Reading the comments just made me feel sick to my stomach, especially the comment asking what else a 13 year-old without money is supposed to do. Do they not even consider the obvious - saving allowance or babysitting money to pay for it? If they have neither of those things, what is so horrible about simply going without until they CAN afford to purchase it. It never killed me, and *still* doesn't kill me. When did this stop being common sense? I'm not even that old.

Peer pressure. At teen age you're highly likely to become social outcast if you don't do, see or wear the same things everyone else in your group of "friends" does. This is the reason for multiple crimes/offences ranging from smoking and drinking alcohol before legal age to shop lifting, speeding and driving drunk. It's also seen as one way to rebel against "the system".

In fact, 13 years old should fuck off, since the game is at best 16+, according to the game card.

:P

Yeah, I think this is an overreaction too. This is a CDProjekt issue, not gog.com's. Still, the fact that they are gog.com's parent company isn't lost on me if gog.com is being subsidized by these actions.

As for dismissing the claims of extortion, if I'm not mistaken, CDProjekt had similar complaints that were valid for The Witcher a few years ago. It might have been more Atari's fault than CDProjekt's for that game. Now CDProjekt is listed as the publisher for The Witcher 2, so I assume they have more control over what happens, but I don't see why anyone would assume the methods are different.


Okay, if it's so simple, define thievery and why thievery is bad.

I was going to wait for your definition, but I'll just go ahead and post mine now anyway.

Thievery=taking the property of someone else. Thievery is bad because it denies the property owner the use of their own property.

So now it's necessary to define property. Here's my view on it http://mises.org/daily/5783/Twos-Company-The-Basics-of-Property. Property rights come about to give ownership of a scarce and rivalrous resource to a person/group of people to avoid conflicts of it's use.

For the sake of argument, let's say I buy a digital media file. Bandwidth and storage space aren't free, and while bits are small, they do take effort to move. Once I have completed the transaction, I download the file from the distributor (Thank you for your service!) The distributor's part is now over (unless of course I have the right to re-download it from their system.) If I make a copy of that file, whether a physical or digital one, I am using my own time, labor, and resources/property (hard drive, memory stick, DVD) to make that copy. I am not taking anything away from the distributor. If I choose to give someone that file, I am using my own time and resources to give them that file. I paid for my bandwidth, computer, blank DVD's, DVD burner, etc. I can do whatever I want with my property. To say that another entity can stop me from doing what I want with my property is to give them part ownership of my property, which is redistribution. Those of you claiming that anti-IP is Marxism, put that in your pipe and smoke it :p

Now, if a person hacked into the distributor's system and used up their bandwidth to download files and disrupted their business, then I would agree that is thievery. You could argue that if they made copies of that stolen property and distributed it, the receivers are receiving stolen property. Same goes for hacking into my computer (an end user) and stealing files from it that I did not give you permission to take. You are using my bandwidth and storage space.

To say that copying using my own resources is thievery is wrong in my eyes. If I buy a shirt and, for whatever reason, I have my own material and make similar-looking copies of that shirt, it's not thievery. I can give the shirts I made and the shirt I bought away to my family and friends if I damn well please.

Sure, you can make an argument that it devalues the market but so what? People who mow their own lawns and make their owns clothes devalue the market for those industries. Do you clean your own house? Well, you're devaluing the market for maid services. Do you grow your own food? Devaluing the food market you asshole! (Actually, that example is a reason why I don't trust our federal government to make good decisions here, see (Wickard v. Filburn). And you know what? Everyone is better for it.

Usually, if your electric bill goes down because there is plenty of electricity being produced, people see that as a good thing. Some producers seem to like to forget that they are consumers too. If every industry was allowed to behave like this, they wouldn't be able to afford much with the money they make. How will industries behave when 3D printing becomes available?

I view IP as it is now as mercantilism. The thing about the receivers of capital through mercantilism is that once they receive the capital through whatever shady means, THEN they say, after the fact, "We're all for free trade!"

Then so be it - peer pressure doesn't justify anything. It's just a term used to speak politely of spineless conformists :|.

A "thief" is someone who has in their possession something which does not belong to them (they did not legitimately obtain).
Oh, shit... Suddenly your entire line of reasoning crumbles.

I started my reasoning with "For the sake of argument, let's say I buy a digital media file" and then my reasoning for copying went from there. I exchanged money for a product also known as transfer of ownership.

I've seen your posts before and I sense you are a very intelligent individual. Please, if I'm wrong, feel free to rip my reasoning to shreds. You won't hurt my feelings. I don't have a dog in the fight. I don't "pirate" video games. Mainly, I'm working out my thoughts.

Whether copyright-infringement is thievery can be debated, but frankly it's splitting hairs over a definition.
Sure, you're not actually depriving anyone of anything.

On the other hand, by pirating software, you're refusing to pay people for the work they did. The car stealing analogy that is often used is flawed, that's true, but would you refuse to pay a mechanic for fixing your car?
Even if you felt said mechanic was overcharging, or you didn't like him, you still would pay up, because he could easily cause trouble for you if you didn't, and because you would face disapproval from other people for not doing so.

Well, whenever you pirate software, you're basically exploiting the anonymity of the internet and the fact companies have a hard time causing trouble for people who don't pay up to refuse to pay for a service you're enjoying.
And no matter what your arguments about the evil of copyrights and companies may be, they can't hide the fact that copyright infringement is illegal, and that doing it makes you a self entitled bastard, not some kind of revolutionary protesting against the evils of corporations and copyright.


I have no idea how pirating music, software or other media have somehow become more socially acceptable than refusing to pay for other services, but no matter how "evil" you think companies are, pirates are the ones doing something illegal and wrong.

I certainly wouldn't refuse to pay a mechanic for fixing my car. I'd be glad to pay him/her. I can also have my buddy do it for a case of beer and some good laughs if I buy the materials and he thinks my company is worth it (I've had a friend do this before and I've also done things like help shingle a house for supper and some beer drinking time with friends before).

This brings up another thing that annoys me about IP. I wouldn't mind at all if the industry moved towards more like a mechanic industry. It's difficult for a person with desirable computer skills to market their skills as an independent service provider. "Hey Bob, my PC game isn't running well. Do you know how to fix it?" "Sure, let me just strip that drm off there." "Oh, PIRATE!"

A computer game, like nearly all software, isn't a product that you purchase, like a book or car; its a licence to use the software itself which you purchase (its all detailed in that EULA ;)). As such your example about a shirt is flawed

When you copy and redistribute a game, it make more copies of it; you're distributing the product to people who have not purchased a usage licence for the product itself. This breaks the agreement in the EULA. You can freely transfer the original licence most times without much trouble - ie you can loan the game to a friend provided you remove it from your own system (as much as teh games industry hates the second hand market its not illegal). However you can't make additional copies and then distribute yourself.

It's the same for the shirt - you could make "a shirt" and sell it on your own that is fine; but if you were to copy the exact design and construction of the shirt you bought you'd then be infringing on the copyright held on that shirts design.

Wow I'm not going to read the entire topic but the first two pages were filled with ignorance and misinformation.

Let's set some things straight:

- IP checks are unreliable. This has been proven again and again in the past. Network hijacking is just one example, but IPs rotate and often has many users when in a dorm for example.

- these companies use shake down tactics, threats and bluff their way to get money. They're scum and if you do say "fine, let's take this to court", they usually back down because they know they lack the needed proof. Except for a SINGLE case that I heard of where the lady in question refused to show up, no-one ever got fined.

- these companies go after anyone who even download small bits of the game and there's no way to prove they even downloaded the entire game. Say I go to a torrent and download the crack to remove the DRM that was initially in my copy before it got patched out - I'd end up on their list. Do you know what you do then? You piss off legal customers.

Really, those who think this is fine, are ignorant and naive and have no clue what they're talking about. True, at least 80% of those targeted will have been guilty but those 20% left, make it not worth it. 20% people getting massive fines over something they know nothing about.

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to this if the contract was clear and upfront about it, and if the contract was read and signed before the transaction. This is my main problem with the EULA. I buy a product, open it up and then they want to start throwing restrictions at me after I already paid for it and didn't know what it stipulated before I purchased it.

Even though I wouldn't be necessarily opposed, I'd most likely look for something that's not restrictive, and somebody out there is going to cash in on the market opportunity, even if it is a niche market.


Actually, that's not true in the U.S. I can't put a designers trademark on the clothes, but I can copy the design. I've heard some grumbles about wanting to extend copyright to clothes designers here, but really, the fashion industry is strong without it and we don't have any shortage of clothing options.

I'm glad we can talk about these things without being censored :)

As such - you're not a thief in any way. You bought it - you own it... But what is it exactly that you own ?
I'd argue that it's not the disc, the data contain within or the "game" itself but the "ability to play the game". If you buy a ticket to a concert, you don't own the band or the music - you own the right to listen to their music. Buying a game, you acquire an indefinite right to enjoy it (although there are subscription-based games out there, which just reinforces the idea that what you own is the right, not the game).
If you give a copy to someone who doesn't already own the right to use it, you've just given the person something you did not own. This is a pretty tenuous injustice, because as long as you are not BOTH playing at the same time, it can be argued that you've temporarily rescinded your right, transferring it to someone else. Another problem arises out of the fact that the whole world could, theoretically, make due with a single copy (or perhaps a couple dozen), playing the game one person at a time; as long as ownership is eternal, transferable and the good is indestructible... things get complicated.
One last thing - property. If you burn a CD or remix a song, your effort gives you right to everything you've created... but nothing more. As such - unless you've acquired the rights to use your source material (from their owners or people they sold them to), created it yourself or ONLY used the property of everyone (like sunset and fresh air), you only own "remixing" but not that which has been remixed. Which creates the complicated issue of mixed-rights objects. What can you give to your friend ? The CD you've burned but not its content, the remix you've made but not the song it changes... Can one apply SO much effort that there's less source material in the final product and more "change" and innovation ? I'd argue that this is probably the difference between inspiration and plagiarism.

Typically, I've raised more questions than I've answered but I hope that the above demonstrates (at least to a certain degree) that you can't just make something your own by the act of copying something else. A copy is not a new creation, it's a... copy.


You're giving me too much credit ;P. Sorry if I sounded too harsh - I often find it hard to strike a balance between getting the point across and politeness...

Ahh darn it I wasn't aware of the specifics of the clothing industry so that example somewhat fails ;)

As for the EULA I can agree to that being a bit iffy with games, music and DVDs (which all operate under the same licencing agreement between owner and buyer). However don't most games companies and such have the EULA up on their websites for viewing and download? Same for music and films I'm sure there is a way to access the data before purchase, just that its buyer beware in that you have to do the work and its not up to the shop selling to you to make you aware of the contract details (outside of upholding age restrictions).

I'm not justifying anything or giving excuses.. Just answering question based on my own experience as a kid (I'm 34 now mind). Peer pressure may not justify anything but I can understand fully why so many give in to it. Human is social animal and having friends is critical for aquiring social skills and mental growth of a child. We tend to go great lenghts to please people around us, especially those we want to be close to. We want to 'fit in' even when we by nature tend to be different. However being different from social norm tend to be scorned upon so we tend to adapt to our surroundings, at least on the surface. This tends to lead to situations where we do stupid, even illegal things, despise knowing what we're doing is stupid or wrong simply because everyone around us does it and we feel that we're expected to do likewise.

You claim to have been social outcast but you don't seem bitter or traumatised by it so it makes me wonder what kind of childhood you had as, for me, it was extremely traumatic experience leaving scars that still affect my life today. I still can't make friends or lasting relationships and always feel outsider in a group. I wouldn't wish it for anyone.