I live in a perfect world? For God's sake I wish I did! You know, if I lived in such a place, I wouldn't have to complain about these things. For all we know you could be a hired killer, who murders people for money and uses the "This is not a perfect world." as an excuse for those actions. I think you're in this just to make piracy legal by shouting your ignorace here.

And, yes, if it matters to you, I'll be 16 at halfway of december. Your speech made you sound a bit of an agist in a couple of points by the way.

Also, if you're interested to know, my "perfect world" consists of good and normal people, but is half infested with scum who would never buy anything except if their lives depended on it. Besides, if it weren't for pirates, the "evil" corporations wouldn't have to rip us honest people off. I know some companies are corrupt, but are you really saying that pirates are the only ones who know the truth and that everybody who disagrees is a fool?

Again you fail to understand the concept of rationality. It can make perfect sense+be rational to pay for a game that others steal, and your inability to comprehend this simple fact shows your lack of comprehension on the subject. I'll give you a really quick example: It's safe to say every mainstream (priced) game at the moment will have been pirated with someone able to then play that game for free. By your reasoning anyone who buys such a game is therefore irrational or makes little sense - that is, pretty well every single person who pays money for a PC game is irrational . Again, it's conclusions/statements like this that demonstrate you do not understand what rationality means.

As to the more general issue, DRM is a ridiculous concept introduced by some companies who seem to think it is worthwhile for them to pay for something that will decrease their sales. It doesn't stop piracy, but it does piss off their legal customers, making pirated versions of their game more attractive (you get a better game then a legally bought one, and it's free!) - now, that is an example of a company acting irrationally, if they were aware of that information. Of course since it is fair to assume they would behave rationally+look to profit maximise it can therefore be presumed that they are basing their decisions on flawed information that suggests the reduced levels of piracy and resulting increase in sales from some of the pirate copy users buying the game will outweigh the decreased sales to people who don't like DRM coupled with the cost of the DRM. Given that the benefit is likely near non-existent, it is therefore safe to say that they are losing money by adopting DRM.

My granny was telling me a few years back how the same argument was used when tape recorders and VCR's were introduced.

I recently read a book about Tudor England where the same argument was used about written work on the introduction of the printing press.

I guess if your logic is correct in this day and age your find no one making a living as a writer or a musician etc...

This will be my last entry for a few days since I'm going to Germany to accompany my parents, who wish to see the weekend's Formula-race (Is its name that in English?).

So, the last thing that occurs to me is reminding you of the existence of and trial-versions of most things related to computers and games. (and some other stuff as well). When I was first introduced to RTS-genre games, it was a year back. The demo version of Command and Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars for Xbox 360. I thought it was very good, but when I bought the full version, it was even better. (Just remembered; that friend of mine, who had stolen hundreds of games once made me play a copied game. I had the real version and the pirate one was somehow worse. Maybe damaged or sabotaged before this friend of mine got his hands on it. Besides, most criminals, including pirates, can't be trusted if you ask me.)

or perhaps he burned it too fast.(plenty of pirated GTAIV's looked terrible because of improper burning. as seen in leaked footage)

Oh and I am an "agist" as you call me. Mostly because you have no idea what its like to have to buy things with your own money and have no one care that what was sold to you was a pretty box wrapped around a crap product.

You also may very well have a job and that's the first step into the real world. But until you live on your own with roommates and you have to live paycheck to paycheck, eating roman for lunch and dinner. Then come talk to me about what the real world should be like. Plenty of hardcore pirates don't have good paying jobs and still want to experience the finer things in life. If you think they are scum for that then you need a serious reality check. I break the law, they break the law, everyone does. It's just easier to point your finger at other people whom you know nothing about and say how can he be such a jerk. I guarantee you when you start driving you will break the law daily and that makes you no better than a pirate. At least in your fictional reality of anyone that breaks the law is scum.

Willy, I was referring to a certain nine judge panel that resides in D.C. and is currently fucking around and leaving us hanging. May the lot of them rot. The lower level rulings have gone both ways and the country is split, that's why the DMCA was passed to start with, EULA's were being tossed in half the country and upheld in the other half.

Note, not everyone speeds.

Will you ever buy a Ferrari? No. Does that justify stealing one? No.



Yes. Many people buy candy. Which will henceforth serve as my example.



Yes, and people will steal candy bars from stores. If caught, guess what? They still have to deal with the law.



That's like saying a candy bar holds no value in a hypothetical sale because it's a sample.



And if somebody likes M&Ms enough when they first steal them, they might buy M&Ms the next time they go into a store. However, I'd like to see a court rule that stealing a candy bar is justified by a potential future sale.

Sorry, theft is theft, future potential sale or not.



And a thief stealing a candy bar might buy gasoline for his car. Who cares?



It simply means reasoning about your actions. It does not mean your actions are always in your best interest. You could possibly act in the interest of others at the expense of yourself.



Blizzard just won a case against a bot designer, successfully suing him for violating their terms of use. The case isn't over yet, but he could be facing some serious punishment. I'd say that's far from head smashing.



If we have no law, we have no way of guaranteeing rights. If we have no guarantee of rights, then people will violate them, that's our nature. What we end up with is total chaos and lots of violence.

We're not pretending that the ideal is reachable. However, that does not mean we give up and let total chaos reign. One extreme is unreachable, but the other extreme is undesirable. So what we do is we move away from the undesirable as much as we can. No, we can't be perfect, but that's not the point. The point is that we do the best we can with what we have. The journey is worth it, even though the goal won't be seen in this life.

Think of it like economics: Does a company ever get exactly the numbers they predict? No, often they will be a bit above or a bit below. Sometimes a lot. Does that mean we give up on economics because our predicted numbers are not perfect to every digit? Of course not. Just because you can't do something perfectly doesn't mean you stop trying altogether. That's silly.



We're not saying Utopia exists. We've figured out ways to deal with it. You just don't like the ways we've chosen to deal with it.

This is exactly what I said. This is exactly what I mean.

You have two options.

Option 1: You get the game for free

Option 2: You pay for it.

All else being equal, if those are the two options and you pick option two, you have made the irrational decision. I may want computer games to continue either way, but why should I be one of the people paying instead of one of those who doesn't? What difference does it make if I do it?

If emotion didn't exist and everyone were perfectly rational, no one would buy games... at all. If one person paid, everyone else would just ride off that guy as far as he could take them.

Certain provisions have been tossed, but no court has ruled EULAs are uninforcable in their entirety. The problem with waiting for a Supreme Court ruling is that it often take 10-15 years for a case to work it's way up the system (except in very narrow circumstances). And not all cases warrant higher appeals. If a higher court believes the issue was addressed well enough, they have no need to rehear the case.



I believe his point is that that you don't need to intend to break the law to do so. For instance, it is physically impossible to follow the legal turn signal intervals in some situations, such as turning left immediately after a right turn in under the (insert your state law minimum) feet required for proper signalling.

You are neglecting the difference between short term gain and long term gain. If you take into account the need to fund the developer, net benefit may come from a long term gain (additional content/follow-on titles) at the expense of a short term loss (paying for the game).

Option 1 is only of clear benefit if it has no future repercussions.

Yep. And thanks to the mass of sucker non-pirates, I get more games to steal in the future. Even if I don't pay, I get games in the future. Why be one of the payers when it is equally valid to be a pirate?

From a rational indivdual's standpoint, the best action is to be a non-payer.

However when you think about all the hard work that hundreds of people put into making the game and when you think about how you are screwing them all, you feel bad. But you also feel that pirates should be punished.

This is based on your evaluation of the size of the "mass of sucker non-pirates", which you are assuming will remain high enough to fund further development. Extremely likely, I admit, but not absolute. If the margin were to narrow considerably, your individual decision would become relevant.

Technically, that decision is always relevant, but enough people are deciding the other way so your marginal decision is irrelevant. To demonstrate an extreme but real case: my home town put a bond issue on the ballot, for expansions to the high school. Due to the demographics of the area, the majority of voters would not see any short-term benefit from this - either their children were already through school, or they wouldn't have children in that school for years. Some would never see a benefit, as they had no children in the district at all.

The choice was to pay higher taxes to see future improved benefits, or forego those benefits for short term gains. Out of an electorate of about 4000 adults, the issue passed by five votes. In that situation, each person's personal decision made a significant difference.

@cobraA1

what was your point in your post? all you did was reiterate what i said but in a dickhead manner. Taking something of value whether you hold it in your hand or its digital media is stealing.. no ones arguing otherwise. This thread isn't about saying piracy is cool or ok. It's about the use of piracy as a reason to treat anyone who buys a legitimate copy of media, a pirate.

As per your logic if i buy that candy bar they still charge me a fine for picking it up and walking around with it because i "could steal it at any moment!"

perhaps you just wanted to sound cool and talk about how much you love candy? but meh who really knows.

Thank you for understanding that it is humanly impossible to not inadvertently break some traffic laws. Whether it be coming to a COMPLETE stop at the stop sign, ALWAYS signaling while making a turn or changing lanes, etc. etc.