It's cute how he claims people who play fps's are mindless peons, yet he claims to have mastered them. Nothing like the pot calling the kettle black.  (and I assume he must have "mastered" fps games on the highest difficulty possible as well as completely cleaned house in online competitions since it's sooo "simple."   )

For a troll Magog's pretty sad. I've seen similar attempts from Maggie, my neighbors 12 year old.

But anyway, back OT:

As far as pircacy goes, one of the things I love most about stardock, aside from the lack of copyright protection is the convienence of being able to redownload the game from their website in the event your disk gets damaged or otherwise lost.

I think if more company's provided that at least a few less people would pirate games. If a company forces me to keep the dvd (or cd) in the drive to play, then they should by all means give me the availablity to redownload the software after the constant wear and tear on the disc going in and out of the drive and just being used so much makes in no longer readable. (doubly so after X # of years when the title is no longer available anywhere BUT illegaly.) Then again that's one more thing I love about Star dock's games, after installation you can put the disc somewhere safe and not have to worry about it getting damaged.

As long as those things remain the same I'll keep buying every Stardock title that comes out I find fun.

The re-download is a nice bonus. When I made a new computer last year, and tried to put Oblivion on it, the disc, which originally worked fine with my old PC, only showed two files. I then tried to read the disc on the old PC - same bad result.

For the heck of it, I put it in today, and the disc can't be read at all anymore. So with time the darn thing simply self-imploded (I've tried it on a few PCs - it's the disc, not my PC). If you want my honest opinion, I wouldn't be surprised if whatever copy protection they used is playing serious havoc with the drives. Either that or it was poorly manufactured and it's de-laminating itself with time.

Either way, it stinks, and I bet I'd have a tough time getting a free replacement.

-HM

Personally, I hate copy protection. Just think about BioShock, for instance. I've been waiting for it ever since I met her in System Shock 2 at last. Finally the day arrived when BioShock hit the stores, and I went happily home and installed it. Problem is it required a patch to finish the installation for some reason, and as I wasn't currenlty online, the game uninstalled itself. Big deal, I though. I went online, reinstalled it and finally got to play it. (and hated it, but that's not the topic here). The only problem is my compter was too slow, so I upgraded a few weeks later and tried to reinstall BioShock. But nope, I had already installed it twice, so that's it. No more installations allowed. Eventually I found a site online where I could get a new cd-key (from a legal source, so don't get any ideas). This worked fine, and I got to play BioShock in all it's somewhat glory on the new computer - until I started the game again later and had to reactivate again? This of course I couldn't do as I had already used the cd-key, so now what? Well, at least it wasn't particullary good, so no harm done.    

And then there's Neverwinter Nights. I literally wore down the disc, so it wouldn't work anymore. If I wanted to keep playing, I would have to get a new copy. (no broadband either back then, so no downloading a copy).

All in all, the lack of copy protection can be a good thing at times. As for Sins, I played the demo for about thirty minutes, uninstalled it, purchased and downloaded the full game and only hate the fact I need stupid things like eat and sleep from time to time. Sure my social life is in danger of getting lost in limbo, but that's a risk I am willing to take.   

Back to the topic at hand.

This is the first game in a LONG time that I have actually bought for two reasons.

a) it didn't suck, but actually was worth the money put into it, not a bang it off flashy title dissappointment.
the developers stand behind it.

sure you could play it on cracked private servers but then you are limited to a few peeps, the way the multi works is just fabulous. I simply had to have it.

my thoughts.

Hmm, not in FRS team games like battlefield.

I pirated this game, to try it out because there was no DEMO. I dont buy games anymore without playing a DEMO. I think it should be compulsory for companies to post a DEMO before before or at the time they release their game. If they are not confident in their product, they should sell it.

I have bought the game since then, its great.

I am a pirate, and i feel bad about it.
I recently started to buy all the games i like playing. It just doesnt make sense not to pay for games. You cut off you own legs basically ,give the developers money so they can make better games.

Games, especially on consoles gotten really pricy in the last year. I hope that doesnt contine.

I still download some games, but mostly for the reason because i cant afford the game, its sad but true. Its not that i am greedy or that i think developers should work for free.

I can honestly say i am converting to a honest person that likes to support the gaming industry.
Gladly i can say Sins is worth the time of fun you get out for the money. It really was affordable for cause of the weak dollar also . Thanks for this game.

When we have a one-world government we will retrace the history of old game pirates and sentence them to punishment. Basically, you will be punished in the future for the crimes you commit today. This is MAGOG's plan.

We will hunt game pirates down like dogs, like when Pompey the Great cleaned out the Mediterranean.

Kudos to you for starting to buy the games you're playing. That being said:



I've read this rationalization many times on different forums and I really can't understand it. If you can't afford a car, a bike, a book, a tv, or anything else, do you go out and steal it?

I find the whole attitude towards software absolutely bewildering. A large amount of people don't hesitate to steal software, yet most wouldn't dream of shoplifting or stealing material goods. Why is software looked at so differently? It's a product like anything else and pirating it is no different than walking into a store and stealing the game off the shelf.

If you can't afford a game, then you shouldn't be playing it. Bottom line. No amount of rationalization is good enough to justify pirating a game. Why do people think it's some inherent human right to play a game if they can't afford to buy it?

Let me star off by saying I am NOT rationalizing piracy (though probably many will still think so)


This is my primary problem with people arguing against piracy. While there are many well made points why piracy is wrong [which I agree with], this is not one of them IMO. Software piracy is NOT the same as stealing the game off the shelf, or stealing the car you can't afford. Its like another poster somewhere on these forums said, its more like having a magic copy machine that can replicate any car, and then me using that machine to copy my neighbor's car with his (not the manufacturer's) permission. You can never convince me that the two are on the same moral level of wrongness because one results in the loss of property which someone has already PAID for, posses, uses, an the other is a perceived lost future sale (yes I agree it is very harmful) resulting from a current owner letting someone 'magically copy' what he has (even though he doesn't have the legal right to permit it). Saying they are the same does not help the anti-piracy cause IMO. What we need to realize that software (information) is a completely different ballgame and we need to come up with different ways to deal with it.

In short, software is looked at so differently because it is different.

To most people, it is different. This type of "its stealing" argument doesn't work on those people because its not stealing.

If I steal your Sins CD, you no longer have a Sins CD.

If I copy your Sins CD, your situation hasn't changed. That difference is what makes it not "stealing" to most people. Its still wrong (and the poster here understands that, to his credit), but its not "stealing."

Its the same explanation for why slogans like "fur is murder" don't work on a large part of the population: "murder" has a specific meaning, and killing animals isn't it.



Because once you decide you're not buying the game, the developer has already lost the sale. At that point, its not hard to make the next jump: "Since I'm not buying it anyway, they aren't losing a sale if I download it."

Not saying its right, but thats the way the thought process goes.

Convincing people to pay for things they can download is a tough slog, but Bajonj pointed out what works:


Buying the games you like encourages more of the games you like to be made. Its much more self-centered reasoning then "the developers deserve to eat too", but its entirely true.

@Coelocanth - Not to get into a debate that has been done to death many times over but I believe the answer to your question is a simple one - on the surface at least.

The main reason why lots of people use software despite not having money to pay for it comes down to the belief that copyright infringement is not really theft. Using the software does not deprive the creators of the product and thus the revenue stream they may get from it.

Moreover given how many buggy and ill developed titles have been published over the years with countless customers burnt (read as helpless victims) by said developers (read as immoral companies) and massive price increases (read as greedy companies) along with declining support services offered for products (read as margin enhancement for executive bonuses) for the average user (read as sucker) it is very easy to see why people want to try titles before they buy (read as trying to protect themselves) and try the real product - not a gimped or scripted product (read as spin & hype). After all one gets to test drive the actual car they are interested in purchasing and it comes with a pretty good warranty.

Additionally if the automobile, pharmaceutical or food industries were held to the same quality & support standards as the software industry there would likely be riots in the streets in many places or lots class action law suits.

With that said in this day and age it is better for one to really steal the physical products or a car or other material goods, since the criminal code has far less penalties. Which clearly shows whose side the law is really on and its not the peoples.

Then of course there is the whole "licensing" concept backed by nearly all the software companies. Simply put, when you "purchase" the software and you dont really "own" it and cant legitimately transfer it to others then how can you "steal" it when you dont pay for it?

It's still rationalizing. Software is no different. It's a product like anything else and copying it to bypass paying for it is no different than stealing it. It is morally the same. It's only perceived as different because it's so easy to do. I think because you don't end up with something you can materially hold in your hands that many people end up rationalizing in just that way: well, it's not the same, so it's not really stealing.

I wonder how the developers feel about the 'magic copy machine' analogy.

*edit* 1Spartan, you're right it's been hashed to death and apologies for opening the can of worms again. It's probably not productive to prolong the discussion. My point of view is that piracy is stealing, no more, no less. I'll not change my mind on that and I doubt I'll change anyone else's mind that disagrees with me. I'll continue to buy all my games and others will continue to buy or not buy as it pleases them. That's the way of things. Peace.

yea i agree and i think i mentioned before. I dled Sins of off bittorrent.
Knew that i would only have fun with it if i played online.
Went to the store bought the game, and then put in the cd key, and got the patch.

Wow. didn't even have to reinstall the game.
That's what i call a painless transaction.


So, in conclusion:
Sins Seduced me ^^

That's probably the best anti-piracy method out there!

If this 'magic copy machine' could also clone our dev team and our salaries it sounds like a fair deal!  

If I dress up like you, would I count as a clone and, well, get all the other good stuff you get?

This was exactly my point. You can't treat software the same way. I DIDN'T say it doesn't harm anyone, read my post completely please. I said it's NOT the same as stealing. It's still wrong, and we need to redefine this new kind of 'wrong', somehow(sadly I have no ideas as to how...) . calling it flatout stealing just makes people ignore the other valid arguments behind anti-piracy(the most substantial of which is that you can't use the 'magic copy machine' on the devs ) .

irrnt,

You are confusing the mechanism of the act with the act itself and the nature of the goods with the goods themselves. It is theft no matter how you choose to perform that theft and whether or not the object of that theft has a physical form. You talk about property but forget about "Intellectual Property".

My company writes high cost, low volume, software protected by physical USB security dongles - it only works with the device plugged in. We permit our users to install the software as often as they like on as many machines as they like. Stealing our software would require you to do one of two things:

- steal someone else's dongle
- crack the security so that the dongle is no longer required

Are either of the above any less theft just because the original licensee can still use his copy in the second case? The second case could be catastrophically worse for my company as this "crack" could be distributed and we can lose many sales instead of just one.

The only reason I can see that anyone would ignore the other valid arguments is if they want to rationalize away the fact that pirating a game is stealing. There's no reason to treat software any differently than any other product. If you obtain and use it without paying for the privilege to do so, you're stealing it. I see no need to redefine this 'new kind of wrong'. It's these special definitions that end up muddying the waters. Call it what it is: stealing. And as for it not harming anyone, I didn't comment on that if that was directed at me.

Strictly speaking, irrnt seems to be arguing that pirating software is not larceny, which is true. Larceny is theft of physical property with intent to permanently deprive its rightful owner. Theft, however, is a broader legal definition of which larceny is a "subset" (and most states I believe do not prosecute it as a separate crime, but rather as a theft).

In short, pirating software is not larceny, but is most definitely theft in legal terms (which are really the only terms that matter in this context). Trying to argue semantics and other interpretations of the word theft is irrelevant, since no court is going to listen to it

Annatar, you seem to get half of my point. The other half is I'm trying to convince people that semantics DO matter in order to raise awareness and convince the common folk that its wrong. Istead of reiterate again and again, I will simply ask that you research the history of how courts treated emotional/psychological harassment vs. physical, and the changes that came about in looking at the emo/psy crimes as a result of courts giving them a seperate sub-catagory. Use that as an analogy for virtual vs physical

@Coel

My point is people do rationalize that piracy is not stealing (with good reason), but then they go ahead and use that as the end-all for it being WRONG. now if you concede the point that its not stealing, and go on to define it as a different wrong, the majority of rationalizers will concede the point that its wrong and stop. atleast thats my guess about the matter.


P.S.

hehe finally, the forums are helping me refine/reconsider my own arguments instead of turing into flame wars. Thank you guys for civilized discussions even when we don't agree...

I think the final solution is that we should only steal from EA.

This benefits us in 2 ways:

1) EA stops making shitty games.
2) Stardock/ironclad controls more of the market.

Note that you are not limited to internet piracy. You can steal (or burn) crappy EA games from stores if you really want to make a difference. Start with the Harry Potter games please.

I have my doubts about that, but anything is possible.



I enjoy discussions like this. It's kind of boring to discuss things when everyone agrees with you. But as long as it's flame free, it's usually interesting.

LOL! That really made my evening, thanks.