Piracy

[Johnny]

You're still taking something without permission and not paying a fair price for it. How is that not morally wrong? If someone uses my internet connection when I'm not at home, it won't affect my bandwidth cos I'm not using it, I've got an unlimited data plan so it won't affect my costs, but if I go home and find that someone has been free loading off of something that I work to provide I'll be, I think justifiably, pissed off.

To me, this sounds incredibly petty.

If it weren't for the whole "someone having access to my wireless network with my computers on" and "the law considers what anyone does on my network my responsibility" things, I'd share my 100mbit up/down connection on an open wireless. Because I have more bandwidth than I can use.

If I can help someone without it hurting me, I'm not gonna let some incredibly outdated work ethic get in the way.

Humanity is stronger and better when it cooperates, not when it goes "no you can't have because you haven't EARNED it."

[Thursday Next]

To me, this sounds incredibly petty.

If it weren't for the whole "someone having access to my wireless network with my computers on" and "the law considers what anyone does on my network my responsibility" things, I'd share my 100mbit up/down connection on an open wireless. Because I have more bandwidth than I can use.

If I can help someone without it hurting me, I'm not gonna let some incredibly outdated work ethic get in the way.

Humanity is stronger and better when it cooperates, not when it goes "no you can't have because you haven't EARNED it."

 

Communist!

 

Seriously though, since when was earning a luxury an outmoded concept? I'll offer a glass of water if someone is thirsty and needs a drink, I'm not gonna demand a contribution to the water rates, I'm not a monster.

 

You won't die if you don't update twitter right away and you won't die if you have to wait 6 months for a price drop so you can play Killzone 3. It's not so much a case of my out dated concept that you should earn things, rather this strange new attitude that you are somehow owed something just because it exists and you can take it.

 

Your humanity is going to be short lived if everyone is sitting about the campfire waiting for someone else to bring some food to share.

 

EDIT: Also... that you choose to share stuff that you have earned and paid for is fine. Don't you also think you should have the right to choose not to share stuff?

Edited March 8, 2011 by Thursday Next

[TheMightyEthan]

First off, I'd like to say that I'm aware I'm only addressing some of your points.

 

You're still taking something without permission and not paying a fair price for it. How is that not morally wrong?

My own personal moral philosophy holds that something is only morally wrong if it harms someone else. If the pirate was not going to purchase the game, even in the absence of piracy being possible, then the dev wasn't getting the money either way and so is not harmed.

 

The fact that you "can't" wait till later when the price is within your budget is in itself justification that the value now is higher for a good reason.

Here's a misconception, it's not that the pirate "can't wait", it's that they don't need to. The whole thing is based on the assumption that the pirate would not buy the game even if it were impossible to pirate it, in which case he would wait until the price was such that he was willing/able to buy it. However, he still has some desire to play it, and piracy provides a way to satisfy that desire without harming anyone else in the process. Then later, once the price drops, he must buy it for the cost that he would have been willing to pay in a world without piracy, or I would agree he has committed a wrong.

[Thursday Next]

First off, I'd like to say that I'm aware I'm only addressing some of your points.

 

You're still taking something without permission and not paying a fair price for it. How is that not morally wrong?

My own personal moral philosophy holds that something is only morally wrong if it harms someone else. If the pirate was not going to purchase the game, even in the absence of piracy being possible, then the dev wasn't getting the money either way and so is not harmed.

 

The fact that you "can't" wait till later when the price is within your budget is in itself justification that the value now is higher for a good reason.

Here's a misconception, it's not that the pirate "can't wait", it's that they don't need to. The whole thing is based on the assumption that the pirate would not buy the game even if it were impossible to pirate it, in which case he would wait until the price was such that he was willing/able to buy it. However, he still has some desire to play it, and piracy provides a way to satisfy that desire without harming anyone else in the process. Then later, once the price drops, he must buy it for the cost that he would have been willing to pay in a world without piracy, or I would agree he has committed a wrong.

 

In that case, you and I fundamentally disagree on what is right and wrong.

 

To me, if you were never going to buy it then you shouldn't take it. Further, if you intend to buy it when the price drops to a certain point then you should only take possession of it at that time.

 

From other comments I get the impression that I'm in a minority on that and should probably spend my days throwing cloaks over puddles for ladies to step on and such while everyone else grabs whatever isn't nailed down or on fire simply because it's too easy not to.

[TheMightyEthan]

To be clear, that specific outlook only applies to digital goods. Taking a physical good without permission is always harming someone because you are depriving them of that physical thing. In the context of digital media piracy, however, the only thing you can be said to be depriving the rightful owner of is the money you would have paid for it, and so if you would not have given them the money anyway then you haven't deprived them of anything and so they aren't harmed.

 

I believe you and I would agree that it is wrong to take physical items without permission.

[Thursday Next]

To be clear, that specific outlook only applies to digital goods. Taking a physical good without permission is always harming someone because you are depriving them of that physical thing. In the context of digital media piracy, however, the only thing you can be said to be depriving the rightful owner of is the money you would have paid for it, and so if you would not have given them the money anyway then you haven't deprived them of anything and so they aren't harmed.

 

I believe you and I would agree that it is wrong to take physical items without permission.

 

I'm certainly not attacking your integrity with regard to theft by its legal definition. My "nailed down or on fire" comment was intended to be light hearted.

 

To get a bit legalese on the issue, I attach more weight to the mens rea than the actus reus. That is, the intention to get something for nothing, knowing that the person who made it would rather you pay. As opposed to the fact that the victim in your hypothetical was not harmed.

 

Finally, I might point out that there is no way of determining that a person absolutely would not have acquired the product legitimately under any circumstances. The person in question would be hard pressed to be certain about that, let alone someone who sees their actions from afar like a publisher.

[TheMightyEthan]

Finally, I might point out that there is no way of determining that a person absolutely would not have acquired the product legitimately under any circumstances. The person in question would be hard pressed to be certain about that, let alone someone who sees their actions from afar like a publisher.

Oh, you'll get no argument from me there, I was just debating the moral theory behind the actions, not necessarily the actual actions of any specific real person.

[Johnny]

Communist!

 

Capitalist pig.

 

 

Seriously though, since when was earning a luxury an outmoded concept? I'll offer a glass of water if someone is thirsty and needs a drink, I'm not gonna demand a contribution to the water rates, I'm not a monster.

 

The moment we can supply a luxury at no measurable expense or effort of our own, refusing someone else that luxury becomes entirely nonsensical.

 

 

You won't die if you don't update twitter right away and you won't die if you have to wait 6 months for a price drop so you can play Killzone 3.

 

Are you still trying to use wi-fi sharing as an analogy for software piracy? Because it really doesn't work. Piracy is much more of a complex question.

Sharing my connection, assuming as before no chance of damage to my system or trouble with the law because of it, costs me nothing. To me, then, it doesn't matter what use someone has for my service. If it costs me nothing I should provide it no matter how big or small need someone has for it.

 

 

It's not so much a case of my out dated concept that you should earn things, rather this strange new attitude that you are somehow owed something just because it exists and you can take it.

 

No, sorry, nobody on this side of the question are arguing that he's owed anything. That's just made up and/or assumed by the anti-pirates. You can't attack that because we aren't trying to argue it.

Assumptions like this is honestly quite offensive.

 

Our philosophy, as much as pirates as a group can be said to have one, is more revolved around sharing what we can with each others, not because we're owed it, but because, quite literally, sharing is caring.

 

 

Your humanity is going to be short lived if everyone is sitting about the campfire waiting for someone else to bring some food to share.

 

This is an analogy... for a flawed analogy... for software piracy. But also, you've already established that we aren't discussing life and death issues, making this a bad analogy for a flawed analogy.

And even if it wasn't, it's an insulting, generalizing assumption about me and pirates in general. The more I read and try to make sense of it, the more insulting, disappointing and depressing it becomes.

I wonder now if you have any interest at all in listening to what pirates are saying, or if you're just here to reassure yourself that you're on the "right" side.

 

 

Also... that you choose to share stuff that you have earned and paid for is fine. Don't you also think you should have the right to choose not to share stuff?

Sure, you can always refuse to share a luxury that would cost you nothing to share. But maybe you shouldn't.

 

EDIT

I'm done with this thread for a while. There's no point arguing with people who are too busy projecting and assuming to listen.

Over and out.

Edited March 8, 2011 by Johnny

[WTF]

Piracy is always going to be an issue and a non-issue at the same time. The thing is prior to the 20th century most entertainment was cheap and free or only for the truly privileged. As film and TV gained popularity, it went from being lowbrow entertainment for the working class to something for the privileged masses. The internet democratized entertainment and brought increased access. Prior to that rights and distribution issues prevented several entertainment media from being accessed by a large number of people and territories. In fact stores made a business of renting out bootlegged tapes and eventually CDs and DVDs so long as they weren't a big chain and were a local business.

Back then piracy existed but not many actually cared because there was no way for the production companies to actually get into those markets. Small towns, remote countries, a good portion of Asia and Africa and of course the Middle East (which is inc in Asia but is a separate market) all pretty much had businesses profiting from piracy. I remember when you could buy these things in supermarkets in some of those countries.

 

Nowadays while internet has democratized access, it has also brought about control for the content creators and of course the distributors. More people are also involved in these industries than before, which means more people are dependant on it for their livelihoods. At the same time more younger people who don't really have the purchasing power of an adult are also there who believe pretty much it's a given right to get all these things.

 

One thing that those born before the internet was widely accessible never realise is that information was not always free and still is for a large part not free. It's only free because a lot of people who suffered from the lack of info decided to give it away for free. Now here's where things get tricky. All these goods are mostly virtual, yes you can have a box and a disc for your game or your movie but for the large part it is something that pretty much takes real estate on your hard drives and when something is virtual it's difficult to associate it with something that's physical. A tangible good can fall under theft laws, an intangible good now has copyright and newer laws to account for these. But it's still an intangible, just like an idea. However now you can patent, trademark and or copyright the execution of an idea but not an idea itself and that brings a lot of interesting stuff to the table really.

 

Virtual things predominate our lives, even money is largely virtual these days in a credit economy and that's where the problem really lies.

To a kid somewhere, it is actually managing numbers. Do some people committing fraud think they're doing a crime? Not really. [i specifically mean those people who steal money in transit to gain interest and return it as well. People who make money out of money just sitting there doing nothing.] You might be surprised to find out that certain financial institutions actually make money by buying loans and then making bets as to whether these people pay them back or not. Basically buying bad debts and then making betting shares which are paid for. If the house wins, it's a lot of money and if those betting win they earn a bit too. Either way the investment is mostly safe. Of course that's the simplified version.

 

Piracy is an extremely complicated issue of entitlement, versus real profits and running costs vs projections. All businesses work on projections, it's because of this that a business believes that a every item pirated is a lost sale. I mean where else would it fit in their projection. It's not a bad debt, it's not a sale and there's no such thing as a definite or indefinite sale in a projection because it's a projection, an estimate if you will. The issue can to a large extent be solved by reducing the gaming budget, spreading across platforms, homogenising platforms yet maintaining their identity or rather USP, and other ways of reducing costs. Yes there will always be douchebags who pirate, just like there are always going to be people who rob and steal even if their circumstances aren't bad. However if things are at an affordable rate from the start, piracy should be quite limited. These days indie games are quite cheap because of steam, iOS, Android etc (some of them are still expensive on the PSN, XBLA and wiiware because all these companies provide them funding and inflate the budget a bit to get better returns - it works too. Not to mention these platforms come with their own R&D requirements). However indie games are less pirated, it's why there's so many of them right now. However because everyone's going indie these days their viewshare will drop and only few will get purchased bringing us back to the point where devs will say people are pirating our games since the paying customer will be unaware of the good ones amongst the vast amount of choice and those who pirate will pirate everything because it's how it is. This would largely skew the numbers.

 

Piracy is a far more complex issue because of how the internet went public really. Generally I don't like to talk about piracy despite having been affected by it a few times, simply because it's not really worth it (unless it's a case where someone's product is pirated 90% and there's absolutely no revenue at all and the person's now really in financial trouble). If you've truly made something good, people will pay for it provided you give a fair price. Those who pirate despite that have a pathological need to pirate which partly comes from entitlement and partly is because not every person is alike or goodnatured. Exceptions to these are those who do not have access to these things due to where they live or other factors.

 

Some of the things that people in general (wherever piracy comes up) say about piracy are pretty much in my opinion an extension of whitewhine.

[MasterDex]

I think one of the big problems with how piracy is treated is that so many people see it in shades of black and white. You either do it or you don't. You hate it or you revel in it. For or against. It's rare that the inbetweeners are heard. It's hard to view it in shades of grey.

 

Maybe you're a developer and it's hit your bottom line hard, it's going to be understandable if you're pissed off. That's the way the cookie crumbles though. In today's world, it's just going to happen, regardless of the platform. A lot of smaller developers seem to understand that but the larger developers and the publishers; the ones that shape the industry just seem to want to take this 'us vs them' approach.

 

Piracy can be controlled to some degree but it will always exist. We have to change our approach to the issue before we can really begin to understand how to do so.

[deanb]

From other comments I get the impression that I'm in a minority on that and should probably spend my days throwing cloaks over puddles for ladies to step on and such while everyone else grabs whatever isn't nailed down or on fire simply because it's too easy not to.

 

 

 

As if nails provide an obstacle...

 

 

Seriously though, since when was earning a luxury an outmoded concept?

 

1960's. When a computer scientists discovered he could duplicate digital things. at first lines of code, but obviously anything in digital form can be easily duplicated. Then it became pretty much a given that this would eventually happen. It's infinite goods, it has no value. At best all you can do is try n convince people it's worth something.

Just an example but there is only one Mona Lisa and it's pretty much priceless (or $720million). There's roughly 10²⁴ units of Modern Warfare. It's pretty much worthless. It's amazing that Activision are attempting to get 50p out of you for it let alone £50.

And this is the part where this tab gets forgotten in order to make a tea and I come back hours later

Its essentially a case of changing times. A balance of sorts will arrive. At the moment it's a clash of ideals. Many folks growing up in a world where things cost what folks charge for, and many folks growing up pretty much used to digital goods been an infinite and free thing.

 

Just to go back to one of my old, but continually ignored points (yeah I'ma bit butthurt on this), but it's not just digital goods either. We're a decade or so away from basic objects being "infinite" too through things like RepRap and other 3D printer projects. Half a century and nanotechnology would be at a point where more complex things could be possible too. Thus bringing what is affecting digital goods now on physical goods too.

 

Basically it's now a fact of life and it is never ever going to go away unless someone turns off the internet or goes uber-global fascist. And while it's technically against the law it's my understanding that there's generally allowances within the law on things that the public don't pay attention to. Unenforceable laws. Like all boys under 16 having to do archery practice.

 

tl;dr: Everything digital is worth fuck all, nadda, zip, zilch. It only costs something cos someone somewhere has said it does. It's you choice if you agree with them on that or not.

 

Now to read what Frag wrote cos it was long and I had thoughts bubbling in my mind:

If you've truly made something good, people will pay for it provided you give a fair price.

That's pretty much the take home point. As is continually shown the most pirated games are generally the best selling too. It is a physical impossibility that piracy causes bankruptcy or I would suggest everyone download CoD about 10 times each. BO pirated 8million times and the game made $1billion so by my guestimates pirating about 1billion copies should push them into debt using their accounting methods. But we all know that won't happen. The publishers who rattle on about lost sales must know this won't happen.

 

Piracy is an issue of sorts. But it's not where large enough to be causing the issues publishers suggest it is. Console game revenue dropped 20% last year. PC revenue increase 20%. (just before we continue, they're not directly related with one going from other like some finite shared pool of cash. Just make sure folks understand that). 99% of console games cost £40/$60, and roughly 30%+ have some kind of DLC model on, maybe a reliance on multiplayer. PC on the other hand for several years has been heavily experimenting in business models from massive sales on steam, a large selection of sub-£20 indie class/small studio games, some games sold mid-production at a discount, some with F2P. Also Piracy is a much larger thing on PC than on console. Piracy isn't an issue. Holding onto the old system of "we say this is worth X amount, you will pay this or else" model just doesn't fair so well when you're amidst a sea of free or cheap goods on other platforms. At the moment most console publishers are sharing a very close relational space with the dodo. And it's up to them to evolve, or die. The modern consumer, aka "the dog", has arrived.

 

And looking at piracy numbers for your games is insane. Gmaes cost me £40 a pop and I only have a finite amount of £ in my bank account. Pirated games cost folks $free and I think everyone has a healthy bank balance of $free. So while your £200 will buy you 5 games, your $free will buy you every single fucking game in existence. Now there's no way you could expect someone to afford that with their £200 on the real deal. So of course the numbers of pirated to sold copies will always be skewed.

[WTF]

Just wanted to add one point to what Dean said. Technically selling mid-budget is a new concept albeit a variant of what's existed in the film industry for a while. Some filmmakers (like Ken Loach) sell distribution rights for their film before it gets released in order to maintain a production budget so that they can finish their movie.

These days it's also easier to crowdsource which has to varying degrees of success been done for films. The asking people to pay mid-budget is an extension of that. It's easier for games because it's possible to give a working alpha of the game and/or trailer and those impressed will pay money. In films showing a trailer and asking for money means also giving these people production credit in a lot of cases. I think game devs could start doing that too because to be honest being credited could give a greater incentive to getting it funded.

 

Also piracy can't be equated to bankruptcy at all for the ones complaining, it's just the whole problem of everything being virtual again. When people translate piracy to lost sales that means they translate the pirated numberst to what should be expected returns which in turn in a lot of cases leads to a bigger budget for the next production. Where it needs to stop is bigger budgets. Half of this problem is because games want better VFX designers and most of them are pretty much in good post-pro and production houses and get a very nice salary too. Game industry salaries can't really compete with that unless the budget is increased. But they do not need Film-level VFX designers it's something they do need to realise. Games do not require that level of effects, people have a much lower threshold for a game than a film especially these days. I mean look at some of Naughty Dog's staff they were at ND and then several of them worked in Hollywood and now they're back working on Uncharted. I doubt they're working at whatever salary they used to years ago. it's the same for every company. These salaries do inflate the budget. I'm not saying don't hire talent at all, but it's best if they don't try to compete with films. In some ways its easier for Sony due to them owning Studios but it's not so for all game companies.

 

In the end, I don't think the modern consumer can force anything extreme onto publishers. But game pubs and devs need to realise that we need different levels of game prices which means different strata of game budgets. At one point, the internet will be completely regulated. Forces of order and chaos at work and you know if human society has proved anything is that ultimately everything will be 'ordered'. The internet will eventually be regulated. All it takes is for one idiot to do something really terrible that people will be willing to have it regulated. This one thing can be orchestrated as well. Piracy at that point will be largely dead, mostly because of regulations. it will have to be something really terrible, but it will happen eventually because of growing apathy towards human actions which always leads to something much bigger and far worse. Might take years though since growth has sort of trickled and the new generation is maturing.

[Thursday Next]

Capitalist pig.

 

 

The moment we can supply a luxury at no measurable expense or effort of our own, refusing someone else that luxury becomes entirely nonsensical.

 

Do you have any concept of how much it costs to create a video game? At the moment "we" can't supply a luxury at no measurable expense. It costs tens of millions of pounds and hundreds upon hundreds of hours. "We" being the people who create the content.

 

Are you still trying to use wi-fi sharing as an analogy for software piracy? Because it really doesn't work. Piracy is much more of a complex question.

Sharing my connection, assuming as before no chance of damage to my system or trouble with the law because of it, costs me nothing. To me, then, it doesn't matter what use someone has for my service. If it costs me nothing I should provide it no matter how big or small need someone has for it.

 

No, just pointing out that while I will share necessities, and gladly, I won't share the luxuries I have worked to achieve.

 

No, sorry, nobody on this side of the question are arguing that he's owed anything. That's just made up and/or assumed by the anti-pirates. You can't attack that because we aren't trying to argue it.

Assumptions like this is honestly quite offensive.

 

Our philosophy, as much as pirates as a group can be said to have one, is more revolved around sharing what we can with each others, not because we're owed it, but because, quite literally, sharing is caring.

 

So if you aren't owed it, and you didn't pay for it, why take it? You are "sharing" something that doesn't belong to you. How about caring about the people who actually put their time and effort into making the games and helping them pay their bills?

 

This is an analogy... for a flawed analogy... for software piracy. But also, you've already established that we aren't discussing life and death issues, making this a bad analogy for a flawed analogy.

And even if it wasn't, it's an insulting, generalizing assumption about me and pirates in general. The more I read and try to make sense of it, the more insulting, disappointing and depressing it becomes.

I wonder now if you have any interest at all in listening to what pirates are saying, or if you're just here to reassure yourself that you're on the "right" side.

 

I'm just pointing out that if everyone is taking stuff and sharing it, but no one is putting anything in, then the system collapses.

 

As for saying I'm not listening, I think if you look to my conversation with Ethan it's clear that I am happy to have a dialogue with someone who is not so entrenched in their position as to feel insulted when someone suggests that taking something without permission is wrong.

 

Sure, you can always refuse to share a luxury that would cost you nothing to share. But maybe you shouldn't.

 

What and because you think publishers shouldn't have the right to say who can and can't use what they have created you feel that you have the right to just take what you want?

 

Also, since when does it cost nothing? As I said before, games cost millions to make.

 

I'm done with this thread for a while. There's no point arguing with people who are too busy projecting and assuming to listen.

Over and out.

 

 

Sure, run away.

 

You can try to claim all you want that piracy costs the developers nothing, you can throw up hypothetical situations where this would be true (such as Ethan's "Pirate who would never by the game at any price, ever.") but they're impossible to prove and it is closer to the truth to say that many people who pirate would buy the game if there was no other choice.

 

And as for pirates being all about "Sharing and caring" what a load of total nonsense. It's not about giving stuff away, it's about getting stuff for nothing. The number of leechers always outweighs the number of seeds. The number of people putting content up is dwarfed by the vast quantities of people downloading it.

[deanb]

http://gamrfeed.vgchartz.com/story/84663/thq-has-a-little-surprise-for-those-who-pirate-homefront

 

 

Well this is a first (as far as I'm aware)

That's not "pirate homefront on PC". That's pirate it on the 360.

Of course the side effect is that it also means if you buy it used and want to play online, it'll cost you $80.

I guess THQ assume it'll be more pirated than bought used if they're willing for that huge side effect to be there.

[TheMightyEthan]

I guess THQ assume it'll be more pirated than bought used if they're willing for that huge side effect to be there.

That or they're also trying to deter used sales. It wouldn't surprise me if they drop the price on the online pass after a month or so, once everyone who was going to buy it new has already done so.

[staySICK]

i'm a little confused here,are these codes as in codes the consumer enters in, a la project $10? or internal codes in the games information system that aren't able to be replicated with a pirated copy?

 

Basically is Ethan correct in thinking this will basically disable the idea of used sales / rental / lending to a friend?

 

That seems excessive, even moreso than Project $10.

[TheMightyEthan]

In order to play online you have to download this online activation thing from XBL, which costs 9000 MS Points (whoever did the conversion in the article got it backward, 9000 MS points is actually $112.50, not $80, 1 MS point = 1.25 cents). However, new retail copies come with a 1-time-use code that allows you to download the online activation thing for free.

 

Basically it functions exactly the same as EA Sports' project $10 implementation, except the price is much much more ridiculous.

 

Also the article says that it's "over 9000" MS points, so I bet it's 9600 since things tend to cost multiples of 1600 points, which would make it an even $120.

[excel_excel]

While I'm sure THQ are having a nice belly laugh about it, friends and families that game on the same console but different profiles are fucked aren't they?

[TheMightyEthan]

Shouldn't be, at least on Xbox. On Xbox when you download something it unlocks it both for that account and that console, so the account can use it on any console and any account on the original console can use it on there. I'm not 100% positive it applies to these multiplayer codes, but that's how it works with DLC and XBLA games.

 

I don't know if it works that way on PS3.

[TheMightyEthan]

Honest question for TN, what do you feel about piracy in this situation?

 

I'm holding in my hand my physical, legitimately purchased copy of American McGee's Alice, which I am trying to reinstall. However, it's telling me that the CD key I wrote down on the paper in my CD-book is invalid, and I can't find the actual box to get it from (it's in storage somewhere, don't know where though).

 

Is pirating the game acceptable to you under these circumstances?

[CorgiShinobi]

I've heard people, in large agreement, say that is acceptable; in that you once purchased the game, but by being unable to currently play, you've payed your dues and can pirate it.

 

Take for example when I use to play emulated games on my PSP. Obviously I was going to be mainly playing games I once [had for me] purchased, like Banjo-Kazooie. It wasn't commercial available, and I once had the physical copy.

 

Of course, the thing ran like sludge on the PSP, but it's (in essence) the same concept.

Edited March 14, 2011 by Atomsk88

[deanb]

I posted this in the News Feed last night worth posting up here(not this article)

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/03/16/oh-ubisoft-torrented-their-own-music

 

Ubisoft of "we don't give a shit if legit players can use our game" DRM, have pirated their own sound track to put in the PC deluxe edition of Brotherhood.

Stay Classy

[Mercurial]

I am a huge pirating asshole, but in case any one hasn't mentioned D2D let's you rent SOME of their games for 5 bucks and you get 5 hours of play. It's a step forward plus you get 5$ off if you decide to actually buy it.

Edited March 17, 2011 by Hakidia

[deanb]

So a bit off the beaten track. Some of you may of heard but Limewire has been sued into oblivion. They lost (they're built like Napster so...) and now the various music n film companies are coming in circling like vultures to claim damages.

 

http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202486102650&Manhattan_Federal_Judge_Kimba_Wood_Calls_Record_Companies_Request_for__Trillion_in_Damages_Absurd_in_Lime_Wire_Copyright_Case

The URL shortening will obscure the amount that they requested, but the "national debt" is used as a measuring stick. Should give a hint.

[MasterDex]

Wow! That is just crazy money! This makes me think of their stance of "1 pirated copy=1 lost sale". It's all beginning to spiral out of control. Yes, piracy needs to be curbed. Yes, the industry deserves some compensation from businesses like Limewire for their blatent disregard for copyright law. However, under no circumstances, should the ball be kept in the industries court and controlled to the degree that they want to control it.

 

The one question I always keep asking myself when I see shit like this is: Why the hell hasn't anyone started reevaluating copyright law. In the digital age, it's outmoded. Industries can't exhibit the same control over their IPs that they could before. It just isn't possible. If copyright law isn't revisted and intelligently modified to be relevant and enforcable in the the digital age then things are just going to get worse and worse for everyone involved.