I have to say I disagree here. They WILL VIOLATE OUR PRIVACY to try to catch criminals. Do you think the Government, through your ISP, should have the right to actively scan the contents of Your Computer any time they want in their search for criminals? That's what it will come down to and Exactly what I don't want to see happen. It would be the same as saying "The people who work at the post office have the right to read my mail" just because my mail passes through their hands on it's way to where-ever it's going. I can only think of two types of places where if you send a letter it gets read by someone else before it gets mailed out. The Military and Jail/Prison. When someone is in the Military if they write a letter home it gets read by people on the way out to make sure it doesn't give away the locations of troops or troop movements that our enemies could use to their advantages. In Jail/Prison all incoming and outgoing mail is read by Corrections Officers to ensure inmates aren't making plans to escape or kill themselves or to try to smuggle drugs into Jail.

I'm not in Jail and I'm not in the Military. I Don't want my mail, my computer, my house, or anything else I own to be searched any time the Government wants because of some war on crime or terror or anything else. Sadly the steps to ensure the Government has that right and that power have already been taken. Just look at the "Patriot Act". The US Government currently has the right to wire tap and listen in to ANYONE'S conversation they so choose. There are entire networks of computers, RIGHT NOW, actively scanning phone conversations in the US for "Key Words" like Bomb, Nuclear, Terrorist, and a bunch of others all in the name of the "War On Terror". They ARE doing this, RIGHT NOW, and if you think YOUR Phone calls aren't being listened to, either by a person or a machine, then you're wrong. Those computers might not be listening to the Content of your conversations, but if they "Hear" one of those Key Words mentioned too many times or too frequently your phone number is flagged and passed on to other organizations like the FBI or CIA that will then assign someone to more closely monitor your communications. They DO NOT NEED a Warrant or even need for you to be "Under Suspicion" to do this. It was signed by President Bush, was prolonged again when the vote came to do away with it, and has been prolonged yet again by President Obama. If you think the Government is EVER going to give up the Powers it has under the "Patriot Act" you're sadly mistaken.

When the Patriot Act first came into existence a lot of people stood up and said "This is a Violation of Privacy and goes against our Constitutional Rights" the Government said "The Patriot Act is only a Temporary Measure to help ensure the safety of our nation and to try to catch Terrorists before acts of destruction can take place.". Now that they have that power they're using it for a Lot More then just trying to catch "Terrorists". They're using it to catch Internet Predators, to Monitor the activity of Minorities Online (Muslim Church Groups), to Tap the Phones of people who have been convicted of Felonies (even if it had nothing to do with Terrorism), to try to catch Drug Dealers and Smugglers, and a bunch of other things too I'm sure. Now, I'm not going to argue with the Good Results that come from it. Pedophiles and Terrorists should be caught and punished, But, NOT IF THE COST OF DOING THAT INFRINGES ON THE RIGHTS OF NORMAL PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T COMMITTED A CRIME. ( <----- sounds like the worst DRM EVER)

How far is too far? When will the time come when You won't want the line being crossed? Probably when you or one of your family members is arrested for committing a crime and that crime isn't something bad in your eyes. If they outlaw DvD Burners in a few years and you decide not to throw your old burners away, will you be upset when the cops kick in your door and put a gun in the faces of your wife and kids? (I know that sounds a little far fetched) I bet you will. It won't be until something like that happens and starts happening to a Lot of People that people will actually look around and take notice and say "Hey, maybe we let them walk all over us in the name of Safety a little too much" and by that time it will be far too late to do anything to stop the people in power.

Most of our So Called Freedom is nothing but a Illusion. We aren't really "Free" here in the US. Even if I own my land and my house, if I want to build a 6 foot privacy fence on My Property I have to go to City Hall and file paperwork and pay taxes on it and even then I face the possibility of them telling me I Can't build a Fence for some stupid reason like "It Impedes Law Enforcement from having a clear line of site onto your property". Even here in Florida it's Illegal for people who live on main roads to completely cover their windows. Did you know that? That's right. If I decide to paint my windows black because I work nights and sleep during the day a cop can come along and DEMAND that I replace my windows with glass that can be seen through. What?!?!? They're MY Windows. No-One should have the right to tell me what I can and can't do with my own damn windows in my own damn house, but they can and do have that right and in some neighborhoods they enforce that law very strictly. Mostly in the crime ridden neighborhoods like Projects and Low Income Housing. Is it fair that just because you don't have enough money and live in a poorer neighborhood that you can't cover your windows because some cop is afraid he might get shot responding to a call and he doesn't see the gunman in your house because your windows are covered, or because the cops are afraid that your windows are covered because you're growing a lot of pot plants or they think you're running a meth lab? No, that's Not Fair. They are finding more and more excuses to limit our "Freedoms", piracy or no piracy. We are losing any rights we have to any privacy what-so-ever and it's all in the name of "catching criminals". Well, I don't know about you but I DO NOT want my Entire Life being watched under a microscope because they're trying to catch other people who might be doing something wrong. You know what they'll say too right, and what everyone else will say to defend it...."If you aren't doing anything wrong you don't have anything to fear".....BULLSHIT. Losing what little privacy I have left is a HUGE FEAR in its-self. I'm not doing anything wrong and unless they can prove that I am and CATCH ME IN THE ACT (without subversive monitoring) they have NO RIGHT to watch me and just wait for me to commit a crime.

Back in my day when the Cops or Law Enforcement caught someone doing something by being "Sneaky" it was called ENTRAPMENT and it was Illegal.

Oh, please....you're talking to an Architect of 38 years experience.  I know all the 'laws' pertaining to how you can be told not to do what you want to/with your house...and all the revisions of the Planning Act which is at the whim and mercy of whatever incumbent dick-wad thinks he knows urban design better.  {this is in Australia, btw...but the US will be equally pathetic].  Latest brainwave is the determination that privacy [overlooking] is not an issue if the target property/space is more than 9 metres away....yes, folks...your eyes can see no further than 9 metres.

Good one, Ralf.

Here's fuck-wit authority for you....Australia is the second driest continent on the planet [doesn't rain in Antarctica] and yet our MMBW [Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works] [sewer and water reticulation] actually prohibited the installation of rainwater tanks....it was illegal...even though intelligent people actually saw a NEED for them.  Then what happens?.....Suddenly not only is it allowed....it's actually compulsory.

Effing retards brought the water crisis upon themselves.

As for suffering a loss of 'freedom' in order to catch such creatures as paedophiles....here's an offer....you can take away ALL of my privileges....any of them....for as long as you like....if doing so will remove our planet of that scum.

It'd be worth it.....so any encroachment as may happen....as long as the results are there....I won't bat an eyelid.

I'd be all for that too, But, ONLY WHEN they fix the laws so they aren't making monsters out of 18-19-20 year old guys for being with 15-16-17 year old girls. If they can GUARANTEE they only catch the Real Monsters who are out there kidnapping and killing little kids, then great, I'll back it 100%.

Still, with any law, no matter the crime, the answer is to prevent the crime from happening through education and the proper growth and management of society as a whole. The answer is NOT to take away everyone's freedom and to invade everyone's privacy because a small portion of the population uses that freedom to do something bad.

Yes, that's the ideal...in an ideal world...but it is the very nature of the 'antisocial' to cause grief for all those nice law-abiding citizens...whether it be through their own actions....or by others in response....;p

What about if someone left it to me in their will?

hehe yes it is pretty embarrasing being a Melbournian sometimes, though at least I have a water tank...still, you're missing the long term picture my dear fellow...

their wily scheme has succeeded in making Melbourne Water an extremely rich and capable arm of gov, bristling with clever people driving shiny cars, who can together all afford to build a fifty bazillion dollar pipeline to pump the goulburn river down to the city and away from our farmers so that we will have water forever...

NOTE ON TONE : "forever" should be pronounced with a fist being shaken toward the heavens, as if in defiance of such outdated considerations as nature, pink hippies and goulburn valley farmers.

My few cents to this nice conversation, I believe that internet is a great tool for democracies and shouldn't be closely monitored. The so called arguments to monitor the "internet" even more and frequent in order to catch terrorist or organized crime gang/cells is just pure bullhorse. Not many organized crime gangs/cells nor terrorists whatsoever use the internet with a wired connection or a modern cell phone more than once if even that, since they can already be traced quite easy.

For the "pirate" part, there are no serious scientific work or studies that have been made that proves or disprove the fact that companies do lose or gain profit from piracy and most of the studies out there have been sponsored by either way. However this link can be worth reading, http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/05/Saving-a-penny----pirating-the-Humble-Indie-Bundle

For the Piratebay trial, as a Swedish citizen I was quite chocked over the outcome, mainly the magnitude of the fine.

Piracy is a crime not something to claim as a civil liberty. It is plain and simple making money for the resellers and people who illegally obtain Intellectual Property while taking that money away from those that actually make the bloody stuff. Its not brain-science or even a grey moral wish-wash of opinions. Its putting money into the pockets of those that steal and taking that same money out of the pockets of the product makers that brought you the Intellectual Property in the first place. If i went out and pirated Elemental, checked the adds from the torrent site, got a password dump virus or zombie virus from the torrent that hosts other downloads on my computer then ive succeeded in keeping these guys going while failing to support stardock. Then chuck in your basic "its freedom" type argument and you keep the ball rolling with pats on the backs to all the other like minded individuals that feel the same.

Tell me this though whats gonna happen when everyone pirates and companys that live on the internet or that have media products that can be ripped onto the internet all go bankrupt. No new games, applications, internet art, movies, tv you name it. 

By feeding the beast were starving the creaters. Theres good reason theres property laws out there, would you like to earn zero money for all your hard working efforts?

My response to piracy is that it works against you in the end. Sure youll get some goodies but when you realise just who your supporting by doing it maybe youll figure it out. 

Indeed. Bravo!  .

Loose similes and metaphors cannot justify piracy. Overblown hype cannot either. If you take something w/o permission, that is theft. End of story.

How harshly it should be dealt with is a matter of law, and that can be changed one way or another (more harshly or less so) BUT, it must be punished or the entire concept of value and property are negated. If that happens, creativity and progress will soon travel the path of the extinction. The 'noble experiment' that was Communism failed for the same reason.

Stop arguing just for the sake of arguing. Jafo is 100% correct in all this.

I have to say I disagree, even though I agree with a lot of what you and the person above you say "In Theory". Stealing is Wrong, yes, that's not under debate.

The fact of the matter is though, there is Only One Kind of "Pirate" that costs anyone any money. The one's who copy movies or games on-line and then repackage them to look like the Real Thing and Sell Them. Those are the ONLY PIRATES costing anyone anything. By selling a "Fake" movie or game they are stealing money that by rights should belong to the creators.

"Joe Blow" who watches a movie on a Chinese web-site that disregards US copyright law isn't costing anyone anything. If anything he's costing him/her self the experience of seeing a Quality movie or show or whatever because they are watching some Crappy Cam of a movie or show on the Internet. Even I watched Iron-Man 2 almost 2 weeks before it hit theaters here in the US. That didn't stop me from going to see it TWICE in theaters and PAYING FOR IT two times, just because I thought the movie was that bad-ass.

Should I be thrown in prison because I watched a crappy, dimly lit, very blurry copy of Iron-Man 2 on-line two weeks before it came out in theaters here? I didn't download it. Didn't make a copy. Didn't pass it around to any of my friends, and I DAMN SURE didn't copy it and try to sell it.

There's a big difference in a guy who watches something on-line or downloads a game and plays it for a few days then deletes it, and the True Scum Ball who's making copies and then making labels and packaging and selling them. One of those two examples needs to be doing some hard core Federal Time. The other one needs a slap on the wrist and to be told to get about his/her own business. Can you guess which one should be punished which way?

Either way it's all going to end up with corporations and world governments controlling, censoring, and monitoring the Internet. It's already started happening. The Internet is the only Real Freedom a lot of people have left and they don't even realize even that's being taken away from them right before their own eyes. You people do realize the governments of the world control and censor the flow of information in and out of your respective countries right? It even happens right here in the USA. Want proof? I can name off more then one foreign web-site that will clearly show American Soldiers gunning down Innocent Civilians in the middle east. You won't see that shit on CNN or World News Tonight though.....gee I wonder why? Maybe for the same reason that they unload the bodies of dead soldiers in the middle of the night and on air bases where the public can't stand there and actually count the Real Number of our soldiers who aren't fortunate enough to make it back home.

They'll throw up All Kinds of Excuses for things though. Like they unload the bodies of the fallen soldiers at night to provide some privacy and respect for the families of the dead.....WTF? If one of my family members died in a war that I my-self didn't support I'd Damn Sure want the WORLD to know about it. Not for his body to get off loaded at some middle-of-nowhere train station under the cover of darkness like they were some kind of criminal. The American Government has been using this practice since Vietnam, maybe even before, so they could hide the actual number of the returning dead from the public. I'm not trying to sound like a conspiracy nut, but, in reality, Big Brother controls almost everything and now he's gaining a even Bigger Foothold on the Internet too. All in the name of stopping so called "Criminals".

It's not worth it. It's not worth the price it will cost us as a society in the long run. We'll loose ALL our on-line freedoms just as we lost our Real Freedoms in the Real World and No-One will lift a finger to stop it because it will be under the SMOKE SCREEN of "Doing the right thing". Give me a F'Kin break.

The REAL NUMBER of ACTUAL COPY SELLING PIRATES is practically insignificant and isn't anywhere near what companies claim they loose in revenue. <----- Frogboy can attest to this and I'm pretty sure he Out-Ranks Jafo

Not so. If you had made the movie, paid the actors, rented or bought the equipment, slaved over the distribution and worried about the reviews...I wager you'd feel differently about it.

Theft is theft...whether 'permanent' or 'temporary' (i.e. 'just viewing').  

Not if you fight for Net Neutrality and fight anyone taking over. Protecting IP is not the same as dominating/controlling the net.

Catching Pedophiles/predators/scammers/thieves, etc. isn't worth it?

You have kids? Catching the monster scum is everyone's job and responsibility. So is being honest. It's part of the Social Contract.

See, you use some examples of Exactly what I'm talking about. Particularly:

"Catching Pedophiles/predators/scammers/thieves, etc. isn't worth it?"

That right there shows me you are closed minded (or in my opinion anyway) of people who have that "Label" attached to them. I personally know several so-called "Sex Offenders" who are guys I went to school with and grew up with. They are no more "Monsters" then I am the "Tooth Fairy". One of them caught his charge when he was 19 and his girlfriend was 16. The girls Mom knew about the relationship and Consented, even testifying to such In Court, but Daddy didn't like the idea that his little angel was giving it up so he ruined the guys life and made the State press charges. Yeah, he's a Real Danger to the community huh? Someone hang that guy before he screws my little cousin too....BTW that guy, his name is John and he lives out in my old neighborhood. He's married to the girl he went to prison for and they have 2 kids together. Still, he's punished like some kind of pervert and made to go re-register every 6 months or they throw him back in prison. Is that fair? Is he a REAL Monster? No. I'd trust him with my life. We're as close as brothers. I've even let him and his wife baby-sit my little cousin when she was a kid and I KNEW, FOR A FACT, that she'd be completely safe in his house whether his wife was home or not.

I don't have kids of my own, no, but I have kids in my family that I helped raise. Like my little cousin CJ. She's 19 now. I helped raise her, fed her, changed diapers, the whole nine yards. would I want to protect her from the REAL Pedophiles out there? You Bet. Would I jump to the conclusion that every "Sex Offender" is some kind of child molesting sicko? No. It needs to go by a case-by-case basis, which it doesn't, and it ruins perfectly good people's lives. Not to mention it Brainwashes the masses who are dumb enough to believe anything the rest of "popular society" tells them.

Still, what does Internet Piracy have to do with Catching Perverts? NOTHING!!!! But you can see it snow-balling in that direction already. Once they have control of the Internet they won't stop with just going after the Pirates. Just like the US Government hasn't abolished the "Patriot Act" yet. It gives them the lawful RIGHT to listen-in on ANY phone conversation in the US, PERIOD. Do you Really Think they're Only Using that technology to look for Terrorists? LoL don't be naive, my friend.

Unfortunately the label isn't firmly affixed over the upper end of the respiratory tract.

Only with a warrant from a Federal Judge.

I'm sure that'll alter your view somewhat. When someone tries to molest your child, you'd be amazed at the ability to commit creepicide.

I didn't say that. They are, however, sex offenders. You worried about them? I care insofar as it impacts all of us. These aren't lillies we're speaking of. These are ... well, you find your own word. I'm not losing sleep over their 'rights', though.

As for the rest? No...Pedophiles, etc. are the same as thieves...insofar as they are both criminals. Any gravity differences are per your own value system. But criminals they are, as are the corp.'s etc. which rob you or attempt to do so.

They are all criminals, and should be treated as such.

I'd say I agree more or less with your whole reply Accept the part I quote above. The Patriot Act was enacted so that they Don't Need a warrant. Each and every phone conversation in the US is "monitored" by machines as I type this right now. They listen for "key words" to be repeated, like "Bomb", "Nuclear", "Terror Attack", and other specific words. If those words pop up too often in your conversations your number gets "flagged" and then passed on to a actual investigator who will tap your phone and determine if you're a possible terrorist or just some guy who uses the word "Bomb" too many times. I have relatives on both my side of the family and my wife's side of the family who are in the armed forces and can confirm this.

Don't believe me? Be my guest and start saying those Key Words in all your conversations then come back and tell us how long it takes before you start hearing odd "clicks" or "noises" in the background when you're on the phone. The whole of the United States is under surveillance. All they have to do is "Suspect You" and that's all the cause they need to kick in your door.

The thing where I talk about defending other "Criminal Types" is because it's unfair that they use the Patriot Act to catch them when the ONLY reason we're even supposed to have the so called "Patriot Act" is to stop Terrorism. As much as Mommy and Daddy Bible Thumper might want to think so, being a child molester or a drug dealer or even a Internet Pirate does Not Constitute Terrorism. Yet evidence gathered through the Patriot Act is used to convict these people. It's being done right now!!!

I'm not defending those types of people. I'm defending ALL of US. No-One, in my eyes, has the Right to listen in on my conversations, period. Just knowing that the government is doing just that right now makes me mad enough that were it not for having a elderly grandmother in my home I'd have gotten rid of my phone long ago.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

That's the 4th Amendment. FISA requires a warrant to be issued by a FIS Court. The fact that a President (or anyone else) violates that presumes you can prove that. If you can, that President (or NSA, etc.) can pack a bag for he/they are off to jail. If you can prove the warrantless invasion, and a court does not try the offender, that's quite another situation which is dealt best with by methods described in the Declaration of Independence.

As for a President circumventing the intent of FISA to require a warrant from a FIS Court, I'd direct you to review Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 170 (1804). Bottom line is that a law passed by Congress has more authority than an Executive Order anytime.

I would not advise anyone to be "mentioning" that type of stuff on a phone or in any communication just to test provocability of a response. That is an extremely foolish thing to do. First, you don't know who's listening nor when he/they will start nor what they will or will not hear, and you won't learn about a warrant to do so unless you find yourself looking at the world through a very narrow opening...in Algeria, or some other wonderful vacation spot.

I'd be pleased if you did accept it, but I think you meant except.    .... Jafo is tapping your line from Oz.

lol Indeed. I did mean except.

Ok, so I'm doing a little more research. I know I remember reading the entire Patriot Act when it was posted in the news papers and on-line when it was passed and the strict impression I got was that they no longer needed a warrant. After doing some more digging I'm finding that they say they Do need a warrant, "unless" they suspect you of Terrorism. Once they "suspect you of terrorism" though, at that point you lose any rights you have what-so-ever and they can do things like....ship you off to Guantanamo Bay and shock your nuts with electric sponges...ouch.

I'm also finding a lot of replies like this thread Here. One poster says...

"Normally they must have a warrant, but with the Patriot Act if they believe you may be a terrorist of someone connected to them they may tap your phone without a court issued warrant. If you are later charged with something, and it is a non-terrorist charge; they can not use the phone tap data in court against you. However, again because of the Patriot Act you discovered the used the phone tap information to find other things to build a case against you for something non-terrorist, you would be screwed. Because they can claim their initial thought in doing the tap was because they thought you where a terrorist or connected to one. Yes, America is now truly the home of the free."

They also make the bill come off sounding like a lot "legal mumbo jumbo" which to me seems like it's only purpose is to try to confuse people from understanding it in the first place. It's more or less like now the cops can say "Well, we got you on drugs, and pirating movies, but we found that during a raid we did while looking for Terrorism so we can't use that in court. Then again, since we did "suspect you of terrorism" in the first place, that makes using this other evidence Ok even though we know you'll beat the "terrorism" charge". Doesn't that sound pretty F'ked up to anyone else?

Note: Sorry for the Font change there, it happened when I pasted in the posters quote. Definitely check out that link though, some interesting reading there and on that site in general.

These type of debates are really entertaining. Especially the people who try to justify there actions by saying " I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so me stealing it, the IP holder wouldn't have gotten my money anyway and aren't losing anything" statements are just idiotic.. If you weren't going to buy it anyway ( then you really didn't need it) does not give you the right to go and steal it....

Taking something without the consent of the IP owner through permission or purchase (be it physical or digital distribution) is THEFT!! PLAIN and SIMPLE.

Sure I could find all kinds of stuff to steal through torrents, warez sites,usenet, download sites like rapidshare, hotfile and the likes, but do I?

NO, people work hard to create their goods, so the only moral thing to do is to be respectful and show my appreciation for their hard work through asking permission or purchase.

And there's the " if they wouldn't charge so much or be so expensive than I wouldn't have stole it" is more idiotic than the first statement!!

They have to make a living somehow, just like I know I would not want to work for free.

If there is something I want and can not afford it, there is a really easy concept that I follow : I SAVE for it, be it only a few dollars here and there or loose change even though I know where to get it for nothin'.

Every piece of software that is not freeware on my PC is all bought and paid for, from the OS ( except Win 7 Pro in which I have obtained through school and MSDNAA) to Photoshop ( in which I had purchased Version 6 through a local PC shop for $120 and have been purchasing the upgrade ever since), cinema 4D to microsoft Office are all bought with my hard earned money.

All the music on my PC is all bought and paid for and have all the original cd's sitting on a shelf excluding the few mp3 purchases.

All the movies I have are all bought and paid for, and all kids movies get backed up seeing they get scratched pretty easily by a 3 year old. To bad I can not back up my xbox 360 games for that reason without having to mod my xbox to play them. At  $40 - $60 a pop it gets expensive when they get wrecked.

Very true. I don't think any of us here are saying piracy is ok, or that it's not stealing. It is, plain and simple. But the ways that they are going about to try and stop it are completely wrong. Also though, part of your statement clashes with Frogboy's stance on Piracy. He doesn't see a "pirated download" as a "lost sale". You'll have to ask him why though as I don't recall his specific words. Still you are right, either way you look at it, it's stealing and that's wrong. No one's arguing that point. Well said though.

Not so...they must have a warrant. The prior President thought differently but was brought up short on that. The legal reference [precedent] is quoted in one of my prior replies.

Nope....no one is above the law, and no one is above the 4th Amendment.

I know none of us here are saying piracy is ok, or that it is not stealing. I just needed to babble ( for some reason I do that once in awhile)!

I have to agree on the way they are trying to fight piracy as being wrong, but who really knows what the right way is? Is there even a right way?

Anyway they try to fight it, there are people who will think it's the right way and those who don't and the pirate will always try to find an excuse to justify their actions.

All I can say is it is a very tough subject to find a solution!

In the long run, the pirates are going to wreck the experience for everyone else.

People have been screaming about Ubisoft's DRM but you know what? Their sales are WAY up on those titles versus the titles that don't have that DRM.  Every publisher I know of is seriously looking at what Ubisoft did.

Look how many people are perfectly happy with Steamworks in their games already? Sure, you just have to be online to play the game (thus far, I have yet to see a single Steamworks -- as opposed to Steam -- from a third party that works offline. I could be wrong but I can't think of any because that's the whole point of their DRM - validation on startup).  

And that's only the start. Wait until all games are streaming data from the servers. How you going to pirate that?  People say you can't stop piracy. Those people are not programmers (or very good ones).  I could make Elemental effectively unpirateable easily if I just had the AI server-based.  You going to write your own AI server? Some warez guys gonna do it for you? I don't think so.  But that's the future IF casual piracy ever becomes the norm.

On Stardock games, we can put out retail versions with no copy protection - at North American retail - because of two reasons: a) Our demographic buys games even if they could pirate them easily and b) Our culture has a high respect for intellectual property.

But where I can't sell my stuff I won't work on it. Will Elemental work in China? No idea. Don't care. They don't buy stuff unless you absolutely force them to do it (i.e. micro DLC payments which I'm not willing to get into right now).

But these warez guys who think that piracy is something that IP creators will "just have to put up with" are fooling themselves. The Ubisoft thing should be a wake up call because as draconian as it is, IT WORKS FOR THEM.  

^ 

Actually, Karen....Obama's name was substituted for GHB's (who was originally named as the sitting head of the Executive branch) in this suit. No matter. Here's the gist of the Summary of the Decision:

FISA affords civil remedies to “aggrieved
persons” who can show they were subjected to warrantless domestic
national security surveillance; FISA takes precedence over the state secrets privilege in this case.

Currently, he's in the uncomfortable position of having to use what GHB passed through Congress, and which he swore to alter....and hasn't.

My reference (in the prior reply you are responding to) to GHB was only that he tried to establish that the FISA could be used without warrants, and in fact it cannot.

He was the one who surveilled Al-Haramain, not Obama. Obama was substituted into the act as the current head of gov't. which is the requirement of bringing this type of suit, I believe.

Well said, chief, and very true.

On the whole "Ubisoft" thing though....

I'm sure you realize their server-side DRM was cracked in less then 24 hours, right? It took them a little longer, but they did crack it and get the cracks to the pirate groups (server side emulation included). From what I found in my reading it took them a couple days to get a real working crack of Assassins Creed 2, but once that was done Ubi's other latest releases all followed suit in being cracked n less then a day.

Edit: as I understand it, the cracks they are using now for the new Ubi games completely emulate their Server Side DRM. As long as the pirates can emulate it, they'll be able to crack it and pass it out for free.

I've seen threads in other conversations on the Internet where these popular pirate groups were arguing with each other on "Who broke the copy protection first" and "who did it the Right way". So it's not this new DRM will put and end to it, it won't.

I completely agree though that the "warez/pirate guys are fooling them-selves". They should know before they form the thought that they can't keep up with or compete against corporations that have tons of financial backing and private servers and all that good stuff.

Still though, how many people, like my-self, are boycotting Ubisoft games right now because of the Draconian DRM? Quite a few. If their sales went up I'd say it was because some of the pirates broke down and bought the game so they could figure out how to crack it...lol.

I don't honestly mind Steam. I use it when I play Empire:TW and Napoleon:TW. Doesn't bother me one bit to perform a check every time the game fires up. It Does bother me that now to Legally Buy a game and get it to work when I get home I MUST HAVE Internet Access. Some people simply don't have reliable Internet at home. For a long time I was one of those people. In my eyes, a good product, be it a game or program or what-ever, should work right out of the Box, Period, and I shouldn't need the Internet as well to make something I Paid For work.

You could compare that to "Well, don't buy a DvD Movie if you don't have a DvD player at home", but that argument doesn't fly with me. These aren't movies we're talking about here. We're talking about Single Player games (I.E. Assassins Creed 2). If AC2 was a strictly multi-player game where I saw the other Assassins running around my world I'd expect to be on-line 24/7 when playing it. It's not though, so to me they gimped up a perfectly good single player game by adding "Constant On-line" DRM. Were I not such a stand-up guy I Would Have pirated AC2 by now as AC1 was a Very Awesome game that I liked a lot. The DRM is the only thing stopping me from buying part 2 for my PC. I did rent it from Blockbuster for my X-Box360, but that didn't need to be on-line to play the game, yet the PC version does. To me that looks like they are specifically screwing over PC players.

"No-one died so that people could continue to steal other's property." - Jafo

That's pretty much the reason for every invasive war ever.

Step 1 - Someone sees something
Step 2 - That person wants it
Step 3 - War is fought, people die
Step 4 - Stuff is stolen

"From what I found in my reading it took them a couple days to get a real working crack of Assassins Creed 2, but once that was done Ubi's other latest releases all followed suit in being cracked n less then a day." - Raven X

Unless I am mistaken it took 2 weeks to make a server emulator for Assassin's Creed 2. They didn't have a crack at the time, no idea if they have one now. When the emulator was released Ubisoft's server was still rather unstable at times, preventing some users who bought the game from playing.

The documentary does bring up a point I don't remember having been addressed, why don't the RIAA and/or MPAA just buy the pirates? They have the funds to do so and if I've learned anything from comic books and movies it's "If someone is a threat to your business either kill them or put them on your payroll." Though I think the first action may be more suited to Kingpin than any group worried about piracy.