all the time: "I'm gonna get what's mine". They did NOTHING to earn it; but still feel entitled to it for some reason. They don't even need it; they just want it. You don't need any game to survive, or even have a pleasant life.

If you're all about freeware....then go use the freeware/open source programs. Simple. There is a small category of people out there who will donate regularly to an endeavor. The rest will either leech off the contributions of the others, or ignore it completely.

I'd call this a circular argument; but it's not event that. It's people trying to justify stealing...plain and simple. I keep hearing that artists should get something in return for their work; but then they should release it all for free after a certain time is passed. Why is that? Because you said so? Give me a break. Who are you, to determine how much someone should make from their work, before "giving it away for nothing"? It's not your work; it isn't your (or anyone else's) decision on what they do with it. Don't like it...too bad. Don't like the attitude...too bad. I'm getting real tired of the "everything should be free, or low-priced" attitude. Just because you can't afford something; doesn't mean it should be low-priced or free. If you don't have the money, I suggest you go get a job. Mow some lawns, do some housework, put in an app at McDonalds, etc. You could also use all the freeware/open source progies out there to generate enough income, to then buy the programs you really want to have.

But stop trying to tell other people that they should work for an amount YOU deem to be enough...or for free.

As far as DRM goes; it has it's place. But draconian DRM that makes paying customers jump through hoops, isn't the way to go either. I know that anything I make, and put up for sale is going to be pirated; it's just the cost of doing business. I also agree that having your work pirated gets it noticed, more than not. If someone pirates my game (not that I condone it), I would hope they would at least give it a good review. Personally; I wouldn't punish my customers with idiotic measures to secure it. I'd rather send them the password: ABCD1234. Then be done with it. The only "limits" being that you can only place it on your own computers (no matter how many they are). That's about it. I don't have the time, or resources, to create some massive DRM system that will be cracked within a day anyways.

Adobe's CC system was cracked the very day it was released. Blasting apart one of their supposed "reasons" for going the subscription/online route.

I accept that piracy is going to happen (by the way, pirates did actually "steal" things; you can call them "Sea Thieves", if it makes you feel better); but I'm not going to sit here and try to justify it. It's wrong, end of story. Anything else is just semantics.

If you take something that doesn't belong to you, you're a thief. Doesn't matter what your reasoning is, or your circumstances are. It doesn't even matter if you make a copy of it and return the original. Or sit there in front of the original without permission and make a direct copy. It doesn't even matter if you make a copy from a copy from a copy.

It's all theft. Anything else is just making an excuse to justify it.



You can not bring around global change, individual upbringings bring about individual mentalities.

This leaves creators with two options, and lets face it. As with everything in the world neither work very well.

First you accept piracy and give up on tackling the problem, you suffer the reduced revenue while generating a deep cynicism for life and the people in it. Feeling mild bitterness every-time you're unable to pay the latest bill.

Secondly you attempt to at least put up some kind of defiant defence against these people only to inevitably lose in the long or short runs. As a consequence you may lose some customers who can't handle DRM for X reason, but at the same time you may gain some customers because causal theft isn't quite as easy as it was before.

The problem with piracy is "how do you analyse it?" and how do you process that data? How do you gage how much revenue has been lost. Would these people have paid for it if pirated versions were not available? How many customers is DRM driving away, and how many customers is it forcing to come to you?

I for one at least want the option of DRM if I decide I need to implement it. I don't want a bunch of people telling me that I have to release unprotected content into the wild.

People can sit there and talk about their freedoms. But the simple fact is that in order to give freedom to one group (the group who don't want DRM at all under any circumstances for HTML5 content) you must take away the freedom from content creators (the guys who don't much like the idea of their stuff being used without getting paid for it).

So ultimately the guys in charge want a single unified standard that can be applied to all web browsers. It's the big content providers like netflix, blinkbox, and all the other streaming content providers that want DRM most of all because they are targeted the most. In order to secure contracts for TV series, movies, etc they have to demonstrate to the content creators that they can offer a decent amount of protection. This simply makes HTML5 in it's present state an unreliable option.

So if you want to cripple HTML5 long term penetration into the market, then by all means sign the petition. But if you want to see HTML5 evolve, expand and become adopted by all the big players then think twice.

I very nearly wrote something that would earn me a slap here. That attitude is despicable and disturbingly ignorant, it's the same as billionaires who claim that poor people are just lazy.
"Let them eat cake."


The difference between selfish taking, and sharing has already been discussed.


I might have come across as supporting piracy but I don't. I'm just trying to state the case that giving permission to copy is a good thing. I talked positively about certain types of software pirates because they do actually support the creators, they are not just out to take "what's theirs", as Keith said, and in a system of sharing these people would become valued members, not seem as criminals. I do not, however, support copying without permission.

Giving permission to copy is the right of the content creator. I have no problem with anyone who wants to give away their time and effort. I have no problem with FOSS business models, or lack thereof.

What I object to is every pirate telling me that just because I don't produce FOSS and freeware products (you know apart from the free 8 hour DarkPRINCIPLES course, and additional 169 videos) they have the right to my products through illegal means. That's what every pirate who grabs my software is saying. Again their justification for it doesn't matter. I reserve the right to try and protect myself against such things and I'm not going to be told by such people that I shouldn't have the option to try and do just that.

I value my customers, they've shown loyalty, they have paid for my support and I will be as fair to them as I possibly can be. But the more people abuse that fairness the less inclined I will be to give it.

Sure buddy. I'm arguing a case for billionaires. I never said poor people are lazy; now you're trying to put words in my mouth. I'm saying (again) that people do not NEED a game/program in order to survive/live. Therefore, they don't NEED to steal it. Therefore, any form of taking said program, is stealing.

As far as being "despicable and disturbingly ignorant"; I could say the same about you all day...bud. As far as "earning a slap"; you've been on the precipice of getting more than that several times here. We've been lenient. That leniency is done now (from myself at least).

Don't get defensive because you're trying to prove that stealing is justified and others (people who are being stolen from) won't agree. As for making copies....

We obviously disagree on certain things, but I'm fine with that, I've even asked specifically for your opinion on another thread because you have a different experience to me. That is what discussion forums are about.

This has been one of the most interesting discussions I've had on the forum for a long time, and of course it is occasionally going to get heated because people have strong views, but I don't see any evidence of personal animosity. If my "despicable and disturbingly ignorant" comment offended you then I apologise, I probably should have toned that down a bit, but waving around the ban hammer for that seems a bit over-the-top too.



Implying that the only reason people have no money is they can't be bothered to work.


In a world where computing is becoming ever more dominant there are fewer and fewer jobs that do not require some form of computer literacy. There are growing industries that even require experience with specific software, much of which is proprietary. So I'd say that software is becoming a matter of life and death because if you don't have access to gaining these skills your chances of earning a living are severely affected.


I am not trying to justify stealing. My previous post should clarify that.

Unless they're physically incapacitated, then they'll need to work if they want to actually survive in this World. There's no getting around it. The alternative is to lap off the tax-payer's pool. What other reason is there?



If it offended me? I have to take crap at work all the time. I don't have to take it here. I don't "wave around the ban hammer" flippantly here. If it's brought up, it's because you've earned it. I give everyone here some leeway now and then (except for gross, over-the-top members, such as N2K). At some point in time, that leeway is gone.

There are NUMEROUS jobs out there, that don't require an extensive knowledge of Battlefield 3, Warcraft, of DBPro. That's not an excuse.

That's not what I was saying. The majority of poor people are in employment or seeking employment. It's a very small minority who choose not to work. They might well exploit a system of sharing and contribute nothing to society, or maybe it will give them access to opportunities they didn't have before and inspire them to make a career for themselves. I don't know and that's going off on a major tangent, but yes there are going to be people who leech off others and give nothing in return (directly or indirectly by "paying it forward") I don't think we can do anything about those people except encourage them to contribute. Denying resources to those who will contribute to society to police the few who will exploit it seems counterproductive to me. I feel like I'm going off on a tangent again.


Woah, I must really have ticked you off. I was trying to apologise. I will try again:

I apologise for my "despicable and disturbingly ignorant" comment, I probably should have toned that down a bit. We both got a bit worked up but I instigated it so I'm to blame, sorry.

Yes; I admit I did get my "fur" up a bit.

I debated on posting in this thread, but I think some things need to be said that are being glossed over without due consideration. Everything I am going to say are my personal opinions, but I suspect I am not the only one that feels this way. First media/software piracy has been around as long as people have been producing and selling media. I remember the Commodore days when 90% of the dial-up bulletin boards were just ways to share pirated software and disks were exchanged at school with copies of the latest games just a few days after they were released. I remember what extremes the software companies went to to stop it and nothing worked. The pirates broke the protection and went on about their business. I on the other hand that paid for stuff got to deal with protection that would vibrate the 1541 drive I owned so bad I would have to have the heads realigned periodically. I as a paying customer had to deal with a version of DRM (long before it was called that) while the pirates played games that gave them no problems and cost them nothing. I felt like a real sucker at times, but the few times I used pirated programs I never felt quite right about it so it was never an option.

Since then I have purchased software that requires online activation and had the company go out of business leaving me with no way to reinstall a program I paid for. I have dealt with online subscriptions to watch training classes where you did not have a download option only to sit watching the video buffer more than actually play. Once again the pirates could play the ripped version of my now useless game and watch the videos without issue. Once again I was the sucker I guess. I have had so many DRM issues that get in the way of enjoying what i bought that I have to the largest degree possible written off stuff with any restrictive DRM. Put simply, I am a paying customer that is tired of being treated like a criminal... If a company uses DRM there is a good chance that I will not buy its product. Ninty-nine percent of the games I have bought in the last two years have come from GOG. Last time I counted that was over150 games. They got my money because they treated me like a customer and not a thief.

Let me say it one more time. I am tired of being treated like a thief after I have paid my money to purchase something. The pirates are going to do their thing no matter what so why should a company want to alienate the very people they want to give them money? The pirates are not going to pay you and if I am not treated with the respect as a paying customer then I will not give you money either. As it was said previously I don't need a game, program, etc to survive. I buy it because I want it and to enjoy it. If I have to jump through the DRM hoops then you can keep whatever you are selling. Companies are going to have to decide if they are going to target their product towards pirates or paying customers. They can't have it both ways. If a company wants to treat me like a potential pirate I will not buy there product. At the end of the day who is going to give them the most money? Me or a pirate?

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

I understand your feelings Slow Programmer. I've hit the DRM wall myself, I remember purchasing a series of eBooks when the industry was taking off. At the time they worked great, but reading it off my phone wasn't a pleasant enough experience so I forgot about them.

Last year I got myself a kindle, and frankly I'm surrounded by tablet devices so I went back and tried to read the books again.

Simply put I couldn't read them on anything modern so I have four books I've never had a chance to read.

The sad truth is, that there are criminals in the world. This doesn't just apply to digital media. Companies have to discourage shop lifters, and other kind of robberies. Most of these solutions affect people in different ways. Some people don't like camera's staring at them, or don't like the fact that the tiller is behind glass. It's a pain when the shop assistant forgets to remove a tag and you end up tripping the detector.

95% of that shops customers will be law abiding, honest people. But it only takes that 5% to make these measures necessary. As your business becomes victimised and you see other businesses being victimised it's only logical to try and at least make people think twice.

It is sad that honest people get caught in the cross hairs. I wish it didn't happen. But lets not forget, that piracy is all the worse because it's not done to "help people who can't use a product because a business just went down". It's completely and utterly indiscriminate. They will take things from individuals, small company's, medium businesses and the giants. Worse still, these sites are making profits. Newgroups demand a fee up front, websites and p2p clients slather themselves in viruses, adware, and some of the most unsavoury advertising. Even bittorrent isn't free from all of this and it was supposed to just be a p2p filesharing network. But supporting sites offering you the torrent files are lathered with all sorts of money making tools.

So, businesses lose revenue, they go out of business and the legacy they leave behind is a useless DRM that renders their products useless. Would some of these business be open today if people where not stealing then monetizing their product line? Who knows? I certainly don't.

It's a real shame as well. Services like bittorent have become enemies of any content creator. It could have been so different, it was intended to support FOSS, freeware. It could have been a low cost tool for content creators to reach users by giving away promotional free products. To get themselves known.

But sadly, the minority group has once again made the world a very nasty place. Because of this we're all losing out. Except for course for the criminals who are making a mint, and the pirates who support these enterprises with their endless justifications.

This article is interesting - shows some of the positive sides of the piracy movement. http://indiestatik.com/2013/07/30/influx-doesnt-have-a-demo-developers-say-to-pirate-it-and-then-buy-it/