Eat this, you cheap pirates!

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
90 years is extreme, but software still needs to be protected.

90 years after death, and corporations never die.

[chequita guevara]

There's a time limit on corporate copyrights. IIRC, it's a 110 years.

[raghar]

Eat that you well I can't write S... becouse it is term from BDSM.

I'm game developer and guess what. I'm one of few that doesn't mind software piracy. Yes GAME programing is an art, but most of other software is crap and more industry like. There is one big problem - there don't exist museum for games. You know, when you are learning art you'd need to see other artwork if for nothing else than evading copyright isue. Yes I know one writer that changed his book when he discovered, he could have problems with copyright. He made his book without knowledge about text of second one, but who could prove it to hungry lawyers?
I know Terry Brooks. You know him too he works with knowledge about other's work and he has good lawyers.
I would be realy happy if copyright would be isue only for normal or rich person, if for nothing else than for costs of lawyers. ( Luckily you'd have problem to get anything from realy poor person, but police would attack mainly poor. and that is bad for your monetary, bullshit I'd dislike if some poor person would not be abble to access my work and some rich would have really easy way to go around.) This is however how it looks today.



Yes we could get into big and heavy discusion like Gary and drows. Then again why not.

[Asher]

there don't exist museum for games

There's a travelling museum for video games, actually. It's a bit different from regular museums, since most museums are simply one-of-a-kind type things, while video games only exist in ideas and concept really. It's a lot like music.

But there are museums, it was at my university last term.

No wonder you don't mind software piracy -- your own info says you're a Java programmer and a game programmer (can you really do both at once and do a decent job?? ), and more importantly, it says you're not on a salary.

Which tells me it's more of a hobby thing...so it doesn't surprise me you don't care about software piracy.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

eat this you non-adoptive dinos

http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/200...1/piracy.html?

btw by non other but Mr Tim O'Reilly

a few pages in the article but

to make a long story short

1. Obscurity is a far greater threat to authors and creative artists than piracy.
2. Piracy is progressive taxation.
3. Customers want to do the right thing, if they can.
4. Shoplifting is a bigger threat than piracy.
5. File sharing networks don't threaten book, music, or film publishing. They threaten existing publishers.
6. "Free" is eventually replaced by a higher-quality paid service.
7. There's more than one way to do it.

and read more in the link for explanations.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

And this is for dinner

http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html

Here are a few statements from the RIAA's website:

# "Analysts report that just one of the many peer-to-peer systems in operation is responsible for over 1.8 billion unauthorized downloads per month". (Hilary B. Rosen letter to the Honorable Rick Boucher, Congressman, February 28, 2002)
# "Sales of blank CD-R discs have…grown nearly 2 ½ times in the last two years…if just half the blank discs sold in 2001 were used to copy music, the number of burned CDs worldwide is about the same as the number of CDs sold at retail." (Hilary B. Rosen letter to the Honorable Rick Boucher, Congressman, February 28, 2002)
# "Music sales are already suffering from the impact…in the United States, sales decreased by more than 10% in 2001."(Hilary B. Rosen letter to the Honorable Rick Boucher, Congressman, February 28, 2002)
# "In a recent survey of music consumers, 23%…said they are not buying more music because they are downloading or copying their music for free."(Hilary B. Rosen letter to the Honorable Rick Boucher, Congressman, February 28, 2002)

Let's take these points one by one, but before that, let me remind you of something: the music industry had exactly the same response to the advent of reel-to-reel home tape recorders, cassettes, DATs, minidiscs, VHS, BETA, music videos ("Why buy the record when you can tape it?"), MTV, and a host of other technological advances designed to make the consumer's life easier and better. I know because I was there.

The only reason they didn't react that way publicly to the advent of CDs was because they believed CD's were uncopyable. I was told this personally by a former head of Sony marketing, when they asked me to license Between the Lines in CD format at a reduced royalty rate. ("Because it's a brand new technology.")

# Who's to say that any of those people would have bought the CD's if the songs weren't available for free? I can't find a single study on this, one where a reputable surveyor such as Gallup actually asks people that question. I think no one's run one because everyone is afraid of the truth - most of the downloads are people who want to try an artist out, or who can't find the music in print.
And if a percentage of that 1.8 billion is because people are downloading a current hit by Britney or In Sync, who's to say it really hurt their sales? Soft statistics are easily manipulated. How many of those people went out and bought an album that had been over-played at radio for months, just because they downloaded a portion of it?
# Sales of blank CDs have grown? You bet. I bought a new Vaio in December (ironically enough, made by Sony), and now back up all my files onto CD. I go through 7-15 CD's a week that way, or about 500 a year. Most new PC's come with XP, which makes backing up to CD painless; how many people are doing what I'm doing? Additionally, when I buy a new CD, I make a copy for my car, a copy for upstairs, and a copy for my partner. That's three blank discs per CD. So I alone account for around 750 blank CDs yearly.
# I'm sure the sales decrease had nothing to do with the economy's decrease, or a steady downward spiral in the music industry, or the garbage being pushed by record companies. Aren't you? There were 32,000 new titles released in this country in 2001, and that's not including re-issues, DIY's , or smaller labels that don't report to SoundScan. Our "Unreleased" series, which we haven't bothered SoundScanning, sold 6,000+ copies last year. A conservative estimate would place the number of "newly available" CD's per year at 100,000. That's an awful lot of releases for an industry that's being destroyed. And to make matters worse, we hear music everywhere, whether we want to or not; stores, amusement parks, highway rest stops. The original concept of Muzak (to be played in elevators so quietly that its soothing effect would be subliminal) has run amok. Why buy records when you can learn the entire Top 40 just by going shopping for groceries?
# Which music consumers? College kids who can't afford to buy 10 new CDs a month, but want to hear their favorite groups? When I bought my nephews a new Backstreet Boys CD, I asked why they hadn't downloaded it instead. They patiently explained to their senile aunt that the download wouldn't give them the cool artwork, and more important, the video they could see only on the CD.

is a bit... read more there and here if you want

http://www.janisian.com/articles.html
FALLOUT - a follow up to The Internet Debacle

II. My conclusions thus far:

"So why are the record labels taking such a hard line? My guess is that it's all about protecting their internet-challenged business model. Their profit comes from blockbuster artists. If the industry moved to a more varied ecology, independent labels and artists would thrive - to the detriment of the labels… The smoking gun comes from testimony of an RIAA-backed economist who told the government fee panel that a dramatic shakeout in Webcasting is 'inevitable and desirable because it will bring about market consolidation'." ("Labels to Net Radio: Die Now", Steven Levy in Newsweek, July 15, 2002.)

There are, as I see it, three operative issues that explain the entertainment industry's heavy-handed response to the concept of downloading music from the Internet:

1. Control. The music industry is no different from any other huge corporation, be it Mobil Oil or the Catholic church. When faced with a new technology or a new product that will revolutionize their business, their response is predictable:

a. Destroy it. And if they cannot,
b. Control it. And if they cannot,
c. Control the consumer who wishes to use it, and the legislators and laws that are supposed to protect that consumer.

This is not unique to the entertainment industry. This mind-set is part of the fabric of our daily lives. Movie companies sued over VCR manufacturing and blank video sales, with Jack Valenti (Motion Picture Association of America chairman) testifying to Congress that the VCR is to the movie industry what the Boston Strangler is to a woman alone at night - and yet, video sales now account for more industry profit than movies themselves. When Semelweiss discovered that washing your hands before attending a woman in childbirth eliminated "childbed fever", at a time when over 50% of women giving birth in hospitals died of it, he was ridiculed by his peers, who refused to do it. No entrenched model has ever embraced a new technology (or idea) without suffering the attendant death throes.

2. Ennui. The industry is still operating under laws and concepts developed during the 1930's and 1940's, before cassettes, before boom boxes, before MP3 and file-sharing and the Internet. It's far easier to insist that all new technologies be judged under old laws, than to craft new laws that embrace all existing technologies. It's much easier to find a scapegoat, than to examine your own practices. As they say, "You can't get fired for saying no."

3. The American Dream. The promises all of us are made, tacitly or otherwise, throughout our lives as Americans. The dream we inherit as each successive generation enters grade school - that we will be freer than our grandparents, more successful than our parents, and build a better world for our own children. The promises made by our textbooks, our presidents, and our culture, throughout the course of our childhoods: Fair pay for a day's work, and the right to strike. The right to leave a job that doesn't satisfy, or is abusive. Freedom from indentured servitude. The premise that every citizen is allowed a vote, and no one will ever be called "slave" again. The promise that libraries and basic education in this country are free, and will stay so. These are not ideas I came up with on the spur of the moment; this is what we're taught, by the culture we grow up in. And of everything we are taught, one issue is always paramount - in America, it is the people who rule. It is the people who determine our government. We elect our legislators, so they will pass laws designed for us. We elect and pay the thousands of judges, policemen, civil servants who implement the laws we elect our officials to pass.
It is the promise that our government supports the will of the people, and not the will of big business, that makes this issue so damning - and at the same time, so hope-inspiring.
When Disney are permitted to threaten suit against two clowns who dare to make mice out of three balloons and call them "Mickey", the people are not a part of it. When Senator Hollings accepts hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from entertainment conglomerates, then pretends money has nothing to do with his stance on downloading as he calls his own constituents "thieves", the people are not involved. When Representatives Berman and Coble introduce a bill allowing film studios and record companies to "disable, block or otherwise impair" your computer if they merely suspect you of file-trading, by inserting viruses and worms into your hard drive, it is the people who are imperiled. And when the CEO of RIAA commends this bill as an "innovative approach to combating the serious problem of Internet piracy," rather than admitting that it signifies a giant corporate step into a wasteland even our government security agencies dare not enter unscathed, the people are not represented.

[raghar]

I would hardly say 10 hour / day 7 day / week hobby. Im more like writer and programer than just hobbyist. Ever listened words from one part time job to another? I live in country where you'd get good job only if you'd have good friends. I have no friends, but I'm more happy than I would be if I'd have this type of friends.

If I would have 2.3 mill $ I could have company for developing games in java and I would be abble to hold my own. If I'd wanna something risky I'd get company that would do mobile phone game developing, and I could be rich.
Well I dislike money so no mobile phones.
My old crypthography algorithms, some books and articles, and some other things are worthy something. Possibly not much.

Hey I'm from poor family and you'd have diploma only if you are rich.

[Switch]

I am personally against pirating. It's merely people stealing and infinging copyright, no two ways about it no matter how many moral implications you put on it. Also, it makes people lazier as they don't have to get a job to play the games they want, they only need an internet connection which probably their parents pay for (excluding those pirates of you who live alone). I, personally, work for what I want, and you know what...
it feels great! Before I developed a moral view towards piracy, I didn't mind it. But games just seem so much more satisfying when I pay for it with my own, hard-earned cash.

Now, as to raghar...if you don't mind piracy, then just don't copyright your work. But don't let your own view on the subject infringe on developers who do mind piracy.

Well, since I don't think I'm gonna be stopping piracy any time soon, I can at least do this to all of you warezers:

[raghar]

Now, as to raghar...if you don't mind piracy, then just don't copyright your work. But don't let your own view on the subject infringe on developers who do mind piracy.

To don't mind piracy and give up Copyright are two different things. I wouldn't have problem if some poor person from E evrope or China would use my prog (not to be rich by using my prog), but I would mind if some idiot would use part of my work, destroy meaning of that nice writen book or algorithm, and claim it as his own. It is rather experience that would speek to me about so much copy protection and so little time of the user...
As long as pirates would have notice who did that game and wouldn't charge, warezing would be one of lesser violation of your right.

BTW Switch, we are talking about two different groups of people. Unfortunately they would exist as two groups for a long time.

[Switch]

Ah, I see your point of view.

But I still see any sort of theft, as minor as that, to be wrong. But, then I also see the fact that the people are poor as wrong. If only a decent socialism could be brought about....but that's a whole other topic.

It's mainly people who CAN afford games but steal them anyway that bug me. Also people who don't have jobs, but live in our rather lucky white middle-class (you know, the kind of people punk rock artists think are oppressed ).

[Urban Ranger]

che,

I agree with the orignal intent behind the US copyright laws, which is to act as an incentive for further creation instead of a reward. The current implementation of "intellectual property" laws is completely FOOBARed, however.

Originally posted by LDiCesare
And if passing data through an automatic translator removres the art from the data, then what about art seen in tv or lisened in radio? Those are automatic translators.

TV's and radios are not automatic translators. I don't see how you can arrive at that.

[Asher]

TV's and radios are not automatic translators. I don't see how you can arrive at that.

How do you think TV and radio transmitters send data, and how do you think TVs interpret them? Obviously there's some translation going on.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The current implementation of "intellectual property" laws is completely FOOBARed, however.

What time limit would you support? After all, you must agree SOME time limit is needed. What point is writing a book if someone can just retype it and sell it as their own, after all? But how long would you figure the person has the right to his words?

[Urban Ranger]

You can't make it too long, or it ceases to be an incentive. One can just then sit on one's own fat arse forever (or close to it). I would say 5+5 (five years plus an entension of five) is good. If Mark Twain didn't get more than 7+7, how could anybody claim more than that?