Wealthy people more likely to cheat, lie and break the law...?

[Art]

I have bought and sold many second hand vinyls Kael- on occasion I have profited favourably from such transactions.

According to the intellectual property industry I shouldn't be able to do this - in fact, the shop where I buy originals can't own them either as they'd be selling them to me - ergo we have our argument of 'industry' jobs and 'ownership' of property.

A direct form of licensing which cuts out any middlemen between publisher and consumer is what they wish for. This means hundreds of thousands of people who be independent distributors of licenses which are good for one consumer only, ideally cutting them down to zero as online purchases as storage become the norm.

In theory I am not against this system. However the fact that the artists who create these works get very little of what they generate and how often I'm exposed to them 'for free' troubles me greatly.

I wish for compensation every time I hear a track I have not approved of hearing. If I see an image of something I do not wish to I want compensation for that also.

If we remove the advertising elements of the 'industry' you'll find very quickly that the ebb-and-flow of purchases associated with it dwindle.

If they must rape our minds with their annoying creative works then they have to appreciate that, due to its price and inconvenience, people will find alternative methods of obtaining copies.

I truly am for people being paid for their work, however a fairer payment scheme and allowing my friends and family to access my purchases with an industry which promotes employment rather than destroys it is what is needed.

And bullies hate relinquishing their perceived power...hence why I am making sure they do whenever I get the chance.

-Art

[RD]

You're sending a mixed message, because it's not clear if you are against paying or against their business practices.

I wanted to clarify my statement because I wrote it in a bit of a rush: I think pirating can be a form of boycotting.

I don't really get your point on it sending a mixed message. Sure, you're still getting the benefit of the product, but the company isn't getting any of your money. It's kind of worse than just not buying the product at all.

I buy books that point out injustices in the world. So if anyone is paying attention, they know they should keep their business proper or else I'll be buying a book that talks about them.

Sorry, but this made me laugh. "Watch what you say, or I'll buy a book about you!"

[Kael Valeran]

I have bought and sold many second hand vinyls Kael- on occasion I have profited favourably from such transactions.

According to the intellectual property industry I shouldn't be able to do this - in fact, the shop where I buy originals can't own them either as they'd be selling them to me - ergo we have our argument of 'industry' jobs and 'ownership' of property.

It is legal as long as there is only one copy.

A direct form of licensing which cuts out any middlemen between publisher and consumer is what they wish for. This means hundreds of thousands of people who be independent distributors of licenses which are good for one consumer only, ideally cutting them down to zero as online purchases as storage become the norm.

In theory I am not against this system. However the fact that the artists who create these works get very little of what they generate and how often I'm exposed to them 'for free' troubles me greatly.

I wish for compensation every time I hear a track I have not approved of hearing. If I see an image of something I do not wish to I want compensation for that also.

If we remove the advertising elements of the 'industry' you'll find very quickly that the ebb-and-flow of purchases associated with it dwindle.

If they must rape our minds with their annoying creative works then they have to appreciate that, due to its price and inconvenience, people will find alternative methods of obtaining copies.

Yes, advertising is a form of theft, as they show content and flood us with images without our consent. However, the advertising medium is not our property and we can choose to view it or not, unless we buy a broadcasting station or buy DVDs straight from the shop. Sometimes, we benefit from advertising as well. A more efficient way to search for and receive genuine reviews for products would be the internet. This also cuts the middle man as you have said. Most adverts are inaccurate and blow the product out of the water. However, the only thing driving the advertising industry are consumer habits. People need to wisen up, and it does take time.

I truly am for people being paid for their work, however a fairer payment scheme and allowing my friends and family to access my purchases with an industry which promotes employment rather than destroys it is what is needed.

And bullies hate relinquishing their perceived power...hence why I am making sure they do whenever I get the chance.

-Art

We have made much progress over the last 20 years and will continue to make even more strides forward as people find ways to improve the system. Middle man business should only exist if they add value to the system.

[Alaris]

But sometimes war is better than the alternative.

Rarely it is so, and this is not the case yet.

I don't really get your point on it sending a mixed message.

Pirating tells them that either (a) you're not a customer anyway, or (b) they need to enforce better DRMs to get their money.

Going to a different distributor tells them that you're willing to spend money, but not on their product. That really brings up questions as to why you don't want their product, and if they are asking those questions, they will listen.

[raspberry jam]

Hold on, there is a flaw in your analogy, you said that the the CD does not belong to the game developer. Thats not true.

No, it is true. You buy it from him; it is yours, not his.

The game developer clearly spent money to buy a blank disc and thus own that disc. He burns the data into a disc and that disc still remains his. Also, he does not wish to give you the disc or data.

Well, the entire reasoning bases on the fact that he's selling me the disc. If he just kept the disc locked up in a basement for the rest of eternity without me paying anything for it, I would not have a problem with it.

When you are born, you are born with nothing without your rights, everything you receive from your parents is your privilege. There are laws that ensure that you receive adequate skills to take care of yourself. When you grow up, you work, you earn money, you buy something. Thus you own something. Likewise, the worker, who buys the wood, makes it into a chair, works and gets paid for his work by selling his chair. He owns the chair and the chair ownership is transferred because people choose to put money into it.

Likewise, the developer has worked, spent money to buy the disc and the ownership of the disc belongs to him, whether you were born or not. He burns the disc, and then puts it on sale. He also does not wish people to distribute his contents, otherwise he would not have sold it in the first place.

But the wook worker makes the chair and sells it to you. He has no problem with you selling it to someone else, or making a replica of his chair; yet it is illegal to do so with a DVD.

You go into the shop, and you see the box. Many boxes have labels, some don't. However, ALL have the copyright logo. If in doubt, you have the intelligence to ask. The members of the staff in the shop would tell you that it is illegal to make copies. If you feel that the warning is not adequate, you can always highlight that in a letter of complain, but you didn't. Even if there were a label on the outside of the box, you would ignore it.

They have the copyright logo, but that is just a ring with a C inside it. Not a descriptive text. Besides, you don't need it; it's like wearing a t-shirt printed with the text "it is illegal to murder this person". You don't need the t-shirt, it is illegal anyway.

Now, you have indirectly told the developer that you will not copy his disc, it belonged to him at that time, now it belongs to you. So, you break that promise, which is a form of fraud, and you use the disc in a way that would break the trust between him and you. He paid the money for that disc, and he does not want to share it with you. You have just stolen a disc from him, whatever the content inside is.

Not at all, I bought it fair and square. Every publisher will tell you that. You do buy the disc, you do not buy the content on the disc.

1) So you say that they have stolen the DVD from you. How? Clearly he has bought a blank disc and the ownership belongs to him. You can also go and buy a blank disc and the ownership would belong to you.
2) You say that if there is a warning label outside the box, that would stop your actions.
3) You complain about the need for online registration etc, but that is stated clearly outside the box, nobody is trying to trick you here.

1) Simplified, yes, but strictly speaking, no, they have not stolen the disc - it is yours. They have stolen the right to use the disc as you see fit.
2) Well, not really. i was saying that when you buy a DVD, there is no such agreement, and that no such agreement is necessary. If such an agreement existed, publishers would have made it so that content would never be possible to copy, but that is not the case: copyright has a expiration date.
3) It is not always stated outside the box, no. And it should not be allowed anyway, unless there is a need for it (such as that part of the gameplay is online. even in that case, there should be an opt-out that would limit the game to offline play only).

[raspberry jam]

Rarely it is so, and this is not the case yet.

September 3, 1939.

[RD]

Pirating tells them that either (a) you're not a customer anyway, or (b) they need to enforce better DRMs to get their money.

Why do so many of our threads come back to pirating?

Anyway, this is why I wanted to clarify my statement to say it CAN BE a form of boycotting. Overall, it probably isn't, but anything I would pirate would be done to prove a point, not just because "lulz I don't wanna pay~"

[Alaris]

Well, piracy is on our minds, it's also relevant to both Mega and rich people being jerks.

As for boycotting, I can see it being done as such, but imo a boycott is worthwhile to the extent that it sends the right message to people in a position to change things and who are likely to listen. Hurting them in the wallet is part of it, but if you can you should also throw your money at competitors that actually run their business the way you want them to run it.

Like throwing money at ANet sends a strong message to MMO devs, moreso than playing a pirated copy of WoW.

[Kael Valeran]

No, it is true. You buy it from him; it is yours, not his.

Well, the entire reasoning bases on the fact that he's selling me the disc. If he just kept the disc locked up in a basement for the rest of eternity without me paying anything for it, I would not have a problem with it.

But you bought it without his informed consent. Commercial licenses and retail licenses cost differently, for example you cannot use MS office student edition and distribute it in the entire MNC building. If you distribute it or intend to use it beyond personal use(and fair share as a compromise), you have broken that contract you made with the developer.

Its the same as forging a student card and going to the mac store and getting a student discount. You bought the product against the consent of the developer or the seller by lying.

But the wook worker makes the chair and sells it to you. He has no problem with you selling it to someone else, or making a replica of his chair; yet it is illegal to do so with a DVD.

Blatantly poor execution of argument. The wood worker has no qualms with you copying the design, but he will not want to to use his good name for marketing, for example, you cannot carve on the chair 'Ikea' or say 'Made by Mr X' and forge his signature. This applies to digital art, paintings, etc. In the same way, the disc contains digital art and company logo in its data, therefore you can copy the idea and game design, but you cannot make exact replicas and sell the game as though it belongs to the company that produced it, Blizzard for example.

They have the copyright logo, but that is just a ring with a C inside it. Not a descriptive text. Besides, you don't need it; it's like wearing a t-shirt printed with the text "it is illegal to murder this person". You don't need the t-shirt, it is illegal anyway.

So are you saying that there is no need for the label now? Whatever it is, you either make the agreement and buy, or don't make the agreement and don't buy. If you do not agree and buy, then you have lied to the seller, just like saying its for personal use when you intend to use it commercially.

Not at all, I bought it fair and square. Every publisher will tell you that. You do buy the disc, you do not buy the content on the disc.

You bought the disc, the disc is yours. You can then sell the disc again. There is no restriction because of the fair share policy. The content on the disc is for personal use. For example, ripping off the logo of the chair and then act as an imposter to sell chairs of that brand is illegal.

1) Simplified, yes, but strictly speaking, no, they have not stolen the disc - it is yours. They have stolen the right to use the disc as you see fit.

There are many discs that you can buy. This one is kind of pre written: 'do not copy this disc' in the law of most countries.

2) Well, not really. i was saying that when you buy a DVD, there is no such agreement, and that no such agreement is necessary. If such an agreement existed, publishers would have made it so that content would never be possible to copy, but that is not the case: copyright has a expiration date.

There is such an agreement. Its agreed by majority vote. In other countries, where such law does not apply, you are free to make copies. You are free to migrate whenever.

3) It is not always stated outside the box, no. And it should not be allowed anyway, unless there is a need for it (such as that part of the gameplay is online. even in that case, there should be an opt-out that would limit the game to offline play only).

If you don't like what is printed outside the box, don't buy it. It is printed outside the box on all EA online games. Other companies like Blizzard follow that convention too.

[Alaris]

Ideologically, DRMs and such should be printed on the box where it can clearly be seen, as a warning label on the front of the box. Tiny print in the back for a single-player game is deceptive imo. Not legally deceptive, just fine-print-nobody-reads deceptive. But being deceptive is a bad customer PR move.

That is, if a product sells with constraints that clearly deviate from the established norm (i.e. no internet required to play unless you play online, in which case an account is usually required), then it should be upfront about it and agree to lower customer sales. The company then needs to trade-off getting more customers by not making it hard for them to enjoy their product, or by actually making it harder to pirate. If they are upfront about it, then it's fine.

At that point, it's up to customers to vote with their wallet.

-----

Personally, I think fighting piracy is more of a PR move for the benefit of investors, rather than being actually useful for sales. They should stop lying to investors, and tell them straight up that they are more likely to lose sales from using DRM than they are to recover from pirates... and that pirates will pirate the game regardless so there is not much sense making legal customers annoyed over it.