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

Forums - Sales - Geohot hate piracy and stuff

Akvod 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 want to make clear that IP means the right to produce/reproduce a product or part of a product (ex. a logo), not codes and stuff. That means we can never own software. We don't have the right to reproduce completely or partly the coding of a product we bought, but we certainly own the coding we have on a disc.

 

We do this for many reasons:

1) Incentive, tired and old we all heard of this.

2) Image, brand, name tarnishing. This is both for the suppliers AND the consumers. Tyllenol is a trusted company right? You like to buy their pills, rather than pills of some random company because you know you're not going to get lead in them. How can you, as a consumer, make an educated purchase if there is no protection of labelign stuff.

Remember the scams on ebay? THREE PSs? (X-BOX) for sale? With an box and a marker scribbling of "X"?

If this is really wide spread, then we won't be able to buy products anymore, because we don't even know what we're buying.

 

Fuck, we should make everyone take basic micro and macro econ, basic political science, and a few more classes so that we can all be proper voters.



Around the Network
Ssenkahdavic on 31 March 2010

Im going to move to Somalia and become a real life pirate.



 

  

The Only True Next Gen Game - Hero-U

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
Robert A. Heinlein

Akvod on 31 March 2010
Ssenkahdavic said:
Im going to move to Somalia and become a real life pirate.



superchunk on 31 March 2010
Kasz216 said:
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.

Also, I do not pirate.  So try again.

Its not factual. You're missing the point behind 'consent'. You did not have consent to make a copy and use that copy. Therefore you did steal that content.

 

Also, I didn't say you did pirate. Hell, I do with certain things. I'm just not trying to sugar coat it.



Wagram on 31 March 2010

Why do I hate pirates?

HELLO!?!?!?



Around the Network
zarx on 31 March 2010
Akvod said:
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).

and that is what caused the great video game crash retailers were so scared of being burned that they almost never ordered any new games. today retailers try and find a balance between ordering to much and not meeting demand they closely monitor hype to try and gage demand for products if they order to few they risk losing sales to a competitor to many and they may be forced to sell them at a discounted price even sometimes bellow what it cost them to clear shelf space for new titles. I didn't say it was ideal but from what I know that is how it works  only if the publisher didn't deliver on what they promised can a retailer sell the copies back to the publishers.



@TheVoxelman on twitter

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

vlad321 on 31 March 2010

I fully agree with this. In both cases the developer sees no money and someone plays the game. As to whether one made a copy or sold his copy, potato, potahto.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Kasz216 on 31 March 2010
superchunk said:
Kasz216 said:
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.

Also, I do not pirate.  So try again.

Its not factual. You're missing the point behind 'consent'. You did not have consent to make a copy and use that copy. Therefore you did steal that content.

 

Also, I didn't say you did pirate. Hell, I do with certain things. I'm just not trying to sugar coat it.

You said it was just a way for theives to tell themselves it's ok.  Thereby branding anyone who believes that... a theif.

If you rape someone, you did not have consent to rape them.  However you aren't committing theft.  You are committing Rape.

If you murder someone, you did not have consent to murder them.  However you aren'tt committing theft.  You are commiting murder.

If you copy the Mona Lisa perfectly you are not committing murder.  You aren't committing any crime.  Unless you try and sell it then it's counterfitting.

 

It's not the "consent" part that's relevent.  It's the effect part.  What happens to the person afflicted.

In theft they lose a possesion.

In rape they are attacked and violated

In murder they are attacked and killed

In artwork reproduction, they potentially lose a sale

In counterfitting they definitly lose a sale.

In software piracy, they potentially lose a sale... but it's really easy to do. 

So Sofware Piracy is between artwork reproduction and counterfitting.



vlad321 on 31 March 2010

Before anyone even dares to say "oh yeah piracy hurts everyone! and used copying DOESN'T!!!11ONEeleven"

http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/01/20/dutch-research-institution-says-piracy-good-for-economy-not-responsible-for-music-industrys-problems/

I call this owned, sirs.

P.S. There's a link to the original studies and all, however my Dutch isn't exactly up to par. In fact it's completely missing.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

superchunk on 31 March 2010
Kasz216 said:

You said it was just a way for theives to tell themselves it's ok.  Thereby branding anyone who believes that... a theif.

If you rape someone, you did not have consent to rape them.  However you aren't committing theft.  You are committing Rape.

If you murder someone, you did not have consent to murder them.  However you aren'tt committing theft.  You are commiting murder.

If you copy the Mona Lisa perfectly you are not committing murder.  You aren't committing any crime.  Unless you try and sell it then it's counterfitting.

 

It's not the "consent" part that's relevent.  It's the effect part.  What happens to the person afflicted.

In theft they lose a possesion.

In rape they are attacked and violated

In murder they are attacked and killed

In artwork reproduction, they potentially lose a sale

In counterfitting they definitly lose a sale.

In software piracy, they potentially lose a sale... but it's really easy to do. 

So Sofware Piracy is between artwork reproduction and counterfitting.

However, this is copyright laws, which are forced to be different because the product can be stolen without loss of a tangible product.

You're just defining it too narrow. As time passes and technologies change, basic definitions must adapt to protect those whose rights are being inflicted upon. Making a copy of content so you can use it without consent fits this new definition of theft for these new technologies.

Its been proven in every court worldwide. Making digital copies is theft.