By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales - Geohot hate piracy and stuff

zarx on 31 March 2010

I will read that later but I want to address 1 thing now when a retailer buys a copy of a game they pay for it then they try to on sell it to the public when someone buys the copy all the money goes to the store (they have already given the publisher money) and if the publisher is lucky the retailer will then order more copys of the game getting the publisher more copys. that is why most publishers will report sold to retailers in their financial reports because that is the transaction they actualy get their money from the only reason a publisher cares if the public actualy buys those copies is if the retailer orders more copies or not.

If that's the case, then no product, that is expected to sell a lot, should fail. The retailers have paid fully and completely for every copy. It is only a matter of expectation and ordering then. Stock piles of unsold products or over ordering a product only hurts the retailers and not the creator. Which we both know is not true (ET for example). Like I said, it'll be such a risky business if Best Buy buys the product completely, and our modern economic system bypasses that risk with our system of retailership.

well like I said the publishers would only care if the retailer refused to order more copies or other titles because of the low sales, or in the rare case that it sells so bad that the retailers try to make the publisher buy back the stock like what happened with ET



@TheVoxelman on twitter

Check out my hype threads: Cyberpunk, and The Witcher 3!

Around the Network
zarx on 31 March 2010
superchunk said:
Seece said:
Akvod said:
The difference is in consent. You can gain ownership, permanent or temporary, for free if you have the consent of the original owner.

Taking someone's property without their consent, is theft, a violation of their property rights, and their natural right as a human being. It is in essence, slavery, since you're making someone slave away creating something, and then just taking it away. It's not an issue of compensation either. It's CONSENT.

Good post, sums it up perfectly.

I agree. Forget my post above, the definition of consent and theft is clearest difference.

well how about the difference between piracy and theft (theft = taking something from someone) (piracy = creating a copy of something that remains in possession of the owner)



@TheVoxelman on twitter

Check out my hype threads: Cyberpunk, and The Witcher 3!

Akvod on 31 March 2010
zarx said:

I will read that later but I want to address 1 thing now when a retailer buys a copy of a game they pay for it then they try to on sell it to the public when someone buys the copy all the money goes to the store (they have already given the publisher money) and if the publisher is lucky the retailer will then order more copys of the game getting the publisher more copys. that is why most publishers will report sold to retailers in their financial reports because that is the transaction they actualy get their money from the only reason a publisher cares if the public actualy buys those copies is if the retailer orders more copies or not.

If that's the case, then no product, that is expected to sell a lot, should fail. The retailers have paid fully and completely for every copy. It is only a matter of expectation and ordering then. Stock piles of unsold products or over ordering a product only hurts the retailers and not the creator. Which we both know is not true (ET for example). Like I said, it'll be such a risky business if Best Buy buys the product completely, and our modern economic system bypasses that risk with our system of retailership.

well like I said the publishers would only care if the retailer refused to order more copies or other titles because of the low sales, or in the rare case that it sells so bad that the retailers try to make the publisher buy back the stock like what happened with ET

But the publisher will get its money for every product shipped. You hear fanboys bickering about shipped vs sold. If publishers and devs automatically get their money from shipping products, all they have to do is hype up every product and fool the retailers to buy a lot of copies.

It also makes retailers worry about ordering large quantities, as the burden is completely on them.

It also then breaks trust completely, because retailers will be so scared shitless with every failure, that eventually we'll have massive supply shortages.

By distributing the risk of retailing, cost of retailing, and profit from retailing to both creators and retailers, we create a system that gets rid of fear and promotes retailers to buy what they expect to sell, and not order less than what they expect out of fear of being wrong and being completely screwed over instead of partially (the opportunity cost of occupying shelf space with better selling products).



superchunk on 31 March 2010
zarx said:
superchunk said:
Seece said:
Akvod said:
The difference is in consent. You can gain ownership, permanent or temporary, for free if you have the consent of the original owner.

Taking someone's property without their consent, is theft, a violation of their property rights, and their natural right as a human being. It is in essence, slavery, since you're making someone slave away creating something, and then just taking it away. It's not an issue of compensation either. It's CONSENT.

Good post, sums it up perfectly.

I agree. Forget my post above, the definition of consent and theft is clearest difference.

well how about the difference between piracy and theft (theft = taking something from someone) (piracy = creating a copy of something that remains in possession of the owner)

"Taking someone's property (which includes digital copies) without their consent, is theft..."



Scruff7 on 31 March 2010
zarx said:
Scruff7 said:
If someone were to buy one copy a game, and then sell it later as a second hand game, there is still one copy of that game, it has just changed owner.

A pirate may buy a game, and then produce many many copies of that game, sell them on for profit and probably keep the original. There are now many illegal copies of a game.

Which is wrong?

neither and both, in both cases there is still one copy sold the only difference is that more people get to use the copy faster in one example than the other.

I don't think we are going to see eye to eye on this issue, your view of what is right and what is wrong differs on this issue.

I feel that you are attempting to justify your use of illegal, pirated games, which i do not condone.



Atari 2600, Sega Mega Drive, Game Boy, Game Boy Advanced, N64, Playstation, Xbox, PSP Phat, PSP 3000, and PS3 60gb (upgraded to 320gb), NDS

Linux Ubuntu user

Favourite game: Killzone 3

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 31 March 2010
superchunk said:
zarx said:
superchunk said:
Seece said:
Akvod said:
The difference is in consent. You can gain ownership, permanent or temporary, for free if you have the consent of the original owner.

Taking someone's property without their consent, is theft, a violation of their property rights, and their natural right as a human being. It is in essence, slavery, since you're making someone slave away creating something, and then just taking it away. It's not an issue of compensation either. It's CONSENT.

Good post, sums it up perfectly.

I agree. Forget my post above, the definition of consent and theft is clearest difference.

well how about the difference between piracy and theft (theft = taking something from someone) (piracy = creating a copy of something that remains in possession of the owner)

"Taking someone's property (which includes digital copies) without their consent, is theft..."


I agree. So if they went into the developers computers, cut and pasted the game and left... they would be "taking their digital copies." Instead people are making their own digital copies.

Scruff7 on 31 March 2010
zarx said:
superchunk said:
Seece said:
Akvod said:
The difference is in consent. You can gain ownership, permanent or temporary, for free if you have the consent of the original owner.

Taking someone's property without their consent, is theft, a violation of their property rights, and their natural right as a human being. It is in essence, slavery, since you're making someone slave away creating something, and then just taking it away. It's not an issue of compensation either. It's CONSENT.

Good post, sums it up perfectly.

I agree. Forget my post above, the definition of consent and theft is clearest difference.

well how about the difference between piracy and theft (theft = taking something from someone) (piracy = creating a copy of something that remains in possession of the owner)

they are different things, although both illegal.



Atari 2600, Sega Mega Drive, Game Boy, Game Boy Advanced, N64, Playstation, Xbox, PSP Phat, PSP 3000, and PS3 60gb (upgraded to 320gb), NDS

Linux Ubuntu user

Favourite game: Killzone 3

superchunk on 31 March 2010
Kasz216 said:
superchunk said:
zarx said:
superchunk said:
Seece said:
Akvod said:
The difference is in consent. You can gain ownership, permanent or temporary, for free if you have the consent of the original owner.

Taking someone's property without their consent, is theft, a violation of their property rights, and their natural right as a human being. It is in essence, slavery, since you're making someone slave away creating something, and then just taking it away. It's not an issue of compensation either. It's CONSENT.

Good post, sums it up perfectly.

I agree. Forget my post above, the definition of consent and theft is clearest difference.

well how about the difference between piracy and theft (theft = taking something from someone) (piracy = creating a copy of something that remains in possession of the owner)

"Taking someone's property (which includes digital copies) without their consent, is theft..."

I agree. So if they went into the developers computers, cut and pasted the game and left... they would be "taking their digital copies." Instead people are making their own digital copies.

I don't know why I choose to get into these threads. Its always the same lame argument that a copy is not theft since the original still exists. But, that simply ignorant and petty. Its just a way for theives to tell themselves its ok, I'm not really commiting a crime.

Simply put, they don't have consent to make a copy and therefore doing so is theft of the content.



zarx on 31 March 2010
Scruff7 said:
zarx said:
Scruff7 said:
If someone were to buy one copy a game, and then sell it later as a second hand game, there is still one copy of that game, it has just changed owner.

A pirate may buy a game, and then produce many many copies of that game, sell them on for profit and probably keep the original. There are now many illegal copies of a game.

Which is wrong?

neither and both, in both cases there is still one copy sold the only difference is that more people get to use the copy faster in one example than the other.

I don't think we are going to see eye to eye on this issue, your view of what is right and what is wrong differs on this issue.

I feel that you are attempting to justify your use of illegal, pirated games, which i do not condone.

where did I say I condoned "illegal, pirated games" I want other people to try condone second hand games so I can argue with them for the fun of it while getting people to think about it. I would like for someone to admit that it is similar to piracy but I don't think anyone will and I don't actualy have a problem with anyone buying used games I do it myself I just want people to make an informed decision lol, oh and I found the Geohot hate to be over the to and un justified as I don't think he is even trying to allow pirated games on the PS3



@TheVoxelman on twitter

Check out my hype threads: Cyberpunk, and The Witcher 3!

Kasz216 on 31 March 2010
superchunk said:
Kasz216 said:
superchunk said:
zarx said:
superchunk said:
Seece said:
Akvod said:
The difference is in consent. You can gain ownership, permanent or temporary, for free if you have the consent of the original owner.

Taking someone's property without their consent, is theft, a violation of their property rights, and their natural right as a human being. It is in essence, slavery, since you're making someone slave away creating something, and then just taking it away. It's not an issue of compensation either. It's CONSENT.

Good post, sums it up perfectly.

I agree. Forget my post above, the definition of consent and theft is clearest difference.

well how about the difference between piracy and theft (theft = taking something from someone) (piracy = creating a copy of something that remains in possession of the owner)

"Taking someone's property (which includes digital copies) without their consent, is theft..."

I agree. So if they went into the developers computers, cut and pasted the game and left... they would be "taking their digital copies." Instead people are making their own digital copies.

I don't know why I choose to get into these threads. Its always the same lame argument that a copy is not theft since the original still exists. But, that simply ignorant and petty. Its just a way for theives to tell themselves its ok, I'm not really commiting a crime.

Simply put, they don't have consent to make a copy and therefore doing so is theft of the content.

It's not lame.  It's factual.  The original still exists so it's not theft.  Just how painting an exact copy of the mona lisa isn't theft because the Mona Lisa is still sitting in the Louvre.  Software piracy is just a hell of a lot easier.  Hence why it's illegal.  (I believe it's not illegal to copy the mona lisa unless you sell it claiming to be the Mona lisa.  Hence why reproductions are legal.)

Also, I do not pirate.  So try again.