Namur: No need to be rude. If you can't be clear about what you mean it's not other people's fault.
So, if i understand it right, your point is that if i'm using a copy of a game, no one can use that same copy at the same time ? And that's relevant because ?
Weclock: No where, not once did I say game!
I'm talking about rights here, ok!
Say MGM gives activision the right to make a bond game/movie/song, and nobody else.
Say ea wants to make that same game/movie/song, but doesn't have the rights.
they'd have to take the rights away in order to do so, but do they have the right to take the rights away?
I'm not talking about User A downloads Song B and ends up in jail about it, there are many different layers to the copyright laws, and when you start discussing creativity, you're reaching around in the copyright law pool.
Obviously, at a consumer level, where there is no creation, saying "copyright laws don't work because it stifles the creation!" is like saying "copyright laws don't work because of fish!"
fish and copyrights have nothing to do with one another, unless you're talking about dopefish.
the statement makes the same amount of sense put into the same argument.
users don't create, if you want to create, how hard is it to get the rights to go and create something? probably harder than you think, but TPB lawsuit had nothing to do with creation of new "ip" the only kind of creation it had to do with, was allowing users to comment and rate links (which would be terribly abused in a google system).
Talking about creativity here is essentially like talking about fish.
because it not only has no place in the conversation, but it makes no sense.
the kind of copyright infringement that went on with TPB was along the lines of User A downloads IP B, instead of buying it.
Whether or not that's stealing is a whole other story, but the question is, "is it wrong to download something for free that you'd otherwise have to pay for?"
At which point I must agree that I feel that it's wrong, are extrodinarily high prices fair? no. Is DRM fair? no.
the way to voice your opinion isn't through piracy but through your wallet, don't buy it. If everyone else is stupid and continues to buy it, then the company has found itself a market, it's a shame it doesn't include you, and could if they simply removed the one tiny thing that bothered you, but oh well.
I'm surprised about how many advocates for piracy there are on this board really, GOG is a place that is so highly against piracy, it's not funny. Of course they trust their users, but the whole idea behind this place is to create a legal alternative to piracy.
If you really, don't want to spend your hard earned money on someone elses life work, that's good for you, but what are you doing here on the gog.com boards anyway? don't you know that you have to buy the games here?
I'm not for piracy.
Piracy is against the law. No way around that.
Piracy is wrong. To me there's no way around that either, but many people feel differently. Millions of them.
And i have to ask, why?
Maybe the law that turns them into pirates needs to be reviewed ?
Questioning the fairness of the copyritght law (or any law by that matter) as it stand's now, and questioning how the outcome of this trial came to be (justice or green power, to put in bluntly) doens't make me a pirate or even someone who stands up for pirates.
Don't try to make me out something i'm not just because you fail to see the points i'm trying to make or lack the arguments to back up the random stuff you post.
I could just as easily say you're against freedom and democracy on the grounds that you're aginst piracy, but i don't, because that would be imature, childish and completely unffair.
And if the original point you were trying to make relates to the MGM/Activision/EA example, i still fail to see how that has any bearing on what was being discussed, and again, your bike analogy really doesn't work, and that's what people were trying to tell you.
EA could just go ahead and use the IP anyway to make something. Both EA and Activision would be creating different stuff at the same time built upon the same IP. Naturally EA in this case would be breaking the law. So, two entitys using the same IP to create different content at the same time. Not possible with a bike.
If your point is that EA doing that would be wrong and against the law, i agree, naturally.
Also, there's a big difference between 'pirating' the IP (your example) and pirating content built upon that same IP (what people do when they download a game)
And in your example, EA (surely) would stand to make money out of pirating the IP, while most people who download stuff do it for their private use, and don't want to make any money of what they download.
Those who do download stuff to sell should be jailed, and that's something i'm willing to bet even most 'pirates' agree on.
So, these are two very distinct matters, and it seems that you tryed to bring one up, when everybody was discussing the other.
