View Full Version : SEIV is being Pirated
Atrocities
August 24th, 2001, 02:21 AM
read this thread from SEIV Forums...
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I was talking to my friends to see if they wanted SE4 (Get them in the one order and split shipping cost) when one friend said he found the game on a warez site when he went searching for a demo. I have the link but I ain't posting but is there anything that can be done?
The downloads are there but I'm not downloading it to see if it works, I will never have Warez on this machine. I hate warez and my mum would kill me.
No requests for that url from anyone thinking I'll give it to them.
I can't stand the fact that some people have to pay(Like anyone who has it and me when I work out this shipping but, or the dollor gets better) and some a$$hole uploads it.
Checking the files there all on homestead. Would an E-Mail to them make them remove it. If so someone else please send it as I can't write letter to well(I'm failing English)
Sorry for the long post but it's just pissing me off. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good for this guy. These are the people who make buying a game a great thing to do. Now read what COLLEGEPARTY, a real looser, had to say.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>ask me who is the moron , someone who spends money for something that is free or someone who spends money on it , face it your in the SHRINKING minorty of gamers who won't download games , i contacted MANY of the people from your email Boards and fan clubs and i'd say a good 90percent of them were willing to do trade for trades via the net for this game . you say loss of interegity i say BLA trading games over the interent doesnt mean jack @#%$ to me , i could care less really , there's no moral issue here , i'm not stealing , if its for free then its for free. The only reason I'M writing this is someone pushed my @#%$ big red DO NOT PUSH button when they @#%$ me over by somehow getting my hot mail account CLOSED S.O.B ......i HATE YOU I HATE YOU I HATE YOU!!!. i lost all my contacts!!!! i lost all my emails!!! all those girls GONE!!!!!! i will never be able to live this down!!!!! i hate you i hate you i hate you i hate you!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LONG LIVE WAREZ!!!!!!!!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think that its important to note that many people are admitted to getting SE IV from Warez sites. I have checked some out, and have not seen SE IV yet, but from what I understand, its out their. This must be stopped! If you have information about warez sites giving away SE IV, please for the love of god, contact Aaron or Richard. Help support the further development of this game.
Here is a game that is not a "big kid" on the block, and it's getting undermind by theifs and pirates.
------------------
"We've made too many compromises already, too many retreats! They invade our space and we fall back -- they assimilate entire worlds and we fall back! Not again! The line must be drawn here -- this far, no further! And I will make them pay for what they've done!" -- Captain Picard STNG
New Age Ship Yards (http://www.angelfire.com/tv2/NewAgeShipyards/index.html)
Atrocities
August 24th, 2001, 02:27 AM
Looks like SEIV Forum has become a meeting place for Pirates and low life theifs. The out right gul that some of these posters have asking for links to download sites. WTF!!!!! Richard, is there anything you or Aaron can do to shut down or at least get the authorities to address this type of piracy?
[This message has been edited by Atrocities (edited 24 August 2001).]
Lerchey
August 24th, 2001, 03:02 AM
GENERAL Atrocities,
Richard and/or Aaron can consult with their attorneys. It's often very difficult to actually catch software pirates, but if they lucky and the bad guys are operating out of someplace reasonable, with decent log files, they may be able to determine the real name.
If they can get that, they can file legal charges against the bastard(s).
IN the meantime, they can also have their attorneys demand that any and all copies of SE IV be removed from their publically accessable site(s).
Computer crimes cyber-suck. Big time.
General John
aka
John K. Lerchey
Computer and Network Security Coordinator
Carnegie Mellon University
PS - if the piracy is found at Carnegie Mellon, tell me. I'll go after 'em hard.
Richard
August 24th, 2001, 03:46 AM
Which forums?
We do follow up every warez report, but unfourtanetly it is next to impossible to handle all of them.
Just this Last week we called the FBI about someone who was selling illegal copies on ebay.
------------------
Sarge is coming...
Richard Arnesen
Director of Covert Ops
Shrapnel Games
http://www.shrapnelgames.com
PurpleRhino
August 24th, 2001, 04:07 AM
Damn that sucks! I hope you pin their asses to the wall! I still can't believe that some ppl think that they can pirate games, and not hurt the companies making them... Are they truely THAT stupid? Somebody should wake these people up to the fact that if everybody pirated, NO company would both making games... and then they would have NO games to pirate OR play! Now I will admit that I am not guilt free... I have played some pirated games. But I will buy them if they are worth playing. But I have been stung WAY too many times to buy a game without playing it. I think I have probably over 300 (if not more) games that I have boughten over the years... which if you assume at least $40 per game... is $12000!!! Dang, now that I look at it... maybe I'll start pirating more... J/K!!! But seriously, I REALLY do hope you get those guys.
Deathstalker
August 24th, 2001, 04:14 AM
One of the problems with pirating is that it is 'cool', and the 'in thing' to do these days....I mean, heck, look at Napster, everyone was cheering them on and not understanding what Groups like Metallica were saying....the main argument was summed up best by Kid Rock: 'Heck, I'm making millions, what do I care?'(or something to that effect)...people pirate and think they are 'sticking it to the Evil Empire/Corporate Giant'....it's just not true...I havn't pirated since my Commadore 64 days and won't, it is just not fun...It's also too easy to do, most computers come with burner installed and almost any 14 year old 'geek' can crack the protection on any game....ugh!, this is (if you can tell) one of my pet peeves...
This is NOT a hackers movie or some such thing, this is real life, and stealing (in any form) is wrong, some people just NEED to grow up...
------------------
"And what the hell would you know about sanity?" demanded Beatrice. "There are depressed lemmings on the edge of cliffs who've got a better grasp on reality than you have. And more common sense."--Simon R. Green 'Deathstalker Rebellion'.
"We are all...the sum of our scars"....(paraphrased) Matt. R. Stover-'Blade of Tyshalle'.
"Memory," the old man said softly, "is tricky. I have learned two things from it. One: That without meaningful memories, there is no life. Two: that we are desperate for our lives to make sense, to have meaning,--and at a great enough remove , all memory is malleable." -Michelle West 'Sea of Sorrows', SunSword book IV.
Atrocities
August 24th, 2001, 04:17 AM
SE IV forums (EzBoards) {Link from Malfadors links page or from my links page.}was were the topic was posted, but it has since been locked. Perhaps the Admins of that site agree that discussion on how to pirate material, especially the game that they founded their site to support, is sick and wrong.
At least it appears that way.
------------------
"We've made too many compromises already, too many retreats! They invade our space and we fall back -- they assimilate entire worlds and we fall back! Not again! The line must be drawn here -- this far, no further! And I will make them pay for what they've done!" -- Captain Picard STNG
New Age Ship Yards (http://www.angelfire.com/tv2/NewAgeShipyards/index.html)
BeeDee10
August 24th, 2001, 11:19 AM
One moderating factor to keep in mind is that not every warezed copy of SEIV is a "lost sale" for Shrapnel/Malfador; the vast majority of the people who download these things still wouldn't buy a legitimate copy if they _couldn't_ get it for free. There's an idiot I know who keeps pestering me to give him a copy of the full game since I recommended it to him. I keep on refusing, but he hasn't gone out and bought a legitimate copy as a result. He hasn't even bothered to expend the effort to find a warezed copy elsewhere.
I'm not condoning the practice, of course, but one shouldn't panic when one reads things like "10,000 copies of Program X that normally cost $50 each were pirated, therefore Company Y 'lost' $500,000." The actual reduction of potential income is probably much less.
Dravis
August 24th, 2001, 12:32 PM
Yes, but I still think those Pirators SHOULD GO TO !*#@ !!!
Saxon
August 24th, 2001, 03:09 PM
Couple of issues that I would be interested in hearing people’s thoughts about:
1. I, as a teenager and university student, was a regular pirate. Then I got a job, and realized what it meant to earn your money. I stopped pirating and started paying, as I would expect the same from others. Are most of the pirates “kids” or is this a big thing across all ages?
2. Where I used to live, there was a used bookstore, that also bought old games. They would then sell the games at a lower than retail price. Some people bought, burned copies, then sold it back. Others would play the game till they were tired of it, then sell it back. Where do these two activities fall in the eyes of the law and of people on the forum? Is it different than buying and selling used books?
I am interested to see what you all think.
tesco samoa
August 24th, 2001, 03:52 PM
For the number 2. The license follows the software. When you sell it to the the book store they are now the license holders. When they sell it to the next person they take over the license. Now since royalities and anything else were paid with the first initial buying of the product I believe that the life of the product and where it goes should not generate more royality payment.
To me this is fine. It is the way it should be.
I think the question here is the actual question of intellectual property.
I personaly think that the system under its current model does not work.
I think their should be a time limit set on the property. Say 20 years then it becomes public domain no matter what. And that for those 20 years that intellectual property must be protected to the fullest extent of the law and all money generated from it should go to what ever the contract on that said item gets. (really bad wording sorry)
The problem with this issue is that it has become like a debate about the existence of God. Either you believe or you don't and their is no way of changing the other persons opinions.
Right now copy right laws are being revamped. And what happens in the next 10 years will shape the future of intellectual property for the next 50 years. This is occuring in all fields ( just look at the radio transmission laws or even the RIAA )and I personally believe that the governing bodies do not hold the consumer in the best interest.
Copy right is not a moral debate. But people argue on that stance ( look at my Last sentance from the previous paragraph).
I think this gets in the way of the real issues.
Public domain should be protected. Open license agreements should be protected. Intellectual property should be protected. And the law should be protected.
It is a balancing act. But one area should not remove the idology and protections of another area.
Question.
In Canada we have the home Users agreement. It allows us to record music , tv and radio for our personal enjoyment.
But we pay royalites for purchasing blank media.
And devices are being introduced that break the home Users agreement.
The question I ask is:
What should be the home Users rights be now and what should become?
------------------
L? GdX $ Fr C++ SdT T+ Sf* Tcp+ A M++ MpTM ROTS Pw+ Fq+ Nd Rp++ G+
tesco samoa
August 24th, 2001, 03:54 PM
Topic Topic Starter Replies Last Post
SEIV is being Pirated Atrocities 10 24 August 2001 14:52
A pirates life for me... WhiteHojo 365 24 August 2001 14:32
top two threads right now.
Made me laugh
------------------
L? GdX $ Fr C++ SdT T+ Sf* Tcp+ A M++ MpTM ROTS Pw+ Fq+ Nd Rp++ G+
disabled
August 24th, 2001, 04:02 PM
In case you are wondering, it was I who closed those topic on 'CollegeParty' and then got him Banned from ezboard completely for his actions.
I cannot tolerate people like that.
Ezboard also is looking into legal action because he has done this in many other forums as I'm told.
I also think Microsoft is searching for him because he has a hotmail email account and that would count as severe email abuse.
He seemed to be a fairly sad person.
------------------
HADRIAN T. AVENTINE
admin@spaceempires.org
Administrator | SpaceEmpires.org (http://www.spaceempires.org)
[This message has been edited by Hadrian Aventine (edited 24 August 2001).]
Argh
August 24th, 2001, 06:35 PM
Well . . . hrmm. I must admit, I'd think that an all-Online gaming company would actually have far FEWER problems with piracy. . . if they used proper security.
A typical example would be the Pixels 3D software company. I've bought several revisions of their incredibly powerful(and relatively cheap) 3D animation software, and they have effectively locked every install by using the following method: they have a key generator that creates a unique key string tied to the serial number of the BIOS. Whenever I install the software, I'm unable to use it at all until I've gone Online and registered the software. . . whereupon a matching string is sent to me.
This works much better than either:
A. Trusting your customers not to make copies with their burners and simple cracking tools.
B. Sending out a serial/registration code on the jewelbox and locking the CD to the game. Again, it's too darn easy to break the code if you have both strings and can watch the registers. . . you don't need to be very good, either
Anyhow, Pixels' copy protection sounds like a royal pain in the rear for end-Users, right? Well. . . no! Since Pixels sells all of its software Online, and distributes through one supplier(sound familiar, Richard?) . . . all of the Users already have the expectation of having to deal with the software publisher's website, so having to take the extra step of registering to recieve their serial number(which can be generated from the seed provided by the machine's BIOS or any number of other unique identifiers) would provide fairly complete protection from warez hackers for a very reasonable price in terms of time and effort. Just a thought http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif
BeeDee10
August 24th, 2001, 07:46 PM
Well I, for one, am extremely annoyed by the vast majority of the so-called "copy-protection" schemes I've seen used on software. I don't pirate (well, with a handful of exceptions over the years http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif, but I do back up my software because I do occasionally lose manuals and damage CDs and whatnot. I considered it a really nice feature that all I had to do to back up SEIV was to grab the setup.exe and copy it off the disk like any other file. In fact, I have only put the original CD into the computer _once_, when I first recieved it; I immediately copied it, installed from the copy, and stashed the original away in a secure place for storage.
Kudos to Shrapnel Games and Malfador Machinations for actually _trusting_ their customers! http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif Yes, it makes it easier for the handful of idiots out there who pirate, but if it's a good game it's going to get pirated anyway unless you impose the most ridiculously draconian restrictions.
rdouglass
August 24th, 2001, 08:32 PM
Copying software to give away just plain SUCKS. I do quite a bit of custom Web development and that's a huge reason why I have done most of my recent development (whenever possible) in ASP so that when some "script kiddie" comes along and right-clicks my page, all they see is my results and not my code.
I wonder how those Warez people would like it if they came into their jobs on Friday and they were told they were only getting paid for 30 hours of work this week instead of 40 'cause some guy gave away 10 hours of their work. I wish there was a way to do this!!! There would be far less pirating IMO. However, there isn't any way (at least not with current technology) that I know of.
You would think that the SPA would try to develop something like the US Government's CARNIVORE thing to get these @$$holes.....
Unfortunately, I'm just 'preaching to the choir' here and not the thieves (that's what they are)...
Rich04
August 24th, 2001, 09:01 PM
The only problem I see with the copy protection you mention Argh is what if the company goes under. You are stuck with the one installed Version and never will be able to install it again.
I too hate pirates. But over the years I have seen some really annoying copy protects
that have really complicated even installing a bit of software. Amusingly it has never seemed to even slow down pirates.
Kinda like gun laws. Average citizens here in the USA have to go through all sorts of hassles to get a liscense (not that I am against that). But your average criminal can get hold of a firearm in minutes. Heck I am not a criminal (I have some Law Enforcement background) but if I wanted to I could buy one in minutes illeagly.
I believe both of these problems have no solution.
Magnum357
August 24th, 2001, 10:28 PM
Replying to a comment stated below, I think I read once that copyrights only Last 10 years (50 years for a patent) then they become public domian. I could be wrong on this but theoretically, if ya really wanted to, in 2010 we could make copies of SE4 and give them to people. Although I probably wouldn't just for moral reasons. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif
I looked this up once because a software company named "Sierra" (you might know it, makes that game called Halflife) had two REALLY awsome sports games (Football Pro and Baseball Pro). They dicontinued their sports game about a couple of years ago and don't plan to make any more sporst games (unless you like bullriding and fishing). Anyway, I read some laws in the government that talked about copyrights and Patents. It stated that copyrights had a certain time span then they become public domain. Patents are a little different. Their hard to get established, but if someone uses your patent and you can prove they did it, you can really nail them big time! Patents are easier to get applied to things, but have limitations.
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that theoretically (assuming I'm correct) we could all make copies of SE4 by 2010 and give them to people. As long as we don't sell them for a profit, it is perfectly legal.
Phoenix-D
August 24th, 2001, 10:32 PM
Last I checked copywrites were for *50* years. More if some of the big corps get their way.
Phoenix-D
Magnum357
August 25th, 2001, 12:04 AM
Are you sure? I thought I read it was only 10 years, but again I could be wrong on that. Maybe its only 10 years for certain copyrights perhaps. Hmmm... I should do a little researching here.
Baron Munchausen
August 25th, 2001, 01:33 AM
It's even worse than that, actually. Copyright has become a virtual 'entitlement' for authors and artists families. It's now been extended to 50 years after the death of the author. The copyright on Sherlock Holmes only ran out a few years ago, for example. (Hmm, my reference says Arthur Conan Doyle died in 1930... which would mean the copyright ran out in 1980. I'd swear it was only a few years ago I heard the story about the copyright expiring on Sherlock Holmes. Must be getting old and misremembering things... http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif ) The copyright on Tolkien's works will run until 2023 at least since he died in 1973. Joseph Heller just died Last year if I recall correctly (my reference isn't new enough to list it) so the copyrights on Yossarian and Milo Minderbinder and associates will run until 2050.
[This message has been edited by Baron Munchausen (edited 25 August 2001).]
BeeDee10
August 25th, 2001, 07:48 AM
For more detailed information on copyright as it currently exists, see the FAQ at the following address: http://web.mit.edu/cwis/copyright/faq.html
It looks pretty good to me. However, since the law is mutable and life+50 is a _long_ time, don't make any plans based on the assumption that you can just wait until 2070 or thereabouts (depending on when Aaron dies) to start distributing your own copies of SEIV. The duration of copyright protection has been steadily lengthened in recent years, thanks in large part to intensive lobbying by wealthy hollywood interests who do not want their old characters and movies to start entering the public domain (see "Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act", http://www.law.asu.edu/HomePages/Karjala/OpposingCopyrightExtension/).
Copyright protection originally Lasted a _maximum_ of 28 years. I think rolling back the duration to something in that ballpark would help restore a great deal of respect for copyright as well as vastly enriching the public domain. But I guess this is somewhat off-topic for an SEIV forum, and so I will shut up now. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif
[This message has been edited by BeeDee10 (edited 25 August 2001).]
tesco samoa
August 25th, 2001, 05:20 PM
thats good reading if your fall under american copyright laws. I was thinking along the line that copyright laws should be one and the same planet wide.
------------------
L? GdX $ Fr C++ SdT T+ Sf* Tcp+ A M++ MpTM ROTS Pw+ Fq+ Nd Rp++ G+
dmm
August 27th, 2001, 06:05 PM
The real rip-off of pirating software is that most software only has a useful lifetime of about 5 years. So 50 years of copyright protection is meaningless. Therefore, it is much more of a crime to pirate software than books. If someone pirates a book, the copyright owners have 50 years to get a return on their investment from law-abiding citizens. Not so with software! (Although, come to think of it, many books also have a short lifetime, such as celeb bios and computer "how-to"s. Maybe there ought to be different categories of copyrights, and short-term copyrights should be savagely enforced.)
tesco samoa
August 27th, 2001, 10:34 PM
All copyright is enforced. For if you do not enforce it you might lose it. Look at all the cases flying around with humour or satire of products. Like the fordsucks or any boardgames that have been reproduced as jokes.
------------------
L? GdX $ Fr C++ SdT T+ Sf* Tcp+ A M++ MpTM ROTS Pw+ Fq+ Nd Rp++ G+
dmm
August 28th, 2001, 12:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tesco samoa:
All copyright is enforced. For if you do not enforce it you might lose it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What I meant was that someone could choose a 5-year copyright, which would have draconian penalties, or they could choose the 50-year copyright, which would have slap-on-the-wrist penalties (except for heinous offenders). Because not even MS cares if you pirate Win3.0 at this point (they've made their money and moved on), whereas the owners of a classic novel get their return on investment over the long term.
BeeDee10
August 28th, 2001, 01:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tesco samoa:
All copyright is enforced. For if you do not enforce it you might lose it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is simply false, read the FAQ I posted the URL for downthread. _Trademarks_ have the "defend it or lose it" feature, but not copyright. It is possible to ignore some copyright violations and prosecute others, or even ignore _all_ copyright violations, and still retain copyright.
TNTTony
August 28th, 2001, 06:09 AM
I seem to be the only one in my circle of friends that actually buy games. My friend actually told me that I was stupid in buying games because everyone pirates games.
There are many reasons why people pirate games and these reasons are not as black and white as many people on this forum seem to suggest.
Australia does not sell SEIV. Instead an australian can purchase the game via the net for the sum of $120. Why purchase the game at $120 and wait one week for the game to come when you can spend a couple of hours downloading and play it instantaneously?
It seems that the "common" theme in todays games is to package it in a DVD case with a flimsy manual. Anyone who have to work to earn a buck knows that moeny do no grow on trees. When we spend hundreds of dollars on a game we want more than just a GOOD game. We want something to be included in the purchase that makes it DIFFERENT to downloading it Online. I mean the only difference between a game downloaded Online and a game that was purchased is that one came with a paper manual and one came without a manual. We want something good when purchasing the game.
There are many other reasons. Please don't get me wrong. I do not condone pirating. What I'm trying to say is that the pirating issue is not as easy and clear cut as people make it to be.
Thank you for your attention.
------------------
I need a good signature :-(
Saxon
August 28th, 2001, 12:44 PM
Two quick things I would like to say in regards to the Last post.
First, I live in Kenya and I had to mail order my copy of SE4. I see no reason that living in Australia should make one any less ethically bound to pay for the game than living anywhere in the world. There are plenty of things I would like to have and can not get, but that is part of living where I live. Having to wait a week for something to come in the mail is not a big hardship, certainly not one which would justify defrauding someone of cash and credit for a game they spend serious time creating.
Second, “everyone pirates games” is a clearly false statement that your friends have given you. Economics is pretty simple, if people don’t buy games, they won’t get made. Sure, a few shareware games are out there (SE1-3), but most good games are commercial. Therefore, people buy games, in fact, most people buy games. Your friend’s argument is false and poor reasoning. It goes back to what Mom used to say, “If everyone else jumped off the cliff, would you?” Mom is from Queensland, so I have always assumed this was an Australian proverb.
While I agree with you, the reasons people pirate games are diverse, I would disagree with you on the black and white issue. It is pretty clear that pirating a game is wrong and the justifications are not ethically strong enough to justify it. From where I sit, pirating a game to save a week of waiting for entertainment is ethically wrong. Pirating a game to save my Mom’s life is wrong, but ethically justifiable. People pirate games to save a few bucks and to have a bit more fun, not to save lives.
tesco samoa
August 28th, 2001, 02:09 PM
What does everyone think of music??? Along the same lines???
I am a member of the emusic club so I just download albums from that site and other stuff for back catalogue music that is unavailable anywhere.
I do not shop at music stores. 100% to 300% mark up is just too much for me.
------------------
L? GdX $ Fr C++ SdT T+ Sf* Tcp+ A M++ MpTM ROTS Pw+ Fq+ Nd Rp++ G+
Instar
August 28th, 2001, 11:26 PM
One thing that irks me is that here, you can prosecute it. In other countries, its not enforced at all. China even condones it really, they steal all the software and stuff. Ticks me off, it does
LazarusLong42
August 29th, 2001, 12:31 AM
The worst thing about pirating is there is more to it than the simplest ethical dilemma possible. Take this for instance:
Joe Blow in Nowhereton, Outback, AU, buys SE4 through Shrapnel... it'll arrive in two weeks. Is it now ethical for him to download the full Version from a warez site or wherever? Technically, as soon as the credit card transaction is processed, he is the holder of an SE4 license.
Discuss. Can anyone give me a good reason why it is unethical for Joe to download the full Version elsewhere while waiting for the CD which has already been paid for?
(N.B. I don't support pirating. I do, however, support interesting ethical/philosophical problems http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif)
LL
Richard
August 29th, 2001, 01:00 AM
Because by downloading it he adds one more vote to why the warez site handler should stay in business and probably makes him some money via banners.
Plus if you have to go through some of the sites voting mechanisms you help him that way.
Any download is a vote to the legitimacy of warez.
------------------
Sarge is coming...
Richard Arnesen
Director of Covert Ops
Shrapnel Games
http://www.shrapnelgames.com
geoschmo
August 29th, 2001, 01:00 AM
I think the distinction is in transmitting or sharing copies of the software. Warez doesn't verify that you purchased the software, so whether or not it's ethical for you to download it, it's definelty unethical and illegal for them to upload it.
I myself have copies of SEIV on two separate PC's. That may be a technical violation of the copyright. But I would NEVER make a copy for someone, or give or sell my computer with the copy loaded on it to someone.
Geoschmo
mobil
August 29th, 2001, 01:26 AM
Distribution is clearly very important to avoid piracy. I live in Norway, and sometimes games come to Norway several months after release in US or the rest of Europe (Birth of the Federation and Imperium Galactica II are examples of this).
When ppl await games like Master of Orion III (to be released next spring), it is very important to have a worldwide release in order to make piracy less interesting. My concience tells me not to download from the net, but I cannot buy the game either until someone decides its time for a Norwegian release.
One alternative is to order the game from the net, but that is only an option if I can download the game directly and pay with visa card. If i have to order a cd then i will have to go through a huge expensive paper mill. I have tried this once when i ordered a football kit and a football video from England. I had to pay VAT (norwegian VAT on top of the English one ofcourse), postal handling fee, import tax and finally VAT on the import tax. All in all £40 for importing £70 of goods.
I dont like piracy, and i buy all games that I think are great (from reviews, testing at friends or testing demos/illegal Versions). Still I admit that I could not stand waiting 3 months for Birth of the Federation and I played an illegal Version and discovered that it was crap. Therefore i never bough the game when it finally arrived. The same has happened bout three times with other games.
What I am trying to say here is that the game distribution is important because games have a very short life before something better comes by. "Everyone" reads the same reviews on the net, and ppl expect to find the games in the store soon after a game has gone gold. Dont expect ppl to read about the hottest new game for months before they can try it themselves.
This might not be a big issue for ppl living in US og UK, but for me its a huge annoyance.
tesco samoa
August 29th, 2001, 01:56 AM
Thanks BeeDee10
For correcting that post. I was going into to correct it. But I will leave it as it stands now.
Have a good day.
------------------
L? GdX $ Fr C++ SdT T+ Sf* Tcp+ A M++ MpTM ROTS Pw+ Fq+ Nd Rp++ G+
Puke
August 29th, 2001, 03:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tesco samoa:
What does everyone think of music??? Along the same lines???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
i think that music piracy is actually generating more interest in music, and the Last studies i read on the topic actually placed music industry revenue at a significant gain since mp3 trading became popular. not that piracy is okay, and not that publishing lables are altruistic, but they are definitly wasting their time trying to fight something that is making them money, rather than trying to legitimize it by developing ways to license trading of 'reduced quality' Versions of songs and to make even more money (on top of revenue from increased interest and free marketing) on Online music.
where as software piracy does nothing but cost people money. why in the world would you pirate a game that you enjoy from a small press publisher? you are just decreasing the chances that you will ever see a game like that again. you are not even helping yourself. THINK.
------------------
"...the green, sticky spawn of the stars"
(with apologies to H.P.L.)
disabled
August 29th, 2001, 03:59 AM
I enjoy such services as napster (even if Napster is dead and nothign can replace it) as a place I can preview music. I would like it even more if I could purchase songs on a song-by-song base as I could make my own CD's with all the songs I want. Honestly, screw 14.99 for a CD with 2 songs I want. I'd rather pay 24.99 for a CD with ALL songs I like.
------------------
HADRIAN T. AVENTINE
admin@spaceempires.org
Administrator | SpaceEmpires.org (http://www.spaceempires.org)
Askan Nightbringer
August 29th, 2001, 05:47 AM
I have a friend who is in a band. They tour the world and stuff but never make enough money to make a career out of it. So all the band members have day jobs so they can live, play and tour.
One night at a gig, a fan runs up to him and tells him how much he likes their music and all that. He then tells him he downloaded the band's latest album off napster.
The fan got a punch in the face.
Now if you can justify to the artist/creator why its alright to rip them off then fair enough. If you can't then your just a thief, no different from the guy who steals you wallet except alot more cowardly (because you aren't facing your victims).
Askan
(Head developer for a product that gets pirated)
Saxon
August 29th, 2001, 12:48 PM
Regarding music, let me ask tesco samoa if the music club he is part of returns some money to the artists/labels or not? I agree with you, 300% mark up is hard to swallow and I would be happier paying less, as long as some of it went back to the creator. If an Online retailer can give me the product I want with less mark up than that shop on Main Street, I will happily go to that store, as long as some of the cash makes it’s way back to the guy the artist.
The single song idea is great and, as Hadrian pointed out, paying more for a good CD is better than paying for a CD with only one good song on it. The music industry could do some creative things with current technology and still make good cash.
If I was the hypothetical guy who buys a SE4 license and then downloads it from a Warez site, I would follow up with an email to Richard suggesting that he investigate the possibility of creating a similar download procedure. We had to get some commercial anti virus software off the net and once our credit card cleared, they sent us a password. We then went to their site, entered the password and got a download. This allows legitimate purchasers quick access to product and skips the waiting. One could also offer a lower price, as no physical goods are created and no shipping and handling is incurred. Finally, you would never have back orders or overstocking problems.
However, I would also tell Richard that I work in the non-profit sector and don’t have a clue how to run a business, so he should take my ideas with a grain of salt!
Puke
August 29th, 2001, 02:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by geoschmo:
The fact is they haven't yet, and noone has the right to do it for them.
Geoschmo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
sure, ethicaly. but its not called an ethical economy, its called a market economy. if there is an oportunity to make money, and you dont jump on it, someone is bound to do it for you. Im betting things would stay pretty much status quo in an ethical economy, and no one would get off their *** to innovate anything new.
Bell didn't invent the first or best telephone, he just nabbed the pattent on it a few hours before the guy with an earlier, better Version made it to the pattent office. The fact that multinational recording industry conglomerates happened to win a leagle battle against an internet music startup is purely a matter of symantics.
while I like to poo poo on music lables for being big and evil, they had actually planned to partner with napster from the begining, as napster was always intended to transform into a subscription based service. I think the real blame falls on artists like Lars who rose a big stink and crusaded against the internet music pirates before the industry was positioned to realize a profit from it. recal that his label didnt want anything to do with his lawsuit until after it was over.
but thats not really the point either. if you want to get into the leagle issues, you have to analyze how peer to peer file sharing works. napster isnt uploading music they dont own, and they are not downloading music they dont own. their license agrement provided clauses that people had to own music that they traded digitally, and while blame was put on them for 'misuse' of their service, I am not buying it.
making VHS tapes of cable broadcasts is 'wrong.' early tape rentals from your local video store were disposable, and they had an odomoter style dial to show how many times they were viewed. that policy died quick. kids making tape recordings of radio broadcasts are breaking the law. whatever crazy **** is illegal right now, if the industry does not change then market factors will change it for them. There are enough legitimate outlets where artists offer their work or samples of their work Online, and are compensated by paypal type systems, that I am not too woried about the future working its self out.
for now, ill keep buying CDs. mp3 quality is not up to par for serious listening anyway, just like VHS isnt up to quality for serious viewing. there ARE non-lossy compression formats, but they are generally not used on public web servers because of prohibitive file sizes.
geoschmo
August 29th, 2001, 02:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Puke:
Im betting things would stay pretty much status quo in an ethical economy, and no one would get off their *** to innovate anything new.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Contrary to what many people think, the end does notjustify the means. You can't participate in illegal or unetical behaivor and justify it by saying, "If I didn't do it, somebody else would have." There are too many ways to make money in our economy that are perfectly legal. You don't have to skirt legality to do it. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Bell didn't invent the first or best telephone, he just nabbed the pattent on it a few hours before the guy with an earlier, better Version made it to the pattent office.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But that has nothing to do with the discussion here. Bell didn't "sample" the other guy's work and get a patent for himself on it. He patented his own work. It just so happeneded that the two were similer, and Bell got there first. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The fact that multinational recording industry conglomerates happened to win a leagle battle against an internet music startup is purely a matter of symantics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Uh, no. It's a matter of law and ethics. Your dismisal of it is symantics. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>while I like to poo poo on music lables for being big and evil, they had actually planned to partner with napster from the begining, as napster was always intended to transform into a subscription based service.[quote]And once they do, I will have no problem with it at all.[quote]if you want to get into the leagle issues, you have to analyze how peer to peer file sharing works. napster isnt uploading music they dont own, and they are not downloading music they dont own. their license agrement provided clauses that people had to own music that they traded digitally, and while blame was put on them for 'misuse' of their service, I am not buying it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually you are off here. The fact that they did not "directly" do anything does not absolve them of responsibility, any more than simply driving the getaway car absolves someone from responsibility in a bank holdup. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>whatever crazy **** is illegal right now, if the industry does not change then market factors will change it for them. There are enough legitimate outlets where artists offer their work or samples of their work Online, and are compensated by paypal type systems, that I am not too woried about the future working its self out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You are probably right, but that does not give someone the right to steal someone elses work, or make money off enableing someone else to steal it.
tesco samoa
August 29th, 2001, 02:48 PM
Quote
but thats not really the point either. if you want to get into the leagle issues, you have to analyze how peer to peer file sharing works. napster isnt uploading music they dont own, and they are not downloading music they dont own. their license agrement provided clauses that people had to own music that they traded digitally, and while blame was put on them for 'misuse' of their service, I am not buying it.
End Quote
In Canada it was legal to download songs from Napster (for personal) but it was Illegal to share them. Kind of like a bad star trek story.
Under the home user ( fair use policy) it is legal to copy streaming music and/or video for personal use.
I personally have used the services to get back cat. music that is not available and also to replace my LP's with CD's. I will not by a cd of something I have on LP. Sorry but double dipping is wrong (IMO).
I also feel that it is wrong to charge 20 dollars for a Kinks cd ( or any other cd that has been out for 20 years ).
But I stongly feel that you are not a criminal for downloading music or software.
Nor should you be grouped with criminals.
The music industry has wasted 7 years to develop a Online wharehouse of music. Fear and greed has kept that from happening. Now that they are finally doing it the model will not work. (Until they combine all their resources ( what will happen when retail cd stores want a piece of the pie ))
The story about artists not getting their due is not 100% acurate.
Look at Prince's Online album and how he benifited from it. ( Set a limit on how many albums he wanted to sell to make a profit, then release it and not care about it being shared or copied. Prince ended up making as much as he did with his Last 5 Record label releases) It is the Music Food chain that is not getting their due's. The artist is at the bottom of that food chain. If you ever get the chance to read a contract offered from the labels, you would laugh ( and cry ) and then go get a lawyer. They will tell you not to sign.
And with the person who went to see your friends band. Isn't he supporting them by going to their concert. Buying their stuff at the show. I doubt that the band gets much from that guy buying a CD of their music from a retail store.
What would they do if he said that he bought the cd used ???
Um. Sorry about writting all that. This topic is very important to me. I hope I do not offend anyone.
As you can guess I am against the DMCA and the RIAA.
This is a good topic.
------------------
L? GdX $ Fr C++ SdT T+ Sf* Tcp+ A M++ MpTM ROTS Pw+ Fq+ Nd Rp++ G+
Askan Nightbringer
August 29th, 2001, 04:36 PM
"What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way." -- Bertrand Russell, in "Roads to Freedom"
"It doesn't matter how many times you paint a fence, it is still a fence. Hitler had reasons for exterminating Jews, the CIA had reasons for attempting to rig Australian elections, a student has reasons to copy another's work and Trevor Chappel had a reason for bowling underam to New Zealand. Having an excuse doesn't make it any less wrong." -- Askan Nightbringer, in "Shrapnel Games Forum"
geoschmo
August 29th, 2001, 05:05 PM
Please don't get me wrong. I am in no way pointing anybody out specifically and saying you are a criminal for downloading music from Napster, or software from Warez. I don't know if you have a legitimate reason why you should be able to download a copy.
The point is neither do Napster or Warez. They don't care if you are bought the software but your cd got broke. They don't care if you are planning on buying the album and want to hear the music first. They get there money from advertising whether or not you are legitamate.
They are the criminals becasue they are the one's stealing the product, offering it for free consumption, and getting revenues from advertising on the sites.
It's the same thing when TV stations are looking for shows to broadcast. They have to pay the distributor (Paramount, etc.) of the movie so they can show it. Then they charge McDonalds for advertising so Joe Blow can tune in at 8 and watch the movie. They don't charge Joe Blow. If they don't pay Paramount, and Joe Blow watches it anyway, maybe he isn't doing anything illegal, (or maybe he is, I don't know), but the TV station sure as heck is. There is no question about that.
There shouldn't be a question about Napster or Warez either.
Geoschmo
[This message has been edited by geoschmo (edited 29 August 2001).]
disabled
August 29th, 2001, 05:12 PM
Here is al that I know. I think getting and keep programs and not paying for is illegal. Downloading demos and keeping the demos are legal.
Same applies to music.
I never listened to techno or rock or anything until I went to MP3.com by accident and d/l a song. Now I take maybe a day or two each month to go song hunting on these services to figure out what CD I'm going to buy next from the mall.
However, I do not tolerate taking the music, burning a CD out of it, and not paying for the songs unless the songs are public domain.
However, I do know there was one song I got from napster and the author no longer sold the song, nor was it being distributed. So, for the hell of it, I sent a check as a donation to the author of the song. I got a nice, hand written thank you in return that I'm still trying to translate to english....
In that, I feel I did not steal the song as I did pay for it in my own way. Afterall, MP3's tax the memory of a computer more than a CD audio track in my CD player.
As for software, the only free software I take is that sent to me for a formal review from a developer/publisher. Which has happened twice. I consider them letting me keep the game thier payment for my services.
Often, I will run into a site that runs to a warez site. If I find that you can download the game (and it's not a site full of porn links), I will promptly report them to the makers of the game and report the email of the person to his ISP or to the FCC.
There is a very fine line between sampling and stealing on the internet that people are all too often too blinded to see.
Yes, I do sample foods at diners and such if they allow it or offer it. What can I say, I enjoy food.
------------------
HADRIAN T. AVENTINE
admin@spaceempires.org
Administrator | SpaceEmpires.org (http://www.spaceempires.org)
disabled
August 29th, 2001, 05:15 PM
Just a little question for all of you...
Tell me, if you download a copy of original Beowulf off the net, is that stealing?
Also, if it is, who are you stealing from?
Let me know what you think.
------------------
HADRIAN T. AVENTINE
admin@spaceempires.org
Administrator | SpaceEmpires.org (http://www.spaceempires.org)
geoschmo
August 29th, 2001, 06:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hadrian Aventine:
Just a little question for all of you...
Tell me, if you download a copy of original Beowulf off the net, is that stealing?
Also, if it is, who are you stealing from?
Let me know what you think.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If you mean the original Beowulf, the book that's hundreds of years old, no. Even if you knew who wrote it (I think it is listed as author unknown) any copyright protection it would have is long since expired. It would be considered public domain.
Of course if the author were still around, he could more than make up for any lost book sales by publishing his secrets for eternal life. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif
Geoschmo
LazarusLong42
August 29th, 2001, 07:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Richard:
Because by downloading it he adds one more vote to why the warez site handler should stay in business and probably makes him some money via banners.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Heh. Indeed, you're absolutely right, and so is Geo. While the download is questionably ethical, the upload certainly is unethical... which invalidates any ethics on the download side. (I knew I was forgetting something http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif) Unfortunately, that doesn't make it less complex... and it doesn't shut down the warez sites. The question becomes, simply, how to shut them down?
LL
LazarusLong42
August 29th, 2001, 07:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hadrian Aventine:
Here is al that I know. I think getting and keep programs and not paying for is illegal. Downloading demos and keeping the demos are legal.
Same applies to music.
I never listened to techno or rock or anything until I went to MP3.com by accident and d/l a song. Now I take maybe a day or two each month to go song hunting on these services to figure out what CD I'm going to buy next from the mall.
However, I do not tolerate taking the music, burning a CD out of it, and not paying for the songs unless the songs are public domain.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am always torn by this sort of debate. As an artist of a differnet sort (fiction) I have to fall on the strict legal side and say that downloading music from Napster is wrong (as a frex). But as a consumer, I feel that sampling the music with intent to possibly purchase is not wrong ethically, if illegal technically.
However, I have to say that ethically _and_ legally, it's wrong to _offer_ the files for distribution unless you are the original artist/writer/whatever.
I have a story coming out in September on a site called Speculon (www.speculon.com). They paid me for the right to publish the story on their site, and as such they can offer the story for distribution. I also know how they publish the stories, and pretty much anyone who knows how to hit ^C^V can copy the story and post it on their own site. This would be patently illegal, and definitely unethical.
But would it be unethical for someone on another site to offer the first several paragraphs of my story, up to the hook? Illegal, technically yes--more than a paragraph or so would be hard to justify under the Fair Use Act. But immoral and unethical? Did they post a link to the original publication and their link is generating more hits to my story? Well, then it's hard to say it's wrong.
And that's where the debate starts to boil down. No matter what point is made that downloading or uploading the material is unethical, there comes a point where the original artist is going to concede that, yeah, it's OK to upload a chunk as long as there's some way to find the original. And then someone who sees this done takes it a step further, and Posts more than should be, or the entire work, or without a link...
And then it goes out of control.
As an artist, there are a dozen ways to feel. Be puritanical about it--as Lars Ulrich, Harlan Ellison, and Paramount Pictures, among others, have done--and try to stop every instance of anything approaching piracy. This, unfortunately, breeds bad blood, as evidenced by the backlash against Paramount that came from Star Trek fansites, or the "Napster Bad" cartoon series published by Camp Chaos. (Harlan Ellison's already hated by enough people that I'm sure the backlash didn't affect him).
Or, be really laid-back about it, as many artists have done--some to the point of simply putting all their material right onto the net. This sounds all warm and fuzzy, but I think all of those artists admit that it cuts into profits a bit.
Software companies, like Shrapnel, have the same choices. Trust their customers, like Shrapnel has, which makes it harder to stop pirates--or place every protection under the sun on the CD. In the latter case though, let's face it, eventually the protection will be cracked. And then the executables show up on warez sites all the same. Open source? Sure, and watch _all_ your profits disappear.
Perhaps the fact that we're still debating hte whole thing is a good sign. There's a whole lot of grey area. Those who uphold strict morals still can; those who are heavily soiled with black can continue screwing over "the man" while under continual threat of being sued or jailed.
And in the meantime, we can hope that artists, companies, and consumers are out there somewhere determining where the happy medium lies.
And I'll continue to be torn, but try my best to be ethical, until the medium is found.
(Whew, that was long. And probably rambling, but I'm not going back to recheck it http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif And hey, I'm a corporal now! Woo!)
LL
dmm
August 29th, 2001, 07:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hadrian Aventine:
Just a little question for all of you...
Tell me, if you download a copy of original Beowulf off the net, is that stealing?
Also, if it is, who are you stealing from?
Let me know what you think.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Remember, Beowulf was written in Anglo-Saxon. Anything you read in a modern language had to be translated by somebody, who doubtless holds a copyright to his/her work. So you'd be stealing from the translator. But there are undoubtedly translations from so long ago that the copyright has expired, so those would be public domain.
dmm
August 29th, 2001, 08:05 PM
Same for other ancient works like:
The Bible, The Iliad, The Odyssey, The Aeneid, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, The Pearl, The Republic, Canterbury Tales, etc.
geoschmo
August 29th, 2001, 08:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dmm:
Remember, Beowulf was written in Anglo-Saxon. Anything you read in a modern language had to be translated by somebody, who doubtless holds a copyright to his/her work. So you'd be stealing from the translator. But there are undoubtedly translations from so long ago that the copyright has expired, so those would be public domain.[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok, now we are getting into an area that I am not familier with. Are translations copyrightable? Common sense tells me no. If so, how could you have a copyright at all? I write a book, someone translates it into German. If you can copyright a translation, they hold the copyright to the German Version. Then they translate it back to English. Now they hold another copyrighted translation, that just happens to be identical to my original.
Now, many translations have annotations, or additional original stuff added by the translator. Especially in a case like Beowulf, where historical context may need added. That portion is theirs for sure, but the part that is translated should still be the property of the original author, regardless of the language. Or in this case, the translated portion should be public domain, as is the original work.
Of course I'm not a lawyer, I just talk like one sometimes. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif So I could be totally full of bunk on this point.
Geoschmo
[This message has been edited by geoschmo (edited 29 August 2001).]
LazarusLong42
August 29th, 2001, 09:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by geoschmo:
Ok, now we are getting into an area that I am not familier with. Are translations copyrightable? Common sense tells me no. If so, how could you have a copyright at all? I write a book, someone translates it into German. If you can copyright a translation, they hold the copyright to the German Version. Then they translate it back to English. Now they hold another copyrighted translation, that just happens to be identical to my original.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
IANAL, but as a writer I know some things about copyright.
1. Yes, translations are copyrightable.
2. The original author owns the right of translation of a work. Therefore, if someone wants to translate a book of mine into German, he/she must purchase from me the right to translate and publish that work in German. S/he may then publish the work. Usually such contracts with stipulate that the original author derives 30-40% royalties from the translation.
(NB: Often the initial contract with the publishing house will transfer this right to the initial publisher with stipulation about royalties to be collected in the event a translation is published.)
3. The original author's name and copyright info must be on the translation. Thus:
_The Rise and Fall of the Phong Empire_ copyright 2000 by Eric Snyder II. German translation copyright 2001 by Hans Offmeibuch.
4. There is no right to retranslate the work into English. It already existed in English. Doing so would be equivalent to piracy.
5. If the original author can't be found, or is unknown, or his/her copyright has expired, then the translation can be created and copyrighted by the translator.
Thus, Beowulf can be translated into modern English and the translation copyrighted by the translator.
However, there are almost certainly translations old enough to be in the public domain.
If you want to copyright your own translation, though, you'd better start with the original Anglo-Saxon. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif
LL
geoschmo
August 29th, 2001, 09:21 PM
Cool. I stand corected. That makes a lot of sense when you put it that way.
Geo
Puke
August 29th, 2001, 10:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hadrian Aventine:
Tell me, if you download a copy of original Beowulf off the net, is that stealing? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
no. its actually very clear cut about books. various estates own the publishing rights to things like shakespear, lovecraft, and beowulf. the original authors are quite obviously, deader than a neutral race in a no-bonus game. when you buy the book, someone is getting money. if you pick it up off a bookshelf and run out of the store, you are stealing. If you download it from the net or copy it from some other publicly availalbe source, you are not. if you copy large sections of it that would normally not fall under fair use laws, you are not stealing.
I do not remember what the lines of demarcation are, but I do know that they are clear and specific.
now, fair use applied to music is another story. all the people with a wild hair about how the letter of the law somehow corresponds to ethics should have a field day with why someone who downloads a low quality MP3 for personal use, is doing something worse than a multinational auto manufacturer who takes a perfectly leagle 5 second sample from a Rush song, uses an extrememly identifyable jingle in their driving comercial, pays no royalties, and sells thousand of units.
coincidentially enough, the person was downloading from a service that probably would not be illegal (i dont remember how the cases closed, i have a sneaky suspicion that its not illegal, and they agreed to shut it down just to defer further leagle costs..) if the courts involved had a better understanding of technology. The service did not upload the music. The service did not download the music. They are making money off its misuse, but if i own a toll bridge, I am not responsible for people who use it as a meeting place to sell drugs. anyone who thinks they can derive morality from the letter of the law set by a single and hotly disputed precident is delusional.
Dont give me 'the letter of the law says x, and that must be moral' crap. historically, the law has favoured some rather immoral ****, and since Askan stooped to mentioning Nazies, so will I. We were all pretty darn happy to persecute every one of them for following orders and laws that we found immoral, on the grounds that some orders just have to be questioned. instead of pointing at an issue and siding your self with goodness just because an overpaid attorney was able to place goodness on your side of a thin line isnt going to make it so.
have the decency to argue your own point of view. napster had a legitimate, capitalist business model. some people got jellous. before everything is said and done, there will be a method to exchange all sorts of things Online, and it will be leagle. with any luck, the recording industry will die altogether, as it was an entirely late-20th-centure phenomanon, and a bad one at that.
Puke
August 29th, 2001, 10:21 PM
grr. im being to bull headed. i will go away and let people have their opinions.
------------------
"...the green, sticky spawn of the stars"
(with apologies to H.P.L.)
geoschmo
August 29th, 2001, 10:40 PM
Puke,
You obviously feel very strongly about this. But when presented with an explanation why Napster/Warez is wrong, all you can do is cite examples of equally wrong behavior being defined at the time as legal. All I can say to that is "Two wrongs dont make a right."
Of course it is possible that laws and regulations are at times unjust. To argue the contrary would be ridiculous. Do you think that somehow defying Nazi laws encouraging religious persecution is somehow on a equal moral ground with defying perfectly reasonable copyright laws? That's a bit of a stretch. Not all laws are just. But your moral right to defy unjust laws does not extend to every law you disagree with.
There are two clear differences between Napster/Warez, and your hypothetical toll bridge. First has to do with the common and accepted use. The common and accepted use of a toll bridge is to get across a river. Nothing at all illegal about that. The common and accepted use of Napster/Warez is to steal music and software that you did not pay for. Now, if you have only ever used Napster/Warez for perfectly legitimate uses, good for you. But you are naive if you don't think you are in the microscopically small minority in that regard.
The second difference is, even the drug dealers pay the toll for the use of the bridge. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif
Geoschmo
[This message has been edited by geoschmo (edited 29 August 2001).]
Puke
August 30th, 2001, 01:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by askan:
Now if you can justify to the artist/creator why its alright to rip them off then fair enough. If you can't then your just a thief, no different from the guy who steals you wallet except alot more cowardly (because you aren't facing your victims).
Askan
(Head developer for a product that gets pirated)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I downloaded the MP3 of 'Every Day is Halloween'
then I bought the album containing the song. I would never have purchased it otherwise. Same goes for the latest Motorhead, the classic Slayer "Seasons in the Abyss" two Sepultura albums, Boingo's self titled album, and countless more.
Without the ability to prevue music, i would not buy anything that i didnt hear at a friends place and enjoy. music stores figured that out, that why there are listening stations in every single music store now. I dont like going to stores to listen, they are full of annoying kids and degenerate beatnicks. I like to listen to music Online. If someone wants to accuse me of stealing, they can refund the money I spent buying those $12-20 dollar CDs.
maybe its a different story for people who collect songs Online and never spend a dime, but im not about to make appologies for someone elses misdeeds. And its not as if their misbehavior is what killed napster. I think the music industries over reaction to the situation killed napster, and they would probably be making alot more money if they had harnessed all that free marketing potential, instead of squelching it.
Puke
August 30th, 2001, 01:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by geoschmo:
Puke,
You obviously feel very strongly about this. But when presented with an explanation why Napster/Warez is wrong, all you can do is cite examples of equally wrong behavior being defined at the time as legal. All I can say to that is "Two wrongs dont make a right."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think my point has been missed. one Last clarification before i dissapear. the law, is in general, a good idea. its not always. if you live your life by other peoples standards of decency without forming educated opinions on your own, you are living without free will and are a drone to the mechanisms of popular society.
I agree that many behaviors discussed on this thread are against the law. I think that without adherance to the law, there can be no civic order. I think that without some degree of civic disobediance, there can be no social progress. I think that the recording industry, musicians, music listeners, and software pirates have all had their fair share of seperate yet equally stupid ideas. I think that I will keep on doing what I choose as long as I feel that it is the correct corse of action to further my goals. That meant exactly what it sounded like. To qualify that Last bit, I think that I will never engage in a course of action that is detremental to an industry or an artform that I enjoy. And if anyone gets wise and asks who determines what is detremental, the obvious answer is "me."
feel free to disagree, im off to haunt another thread.
------------------
"...the green, sticky spawn of the stars"
(with apologies to H.P.L.)
geoschmo
August 30th, 2001, 01:19 AM
I have to disagree with you here Puke. Napster in my mind is exactly the same thing as Warez. I won't disagree that the music industry or individual artists should do something like Napster to market their music, but they have every right to want Napster itself shut down.
Your claim that you only were using it to preview music that you were deciding whether or not to buy is irrelevant. The fact is Napster had no controls over whether a user bought an album later. Once the person downloaded the file, they couldn't care less. They were making money (throguh banner ads, etc.) off other people's work without their permission, plain and simple. And that's wrong.
Whether or not your intentions were ethical or honorable in sampling music is not the issue. The question is is it ethical for Napster to make the songs available. The answer to that has to be NO.
Whether it is a good idea or not for the Music industry to doing something like Napster is irrelevant. The fact is they haven't yet, and noone has the right to do it for them.
Geoschmo
Phoenix-D
August 30th, 2001, 02:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Do you think that somehow defying Nazi laws encouraging religious persecution is somehow on a equal moral ground with defying perfectly reasonable copyright laws? That's a bit of a stretch. Not all laws are just. But your moral right to defy unjust laws does not extend to every law you disagree with.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here's where you loose him.
Some people find said religious persecution laws perfectlly reasonable.
Whether or not a law is reasonable and ethical is the test I use to determine if I care about it at all. Laws do not determine ethics and ethics don't determine laws. Someone makes a law making it illegal for anyone under 18 to use a computer? Tough. Someone makes it legal to kill? Also tough, doesn't mean I'm going to run out and machine gun people.
Applying this to warz/napster, warz is bad because you're supporting the inethical uses of that site even when you download it ethiclly (i.e. you bought the game and the CD broke, hasn't arrived, etc).
Napster? No. You CAN use it for the same idea as warz, and THAT is bad, but napster itself it not. You might as well say the WWW is bad because it allows Warz sites..
Phoenix-D
Richard
August 30th, 2001, 02:07 PM
Some good discussion going on here.
As far as the download option for a game like SE:IV. We have to go one way or the other with a game. The main reason is because if it is a download only game the manual will be electronic. Once we go down that road it is an easy pirate target. Manuals are the number one anti-piracy device that I can think of. Plus if we make a game a download most major sites will not review it since they look at that as shareware.
As far as the multiple PC's in one house I have no issue with that myself personally, I think that is a silly license issue. IN fact have you guys seen what they plan to do with Windows XP to "fix" that problem, scary stuff.
------------------
Sarge is coming...
Richard Arnesen
Director of Covert Ops
Shrapnel Games
http://www.shrapnelgames.com
tesco samoa
August 30th, 2001, 02:37 PM
Richard are you sure you want to throw MS into this topic. I can see about 1000 Posts coming up. As a developer I find MS knows only one thing about copy right. Copy Right. And then defend it.
EULA's are horrible. There is nothing like buying a product and seeing in bold letters "by opening this product you agree to the EULA agreement located on the cd" Then reading it and disagreeing with it. What do you do.
Can't take it back to the store.
Do you people ever read the EULA's you agree to by just signing up to a web site.
Especially the privacy areas or the idea that anything you write becomes the property of the hosting site.
And another thing.
The way i see this Copy right thing going is that it will get to the point that you will have to copy right your own personal video's (trips, backyard bbqing birthdays etc...) pictures etc...
And to do this you will have to pay for that right from some company like MS and if you do not you will not be able to play it on any electronic equipment you own.
Same with music.
I can see it going that way.
I hope it does not happen.
It is not a criminal activity.
If it is then a rolling stop at a stop sign is a criminal activity. And you are a criminal if you do it.
Now all this can change if the Music industry , software industry place their product and consumer ahead of the margin and the stock holder.
But I think greed will win out.
Ethics and moral stances do not belong in this arguement. That is why the laws have to be worked out. It will take time and I do hope they keep the consumer in the best interest. But in the battle of control the consumer has the shallowest pockets.
I think I have even lost myself on this post.
Later.
------------------
L? GdX $ Fr C++ SdT T+ Sf* Tcp+ A M++ MpTM ROTS Pw+ Fq+ Nd Rp++ G+
tesco samoa
August 30th, 2001, 03:02 PM
http://promo.net/pg/
is the link
------------------
L? GdX $ Fr C++ SdT T+ Sf* Tcp+ A M++ MpTM ROTS Pw+ Fq+ Nd Rp++ G+
disabled
August 30th, 2001, 04:03 PM
Besides paying a subscription to use my computer and copyright overload, one other thing DRIVES ME INSANE.
I recently read that several television networks were asked by several advertising firms if they could 1.) Place ads in the lower right hand corner of the screen DURING TV SHOWS and 2.) SUPERIMPOSE images over the screen during television shows.
Honestly, I want to watch TV, NOT infomercials. Who wants to watch the opening shot of the new enterprise with a nice MCDONALDS logo splashed on top of it.
------------------
HADRIAN T. AVENTINE
admin@spaceempires.org
Administrator | SpaceEmpires.org (http://www.spaceempires.org)
August 30th, 2001, 04:21 PM
In case there is any doubt, everything I have posted at Shrapnel Games' Forums is the intellectual property of Shrapnel Games' Forums. This should be implicitly understood by anyone using a forum.
I gave you a couple hours work providing a general web router data structure. To effectively use it you need algorithms which create a tolerant adaptive system. I can easily do that too, but giving it away for free would be cheating all the dummies out there who struggle so hard and still write programs full of bugs.....
dogscoff
August 30th, 2001, 04:22 PM
Picard: Replicator, Earl Grey Tea, hot. Actually, cancel that, I think I'd prefer an Ice cold Coca Cola(tm). Mmmm, just can't get enough of that taste...
This idea might take off for a while, but I can't imagine it proving too popular. I think the general trend in advertising lately has ben towards th subtle. Advertisers will soon realise that if their advertising is too intrusive, it will generate a negative response from the purchasing public. I hope so anyway.
------------------
SE4 Code:
L GdY $ Fr- C- Sd T!+ Sf-- Tcp-- A% M>M+ MpD! RV Pw Fq+ Nd- Rp+ G-
/SE4 Code
Work out your code at http://www.sandman43.fsnet.co.uk/se4main.htm
[This message has been edited by dogscoff (edited 30 August 2001).]
LazarusLong42
August 30th, 2001, 04:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tesco samoa:
If it is then a rolling stop at a stop sign is a criminal activity. And you are a criminal if you do it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Erm... yeah. It is/you are. In Ohio, first offense is a minor misdemeanor; second and subsequent offenses are misdemeanors of the fourth degree.
(No. I don't make rolling stops <G> )
LL
LazarusLong42
August 30th, 2001, 04:46 PM
<shudder> Did I hear someone say "Windows XP"?
Indeed, there's no reason for it. Piracy is one thing; using your own copy of software on more than one computer is another. And for that reason I will refuse to buy WinXP, OfficeXP, or any other technology that does the same thing.
(NB: The academic edition of Office2K had the same "feature" on it; they were apparently testing it for bigger and better things--and finding ways to get around those of us who got around it.)
Personally, I see no reason why they don't offer a "family" license: use WinXP/whatever on all of your family's computers. You pay $30-$40 more than standard pricing, and we don't care how many computers you put it on, but you're on your honor not to put it on computers not in your home/in dorm rooms or apartments belonging to people whose permanent address is still your home.
Much as I dislike Microsoft in many ways, I think I might even be willing to pay the extra few bucks, just to make sure they're not out looking for me. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif
LL
disabled
August 30th, 2001, 05:09 PM
Intrusive advertising hasn't stopped commericial breaks from growing in length, telemarketing, and ezboard & geocities popups.
------------------
HADRIAN T. AVENTINE
admin@spaceempires.org
Administrator | SpaceEmpires.org (http://www.spaceempires.org)
geoschmo
August 30th, 2001, 05:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Napster? No. You CAN use it for the same idea as warz, and THAT is bad, but napster itself it not. You might as well say the WWW is bad because it allows Warz sites..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The only reason you can see a difference between Napster and Warez is that you like Napster, and you don't like Warez. That's called situational ethics, and it's garbage.
The fact is, you aren't allowed to copy a song you bought and give it to someone who didn't. And you aren't allowed to receive a song you didn't buy from someone who did.
I understand their are technical differances between Napster and Warez. But if you were truthful, are those the reasons you support Napster? What if Napster was setup to allow "sharing" of software instead of music? Is it really the technical differences you are defending, or the content?
The fact that Napster doesn't actually hold the song at any time, and only makes it easier for the two of you to get together does not absolve them of any responsibility. And the fact that they profit from the theft makes them much more than a condiut. It makes them an active participant in the transaction.
Warez is a pawn shop, dealing in stolen goods. Napster is the same thing, without actually holding the inventory. All sales are on a "consignment", but Napster still gets their "cut" by selling advertising, and making it easy for theives and buyers to get together.
Geoschmo
[This message has been edited by geoschmo (edited 30 August 2001).]
Phoenix-D
August 30th, 2001, 05:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The only reason you can see a difference between Napster and Warez is that you like Napster, and you don't like Warez. That's called situational ethics, and it's garbage.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nope. I have over 50 MP3s on my hard drive. All legal. Notice I didn't say ethical- *legal*. Using Napster or a similar service to share *those* files is OK, using it to transfer, say, a work that ISN'T available for free is NOT.
See the difference? It's also difficult to keep said unethical trading off a setup like napster, since MP3s don't have "free yes/no" tag, and even if they did that could be easily changed. Filtering by titles has been attempted but doesn't work all that well.
To use your anaology, Warz is a parn shop, whereas Napster is more like a swap meet, or the guy the pawn shop pays the rent to. Responsible? Only in a roundabout sort of way.
Phoenix-D
LazarusLong42
August 30th, 2001, 05:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by geoschmo:
The fact is, you aren't allowed to copy a song you bought and give it to someone who didn't. And you aren't allowed to receive a song you didn't buy from someone who did.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Except... except... people have been doing this for decades, first using reel-to-reel tapes (side note: my mother still has one of these machines), then using cassette tapes, and in the Last few years using CD-R/CD-RW. I don't think a single one of us can claim to have never made/accepted a mix tape.
Now, is such a mix tape legal? Hell... I'd be hard pressed to come up with an answer to that. There's the matter of enforcement of copyright, as well as the Fair Use clauses, and determining whether they apply here is shaky ground at best. But I think the record companies understnad that mix tapes are, in the end good for business, as they introduce people to more music.
Napster could be (could have been?) like this... but in the end it isn't. When people start using it to trade entire libraries of music, the "mix tape" concept falls through, and whether those were legal or not, Napster wouldn't make the cut.
LL
geoschmo
August 30th, 2001, 06:04 PM
Please note I never said Napster isn't a good idea. Personally I think that it is the wave of the future for marketing and releasing music.
But it needs to be in control of the people actually producing the product that is being shared. They should be the ones getting the lions share of the profits from the system. Otherwise it's pirating. Plain and simple.
Geo
LazarusLong42
August 30th, 2001, 07:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by geoschmo:
Please note I never said Napster isn't a good idea. Personally I think that it is the wave of the future for marketing and releasing music.
But it needs to be in control of the people actually producing the product that is being shared. They should be the ones getting the lions share of the profits from the system. Otherwise it's pirating. Plain and simple.
Geo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bingo. And the final problem is determining whether the people in control should be the artists, or the media companies. Unfortunately for them, the artists have to fight that battle. (Though the Tasini et. al. v. New York Times decision might be found in later ludgments to apply to musicians as well. Could be interesting.)
LL
Saxon
August 31st, 2001, 01:35 AM
On a related topic, those of you who would like to download Beowulf or other classics, check out the Gutenberg Library on the web. It is a free service where old texts are typed in a plain format, so anyone can download and enjoy them. They have gone through some pains to ensure that only legally distributable texts are on the site, so you don’t have to deal with the ethical struggles that this thread has been discussing! I pulled Sun Tzu’s Art of War off, it was a nice quite download.
Sorry, I don’t have the address handy, but you won’t get too many extra hits if you search for Gutenberg.
disabled
August 31st, 2001, 01:43 AM
About Beowulf and other classic texts, they are public domain, even many translated forms, as the author(S) are all long gone and many of the thousands of translators are dead from old age of getting run down by the devil car running them down.
Only recent translations and commentary can be copyrighted and in the case of classics, you must prove you did not get it from newer services, which very easy if you go to a used book store.
Either way, I doubt anyone will solve the copyright issue in the next few decades. All I know is that I get radio access for free, but my cable TV bill is greater than my electric bill, and just about all forms of media entertainment (books, periodicals, shows, etc.) requirement payment except the radio.
------------------
HADRIAN T. AVENTINE
admin@spaceempires.org
Administrator | SpaceEmpires.org (http://www.spaceempires.org)
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.