I should know to avoid forum debates... just had my first crash while posting in like 10 years... :D

The above quote is where the topic gets interesting for me.

I could oppose any such socialization of goods/products/creations from a purely moral stand.
The individual's property rights (another form of human rights) should have primacy over society's entitlements.

It;s rarely said explicitly that regardless of our opinion on the current copyright system, the rise of digital media has shifted the balance of power (here comes the might again) away from the author.

An extreme example to make my point: Let's say I create a videogame but decide not to publish because I think it's crap and am ashamed I ever created it. But a "friend" of mine copies it and releases to the net. Some people call it a masterpiece and continue to distribute it even while I ask everyone to just destroy it.

First, this scenario is only realistic in the digital era. Sure hypothetically it could happen with a manuscript, or with a blueprint for a machine, etc... but it would be much easier to enforce my right over the item I created if the digital angle did not exist.

More crucially, your position is that the distribution of this videogame is a moral right, due to some social benefit, regardless of author's (owner's) intent. Where is the author's benefit in this scenario? I guess you can argue fame, but let's say I get so disgusted with the whole thing I never write a line of code ever again. Did society really benefit?

Bottom line for me: the great majority of justifications to overcome human rights (and property rights - including copyright - are rights of humans, not of rocks) actually carry long term disincentives. They are a perfect example of short term thinking and good intentions leading one astray.

GOG attitude of respect for the owners of copyright: kudos.
Abandonware: at most a grey area. Very often completely corrupted by arbitrary lines in the sand like saying "It's on sale in second hand market, but the price is too high so let's share. Cos we can."

This is the root of it, and it really comes down a rather traditional liberalism versus conservatism debate. As a liberal-arts educated sociology major, you can probably guess where I am coming from.

Again though, those second-hand copies put money in some random dude's pocket, not the pocket of anyone involved with creating the game or financing the game. If anything I would think a "always under the owner's control" attitude would lead you to dislike the second-hand market in general.

Sounds like u mad

I'd debate in a more mature fashion but you don't seem worthy of it with such closeminded thinking and replies.

Also IMo concerning IP the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few......just my thoughts on IP.

Brasas, the logic is that in this digital age, the consumer expects availability where it is a reasonable expectation. An example:

Let's say a person bought all tgheir music on iTunes, but the band AC/DC states that they won't add their songs on itunes because they want to preserve the physical album format. That customer doesn't even OWN a CD player, as he has gotten with the times. That consumer has every ethical right to pirate said songs, as they were both unwilling to purchase the physical item anyway (So no loss of revenue for the artist), and the artist isn't willing to put their product into all major markets.

Similarly, if a game was prohibitively expensive in a global region due to shady regional pricing, ethically the consumer has every right to pirate said product. Consumers rights must ALWAYS trump producers rights, as that is the consideration that must be provided by producers to balance the capitalist equation. The producer has every advantage as is. If a consumer has made reasonable attempts to procure a copy (Important!) of a piece of media, and the producer has either made it prohibitively expensive as recognized by any rational person, or unavailable, than the consumer has every right to pirate a copy of said media.

Our world is not one where one's ethics are decided by IP law. The law exists to serve man, not the other way around. If the law lags behind technological innovation (Which is always does), than the consumer has the OBLIGATION to close that gap. If there had never been a Napster, there would likely not be an Itunes. If there had not been Software pirates, there would be no Steam or GOG, etc.

"Pirates" are often the largest potential untapped market for an IP producer, provided they adapt to the times. For example, former Napster users make up the largest consumer of legally purchased iTunes (Source http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/industry_news/former_emi_exec_says_filesharers_were_biggest_itunes_buyers.html).

Piracy is often a sign of a dedicated, but ignored customer. People equating piracy with theft are clueless. Piracy does not cost producers X*units downloaded. This logic that an individual downloading a copy of media costs the producer the retail price of the item ignores just about every relevant factor of the issue, namely, availability, convenience, innovation, stagnation, and reactivity.

So in short, anyone that tells you Abandonware/Music/Movie downloading is "Illergal" or "Unethical" is someone you should get far, far away from, and make sure never holds elected office.

Really? I use rethorical extreme examples, but my emotions would be more sadness than madness.

I'll make a note about the "needs of the many outweigh the needs fo the few" part for future reference in my next reply. and leave you with my attitude to the eBayer topic.

I see no difference between someone raising a resale price and someone else lowering it.
Thats's assuming both obtained the item legally in first place of course.

But the eBayer is not harming anyone. He is not making it impossible for the IP owner to sell at lower price.
The moral distinction is that if you give your game for free you are hurting the eBayer (economically of course). Now if you do it once, for the one copy you bought, that's fair. If you do it a million times, we're talking about something different.

That's the thing about free markets. There is a moral basis of human (property rights) which is the basis to the system, and just because you don't like a trade, well... don't buy it. Caveat emptor. ;)
I don't mean to disrespect you personally in this reply, but I see you as an example of a confused society.

See my reply to GameRager on the topic of the 2nd hand sales.
His "needs of the many over needs of the few" comment aligns perfectly with what you are saying on liberalism vs conservatism.

But even giving some room for the US vs european interpreation of what is liberalism and what is conservatism (libertarianism vs socialism would imo be better descriptors), you imply that your position is liberal.

It isn't. You are arguing for society to be able to determine what someon can own - or to be precise, the price at which they can sell, which will hugely incentivize whether there is any interest in owning or not.

Now I'm an european and to me liberalism means individual human rights, including property rights, over any society entitlements determining what I can or cannot do.
Also liberalism is to be against: I can therefore I do, "might is right", argument from consequence type of philosophy.

Freedom as the exercise of responsibility vs freedom as the ignoring of any moral rules.
I know which one I defend in principle (if we talk about practice I'm a regular hypocrite and no saint). Do you know which freedom you want?

In the US the liberal/conservative divide is mostly based around personal freedoms versus societal interests. As a society we consider ourselves free as long as we choose our leaders, but on a personal level freedom tends to mean other things, i.e. the right to do this or that versus them being controlled for the greater interest of society. Smoking in public, for example, has been banned pretty much everywhere despite the personal freedom of people to smoke legal substances.

I'm actually politically moderate, but I am liberal in the sense that I believe in societies over people and that everyone in a society effects those around them. How I am applying this to abadonware is that the needs of a society to value, preserve and have access to its art is more important than the needs of a copyright holder to hold said copyright for longer than X amount of years. Or in the exact case of abandonware, if said copyright holder does not preserve the art itself then society should have the freedom to do so on its own.

Honestly though, politics aside, I think your main mistake from my perspective is looking at games as things you own, buy, sell and trade like a hammer. I don't do that. The old games being sold on ebay are just cardboard and plastic, as I said before. The game itself is just data. In the case of abandonware it is no longer data that is being sold by the publisher or creator, it is "abaondoned." The existence of cardboard and plastic on ebay is pretty irrelevant to me.

Anjohl, there's a lot I agree in your post :) Let's see what if anything you agree on mine.

The ethical/moral argument on reasonable expectations is not an open shut case.
Your ethics are not my ethics as should be obvious to anyone reading this. (they're not so different, but let's push on for argument's sake)

Yes, the law is a reflection of morality. It serves a social purpose, instead of being society's master. But the ends do not justify the means in regards to changing the law (or any arena?). Piracy is not an ethical means. Abandonware is a borderline legal grey area.

Just like civil disobedience is the last step in a chain (breaking the law to correct the law), so should copyright infringement be the last step in a chain of actions. Yet we know the truth don't we? :) Very often searching for the torrent is the first thing to do instead of the last.

Now to get back to the root ethical / moral argument. I simply don't agree with you on producer rights versus consumer rights. I think the power in the digital media arena is almost all on the consumer side. Many consumers simply use that power in the most irresponsible manner possible.

Caveat emptor = buyer beware. If we talk about normal trade no one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to buy something. You choose to buy and are the only responsible person for that choice, as well the use you give to the product.

I'm not a fundamentalist in regards to consumer protection, tort law, etc... but don't you see the connection between the infantilization of society (extreme protection of costumer, to the point of ridiculous regulations) and the increased societal sense of entitlement and well... the mess we're in?

PS : To up the stakes in the debate: what is a credit and debt crisis if not someone's sense of entitlement running ahead of his monetary means? If only there was no cost to just take what I want - as if I was copying a file in my PC :) oh wait, thats what banks do, they "print" money out of thin air, devaluing the purchasing power of the money I have saved since I started working.

This would be a better conversation over a beer in a pub, so we'd get a better feel for the human element. :) But I guess this post should also demonstrate why this debate makes me rather sad, than mad. I see a lot of connections between the attitudes you all expose and some social trends which I believe are harmful. And at the end of the day, you are very moderate in your positions. Can you imagine using my arguments on people for whom piracy (instead of abandonware) is fine?



StingingVelvet,

Yes, you're an american liberal - in principle property rights to you should be subordinated to the good of the many.

I am an european classical liberal - in principle to me all human rights (including property ones) should have primacy over the good of the many.

I think my position is more consistent, but that does not prove I'm right...


As to the physical vs digital point. I think a lot of it is smoke and mirrors, and just an excuse for what is very often silly legislation (including a lof of the copyright law). You can find the same in tax law, over distinctions of what is a service and what is a good.

Unfortunately I think for PC gaming companies have taken this to mean "free-to-play."

@deathkitten
go here: http://www.gog.com/en/forum/general/official_beg_thread_this_game_belongs_on_gog/page1