Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

privacy violating acts

cybertron1998
Posts: 5,923
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 6:12:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
you know like the Stop Online Piracy Act or the PATRIOT Act. do you like them or not
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
dylancatlow
Posts: 13,530
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 6:18:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Any policy which systematically punishes people who have done nothing wrong in order to punish those who have is immoral, and any politician who supports such a notion will not be getting my vote.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 6:45:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
How about we make this simpler:
Find me someone who does support something like SOPA or CISPA so I can shoot them. Such threats to human intelligence should be eliminated quickly.

The interesting thing about internet-related ones is that they just won't work. Period. All you'd need to do is get a VPN and you'd be invincible.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,730
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 7:03:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/24/2013 6:12:12 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
you know like the Stop Online Piracy Act or the PATRIOT Act. do you like them or not

They are two completely different things of course, I think the PATRIOT Act infringes our privacy way too much but I support SOPA, privacy and freedom of speech aren't reasons to allow people to steal intellectual property.

Both have the potential for abuse, as most laws do, but measures like SOPA for protecting IP on line need to be put in place.
It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,923
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 7:09:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/24/2013 7:03:45 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/24/2013 6:12:12 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
you know like the Stop Online Piracy Act or the PATRIOT Act. do you like them or not

They are two completely different things of course, I think the PATRIOT Act infringes our privacy way too much but I support SOPA, privacy and freedom of speech aren't reasons to allow people to steal intellectual property.

Both have the potential for abuse, as most laws do, but measures like SOPA for protecting IP on line need to be put in place.

SOPA does more harm than good. it messes with the security systems that are already built in. it opens up more doors for hackers
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,451
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 7:32:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/24/2013 6:18:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Any policy which systematically punishes people who have done nothing wrong in order to punish those who have is immoral, and any politician who supports such a notion will not be getting my vote.
#StandWithBossy

#TheMadmanWasUnbanned
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,730
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 8:10:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/24/2013 7:09:53 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 4/24/2013 7:03:45 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/24/2013 6:12:12 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
you know like the Stop Online Piracy Act or the PATRIOT Act. do you like them or not

They are two completely different things of course, I think the PATRIOT Act infringes our privacy way too much but I support SOPA, privacy and freedom of speech aren't reasons to allow people to steal intellectual property.

Both have the potential for abuse, as most laws do, but measures like SOPA for protecting IP on line need to be put in place.

SOPA does more harm than good. it messes with the security systems that are already built in. it opens up more doors for hackers

Not for the content provider, it does more good than harm for them. SOPA is designed to protect the content provider's IP from theft, people who invest in IP need to be protected or they won't make the investment, and then you lose content. Theft is not a freedom to be protected, it's a legal violation to be prosecuted, you do not have the freedom to not pay the cost of acquiring content.

How does it mess with security systems and open more doors for hackers?
It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,730
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 8:17:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
SOPA is too strong, OPEN isn't strong enough, we need something in between.
It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 8:22:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/24/2013 6:18:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Any policy which systematically punishes people who have done nothing wrong in order to punish those who have is immoral, and any politician who supports such a notion will not be getting my vote.

Word.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 9:06:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/24/2013 8:10:24 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/24/2013 7:09:53 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 4/24/2013 7:03:45 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/24/2013 6:12:12 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
you know like the Stop Online Piracy Act or the PATRIOT Act. do you like them or not

They are two completely different things of course, I think the PATRIOT Act infringes our privacy way too much but I support SOPA, privacy and freedom of speech aren't reasons to allow people to steal intellectual property.

Both have the potential for abuse, as most laws do, but measures like SOPA for protecting IP on line need to be put in place.

SOPA does more harm than good. it messes with the security systems that are already built in. it opens up more doors for hackers

Not for the content provider, it does more good than harm for them. SOPA is designed to protect the content provider's IP from theft, people who invest in IP need to be protected or they won't make the investment, and then you lose content. Theft is not a freedom to be protected, it's a legal violation to be prosecuted, you do not have the freedom to not pay the cost of acquiring content.

How does it mess with security systems and open more doors for hackers?

I can explain all of that.

1. SOPA's methods involve tampering with DNS servers. When this is done, you can't tell the difference between censorship and DNS-level hijacking. Nobody ever said it'd be DNSSEC compatible.

2. If people are pirating something, it means there is a flaw in the business model of the IP provider. Do you know why Game of Thrones was pirated so often? It's because they insisted on putting it only on cable, and requiring a cable subscription to watch it. Now, if they had put it on Netflix, for instance, a large portion of the pirates would have gone and watched it on Netflix. IP owners need to actually innovate and provide customers with products they want instead of legislating their way to prosperity through crony capitalism.

3. Piracy is not "theft", it is copying. The original is not destroyed. See image for details: http://rationalargumentator.com...

4. Do you know what I'd have to do to get around SOPA? I'd have to change my DNS server to one outside of the US. Do you have any idea how incredibly easy it is to do this? I could be done with it in under 5 minutes. If another measure was added, I'd just use a VPN. After that, there'd be nothing that anyone could do to stop me.

5. SOPA allows an entire website to be taken down over one piece of copyrighted material. Is this what you want? Think about the disputes Youtube has been in with copyright owners. Sure, they've worked new things out, but Viacom had a pretty big lawsuit against them. If something like SOPA passed, Youtube would have just been shut down, and would stay that way due to the chilling effects.

The best solution? Keep legistlators' hands off the goddamn internet.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 25,031
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 9:27:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/24/2013 9:09:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"3. Piracy is not "theft", it is copying. The original is not destroyed."

Sophistry.

Agreed.
1. If I steal your money, I will likely spend it, not destroy it.
2. Furthermore, if I am out revenue from your "copying", what is that?
At least the noble sheep provides us warm sweaters. All your hides would provide are coward pants. - Dick Solomon

"I call albatross!" - seventhprofessor
dylancatlow
Posts: 13,530
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:41:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
' Look at Minecraft. Immensely successful, and its creator ENCOURAGES people to pirate it. If the labels are right, he'd be out of business. However, 10 million copies of Minecraft have been sold. Notch (the creator) had so much money that he didn't know what to do with it'

You can't log into minecraft online without an account, and that can only be obtained by purchasing one.
dylancatlow
Posts: 13,530
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:42:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
"Your role in the market is less about the idea itself than it is the way it is presented."

You'll make a great contribution to the weekly stupid.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:43:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/24/2013 10:36:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"If people wanted to support you as the author, then people will buy your book from you."

He's a lost cause.

Are you suggesting that if people want to support an author, that they will not buy their book? Please tell me how this is rational.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:55:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/24/2013 10:41:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
' Look at Minecraft. Immensely successful, and its creator ENCOURAGES people to pirate it. If the labels are right, he'd be out of business. However, 10 million copies of Minecraft have been sold. Notch (the creator) had so much money that he didn't know what to do with it'

You can't log into minecraft online without an account, and that can only be obtained by purchasing one.

You can still play single player and a selection of specially set up multiplayer servers. To play on most servers, you'd need to buy the game. This is an example of providing reason to buy - in order to access all servers, you need to buy an account. You still fail to address my point, instead bringing up a point that is only tangential to mine.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:56:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/24/2013 10:42:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"Your role in the market is less about the idea itself than it is the way it is presented."

You'll make a great contribution to the weekly stupid.

When the good is able to be replicated infinitely, yes it is. Why do you think some people prefer theaters over watching a movie at home?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 11:21:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/24/2013 11:09:19 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/24/2013 10:53:28 PM, drhead wrote:
The IP is available in infinite quantities. If they are damaged by the breaking of their artificial scarcity, it's their fault for not focusing on things that are naturally scarce (concerts, for example. Things that can't be copied infinitely.)

"It's her fault that she died

Yes, it is their fault for their seemingly masochistic business decision-making. We want to help them by telling them that they are going to have to change the way they do things if they ever expect to succeed. The market changed a lot since vinyl records. The market will choose the new winners, and kill off the losers. Piracy is simply evidence of that happening - companies which manage to deal with it well are the ones clearly fit for the market.

Show me one good reason why ideas should be property.

How are they different than physical objects? Ownership of property comes not from scarcity but from the result of human action. You earn property. When you build a table, the table is the direct result of your work. You made the table. By writing a book or making a movie, you are giving value to the mass of ideas inside your head. You made the song or story.

Let's speak to Benjamin Franklin about that:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
I think he disagrees!

They lose potential profit, though. This is the problem. They HAVE a way to deal with the issue WITHOUT resorting to crony capitalism. However, they CHOOSE to whine to our legislators, begging them to invent a 'stop piracy' button. What I am saying is trying to focus on actually fixing the problem: people don't want to buy the shitty services they are being provided. Make the services less shitty, and the problem is solved.

No. They shouldn't have to compromise. The consumer makes the choice to pirate something. If the action of piracy is immoral, you cannot blame the producer. It is the consumer that carries out the action. It is his choice and you cannot justify it by pointing out actions taken by producer which are not immoral.

Pretty big "if" there, to say that something that causes no direct harm to someone is "immoral". This is not about punishing the consumer. It's about the fact that piracy will happen whether you like it or not, and it's better to actually find a way to deal with it, or, even better, make it work for you, instead of crying about it. Other people have made successful business models where piracy was an important part of making something popular. If they can do it, why can't everyone else do it?

If they expect to turn a profit, then yes, they do. Are you suggesting that businesses should be rewarded for providing goods and services that people are not willing to pay for?

No, I'm suggesting that the producer not wanting to turn a profit does NOT under any circumstances give you the right to their work.

Refer to Ben Franklin for that one. And how is piracy harming the business if they don't want a profit, anyway? Is it just another copyright vendetta for the sole purpose of providing some abstract sense of justice?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
dylancatlow
Posts: 13,530
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 11:28:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Let's speak to Benjamin Franklin about that:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
I think he disagrees!

He's talking about scientific theories, not about intellectual property.
dylancatlow
Posts: 13,530
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 11:32:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/24/2013 11:28:25 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Let's speak to Benjamin Franklin about that:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
I think he disagrees!


He's talking about scientific theories, not about intellectual property.

A scientific theory can't be patented because it's merely describing someone that already exists (a good scientific theory, that is).
dylancatlow
Posts: 13,530
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 11:35:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
"Pretty big "if" there, to say that something that causes no direct harm to someone is "immoral". This is not about punishing the consumer. It's about the fact that piracy will happen whether you like it or not, and it's better to actually find a way to deal with it, or, even better, make it work for you, instead of crying about it. Other people have made successful business models where piracy was an important part of making something popular. If they can do it, why can't everyone else do it?"

The act of pirating isn't what hurts the original author, the harm is that the author isn't receiving the payment from all those who would have normally purchased it.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 11:42:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/24/2013 11:32:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/24/2013 11:28:25 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Let's speak to Benjamin Franklin about that:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
I think he disagrees!


He's talking about scientific theories, not about intellectual property.

A scientific theory can't be patented because it's merely describing someone that already exists (a good scientific theory, that is).

Yet we still see blatant and obvious abuses of the patent system that fall under this.

In any case, the logic applies universally. The point is that intellectual "property" is NOT a scarce good, unless artificially made so.

I strongly suggest that you actually read this article: http://www.techdirt.com...
It should explain a lot of the tough bits to you.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 25,031
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 12:13:27 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/25/2013 12:05:38 AM, drhead wrote:
At 4/24/2013 11:49:55 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
No, I'm suggesting that if you actually want people to buy your stuff, you should make your work available in a way that people want. You are free to not do that, but don't whine when people go somewhere else to get your work because you don't want to make products they want to buy. Like I said, there is no scarcity with ideas. Your role in the market is less about the idea itself than it is the way it is presented.

Look at what you write here.
If they don't want to buy my work, that's fine. But, that isn't what is happening, is it?

They take my work, but refuse to pay for it. In the best possible light, people who would pay for my work refuse to because it is not in a medium they prefer, so they opt to not pay at all. How is this not benefiting from my labor? Why are they entitlted to my ideas and/or labor simply because I refuse to offer the medium of their choice?

Now, let's take this one step further.
Let's say I publish a book, but refuse to make it available an e-book. Now, you say that if someone were to photocopy every page into a pdf file and post it online, to bad for me, because I didn't want to give the people what they want. So, with this line of reasoning, could Amazon then take this pdf, clean it up, and offer it as an e-Book to profit from?

Bootlegging and piracy are two very different things. I do most definitely disagree with bootlegging on the grounds that it actually generates profit. I don't see the logic in this slippery slope.

You said that if musicians were to get more of a cut, people would buy. So, what if a band bootlegs its own music? The profits then would go to the band, and not the suits.

The logic is, in one of your rants, you said that people will go elsewhere to get my product. Why should it matter if that elsewhere turns a profit? Does not napster have a profit from advertising, so by pirating via them, you are de facto giving them a profit?


Now, let me ask you this: why wouldn't you offer something as an e-book? It gives your customers more choice, and opens your sales to a broader market. Happier consumers, more wealthy you. Any sane person would choose that. If someone is capable of doing something to make their business viable, and chooses not to, then it is their fault for doing that.

Perhaps I feel that books are best enjoyed when a page is turned. It doesn't matter why I don't want to, just the fact that I don't. I agree, it is likely a bad business decision, but that is a moot point to the issue at hand.
At least the noble sheep provides us warm sweaters. All your hides would provide are coward pants. - Dick Solomon

"I call albatross!" - seventhprofessor
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 12:31:03 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/25/2013 12:13:27 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/25/2013 12:05:38 AM, drhead wrote:
At 4/24/2013 11:49:55 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
No, I'm suggesting that if you actually want people to buy your stuff, you should make your work available in a way that people want. You are free to not do that, but don't whine when people go somewhere else to get your work because you don't want to make products they want to buy. Like I said, there is no scarcity with ideas. Your role in the market is less about the idea itself than it is the way it is presented.

Look at what you write here.
If they don't want to buy my work, that's fine. But, that isn't what is happening, is it?

They take my work, but refuse to pay for it. In the best possible light, people who would pay for my work refuse to because it is not in a medium they prefer, so they opt to not pay at all. How is this not benefiting from my labor? Why are they entitlted to my ideas and/or labor simply because I refuse to offer the medium of their choice?

Now, let's take this one step further.
Let's say I publish a book, but refuse to make it available an e-book. Now, you say that if someone were to photocopy every page into a pdf file and post it online, to bad for me, because I didn't want to give the people what they want. So, with this line of reasoning, could Amazon then take this pdf, clean it up, and offer it as an e-Book to profit from?

Bootlegging and piracy are two very different things. I do most definitely disagree with bootlegging on the grounds that it actually generates profit. I don't see the logic in this slippery slope.

You said that if musicians were to get more of a cut, people would buy. So, what if a band bootlegs its own music? The profits then would go to the band, and not the suits.

Some have after learning their album was shelved.

The logic is, in one of your rants, you said that people will go elsewhere to get my product. Why should it matter if that elsewhere turns a profit? Does not napster have a profit from advertising, so by pirating via them, you are de facto giving them a profit?

They rarely profit. They might make revenue from ads to sustain them at least partially, but often a large amount is just donations. Servers cost money, you know.

Now, let me ask you this: why wouldn't you offer something as an e-book? It gives your customers more choice, and opens your sales to a broader market. Happier consumers, more wealthy you. Any sane person would choose that. If someone is capable of doing something to make their business viable, and chooses not to, then it is their fault for doing that.

Perhaps I feel that books are best enjoyed when a page is turned. It doesn't matter why I don't want to, just the fact that I don't. I agree, it is likely a bad business decision, but that is a moot point to the issue at hand.

You still have to compete with piracy, though. This means supplying to as much demand as possible, or losing that market.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 25,031
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 12:57:36 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
DrHead,
What gives you the right to try a game for free, when the gamemaker doesn't want this? Don't buy the game, don't support the company, etc.

But no, you feel you have the right to reap enjoyment from the labor of others, without risk. And, if you like the game enough, you will buy the game. Not if you reaped any benefit, but enough of one where you feel compelled to dole out cash.

Tell me, what is the difference between a pirated game and a free trial? If your logic works, and free trials entice people to buy, then why is there a need for piracy?
If it is because free trials went away, isn't that counter-evidence to your idea that people will buy it if they can play it?
If free trials are still around, then why the need for piracy to play a game?
At least the noble sheep provides us warm sweaters. All your hides would provide are coward pants. - Dick Solomon

"I call albatross!" - seventhprofessor
dylancatlow
Posts: 13,530
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 9:24:40 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
"You, once again, seem to have missed the point entirely. If I hadn't pirated those games, I wouldn't have bought them. In a world where piracy was impossible, I simply would have never bought them. In this case, piracy is helping the author make more money. You seem to be assuming:
1. that all pirates are able to afford to legally purchase everything they pirate
2. that all pirates would have legally purchased something if piracy wasn't an option
3. that all pirates have no reason to legally purchase something when they can get it for free

" that all pirates have no reason to legally purchase something when they can get it for free"

Of course they don't have a reason. That's the point you moron.
dylancatlow
Posts: 13,530
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 9:26:06 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/25/2013 9:24:40 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
"You, once again, seem to have missed the point entirely. If I hadn't pirated those games, I wouldn't have bought them. In a world where piracy was impossible, I simply would have never bought them. In this case, piracy is helping the author make more money. You seem to be assuming:
1. that all pirates are able to afford to legally purchase everything they pirate
2. that all pirates would have legally purchased something if piracy wasn't an option
3. that all pirates have no reason to legally purchase something when they can get it for free

" that all pirates have no reason to legally purchase something when they can get it for free"

Of course they don't have a reason. That's the point you moron.

And anyway, it's not about ALL of the pirates. That's irrelevant to anything.
dylancatlow
Posts: 13,530
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 9:32:12 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
"You, once again, seem to have missed the point entirely. If I hadn't pirated those games, I wouldn't have bought them. In a world where piracy was impossible, I simply would have never bought them. In this case, piracy is helping the author make more money. You seem to be assuming:"

If, overall, piracy benefits authors, then they can by all means 'sell' it for free. But that's up to them.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 10:09:34 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/25/2013 9:26:06 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/25/2013 9:24:40 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
"You, once again, seem to have missed the point entirely. If I hadn't pirated those games, I wouldn't have bought them. In a world where piracy was impossible, I simply would have never bought them. In this case, piracy is helping the author make more money. You seem to be assuming:
1. that all pirates are able to afford to legally purchase everything they pirate
2. that all pirates would have legally purchased something if piracy wasn't an option
3. that all pirates have no reason to legally purchase something when they can get it for free

" that all pirates have no reason to legally purchase something when they can get it for free"

Of course they don't have a reason. That's the point you moron.

And anyway, it's not about ALL of the pirates. That's irrelevant to anything.

Really? Look at the statistics I linked in the post immediately before your last four. If what you're saying is true, how did the results of that study happen? Pirates know damn well that they can get stuff for free, yet they purchase more than non-pirates on average. Explain that.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian

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