Blood Maggot wrote:
I would much like to get this game, but I really can't afford it, and I don't like buying things over the internet. I'd probably have to steal it if I wanted it THAT much.

Mattcrampy wrote:
I've noticed that people's views on piracy often seem to depend on whether or not they could be a victim of piracy themselves. I know plenty of people who are okay with piracy, and yet after helping to make JtRH my views have swung towards the other side.

MeckMeck GRE wrote:
As for Caravel Dord : Is it legal to copy it several times and sell it to friends for the price of the empty medium (CD/CD-R) ????

ErikH2000 wrote:
Like when will Wired shut up about Kevin Mitnick already? And in movies, if you see a guy doing something intense in front of a computer screen, 90% of the time he is trying to hack past an "access denied" screen to grab some private data off some evil corporation or military organization's servers. Show me the movie scene where the fellow is hard at work building the solid server code that will prevent hacks. You won't see that in a movie, because it somehow isn't very cool.

Opposite of the pirates, hackers, and digital anarchists, we have the creative culture, which I argue is the one that we need to support. Everyone that participates on this forum has had a taste of it. Here, unlike other gaming forums, we don't have a bunch of people handing out hacks and cheats to the game we play and giving links to wares sites. If people come on the board and have nothing to contribute but negative comments, they get kicked off.

Piracy is just one symptom of anti-creative culture. I am more interested that people learn to value bringing new things into the world over pulling off cheap little exploits.

b0rsuk wrote:
Ok, so I'm going to get Mr. Obvious award...
Believe it or not, but the media have corrupted original meaning of word "hacker", into (more less) "data thief". Some are even dumb enough to group hackers into good and bad, which is even worse because it's like admiting that they are, in fact, evil . I have never seen experienced programmer call himself "white hat". The original meaning is still untouched among programmers, it seems. I almost forgot why am I writing this. Well, because movies are directed by people with little or no knowledge about computer terms. It's their understanding of word "hacker".

Sorry to say that, but don't credit yourself too much for that. Important part of this is fact that DROD attracts specific kind of people.

Roughly true. But also strongly influenced by average salary in a country. Take this riddle: piracy in Poland and Russia is very high, no denying it. But, as a result, linux/open source community is suprisingly good.

Maurog wrote:
I'm not sure what's going on with our culture, but we sure live in the piracy millenium. I'm also not sure how true hackers think, but the way I imagine it it goes something on the lines of "omg, omg, an unhacked piece of software, if I manage to hack it, I'll be the first! Let's do it and then brag to my friends on the hacker forums!"

I'm not talking about the commercial hackers who are in the distribution business, and by the way, I'm sure JtRH will not fall victim to those.

The major threat for JtRH is falling victim to the non-commercial hacker and then somehow getting spread over the Net.

ErikH2000 wrote:
In the end, it's only a game, and being poor is no excuse for stealing something that is just entertainment.

The people who crack the games, the "hackers", also generally don't do it for money. In fact, many of them are very opposed to the idea of making money through piracy.

Even if there was no game to play or program to run, they would still be trying to crack through the copy protection because that's what they find fun.

It's true that what they're doing is illegal, but is it malicious? Do they set out to destroy companies?

I admit that I've downloaded many illegal things in my life, and if people here lose respect for me because of it, so be it. I'd rather be honest than go around lying and pretending I was an angel.

Had I not been able to download the game and try it, I would never have purchased it. In this particular case, Blizzard made money due to piracy. Does this justify warez? Of course not, but it shows that piracy isn't a black and white issue. You can't just say that all piracy is bad and that it always hurts the industry, because sometimes it doesn't.
...
I guess my big point is that this issue isn't black and white.

I'm not trying to defend piracy and I'm not saying warez is ok, but vilifying those who participate isn't always the right thing to do.

What I'm getting at is that I don't have very much money.

mrimer wrote:

What I'm getting at is that I don't have very much money.

Are you saying that if you did have money that piracy would be wrong, and that only by virtue of having nothing to offer in return it is right? Not being able to pay does not make stealing right. A person's whim does not determine the moral rightness of an action. If the reality of right and wrong only depends on what a man desires to be right and wrong, then who says which person's desires win out? Morality is objective because there are things that hurt people and there are things that don't. Whether I want my actions to hurt someone else doesn't change the reality of the consequences. Reality is not up to a vote.

B0rsuk says:
You don't lose anything when your software is pirated. You still own it. You still have ability to sell and distribute it.

mrimer wrote:
Matt, I strongly disagree with you. It is black and white. It sounds like you don't want to be white, and at the same time are pleading that no one will call you black.

b0rsuk wrote:
B0rsuk the pyrate prefers to use only words whose meaning he understands.
(Wikipedia.org)

[ ] I would prefer my game to be bought by 90 people and pirated by 0
[ ] I would prefer my game to be bought by 100 people and pirated by 90.

B0rsuk says:
You don't lose anything when your software is pirated. You still own it. You still have ability to sell and distribute it.

Microsoft makes patches available to owners of pirated Windows not because they can't prevent it, but because it would be counterproductive. It prevents such pirate from trying out competitive software. Microsoft is stealing customer base from other companies.

Mainstream developers are too 1337 to answer your questions/suggestions.

Don't even start about demo versions, because they (in general) suck and are quite annoying to manage, download etc. And demo content is often insufficient/misleading.

I'm sure that if someone invents a food replicator, people won't stop dying from hunger in extremely poor african countries. Someone will start selling food to them, at low price probably but still not for free.

There's a very cool-named company called Manpower in my city. I bet everyone working there feels special.

Piracy is harmful only if particular pirate can easily afford to buy software. In such case it prevents him from buying it. Vast majority of Earth's population lives for less than 1$/day, and I consider myself to be a member world's financial elite.

Schik wrote:
Also from Wikipedia:

In law, particularly in common law jurisdictions, intellectual property or IP refers to a legal entitlement which sometimes attaches to the form of expression of an idea or other intangible subject matter. In general terms this legal entitlement sometimes enables the holder of the IP right to exercise control over the use of the IP. The term intellectual property reflects the idea that the subject matter of IP is the product of the mind or the intellect, and that once established, such entitlements are treated as equivalent to tangible property, and may be enforced as such by the courts.

That's beside the point. Note the bold words... My point was that you don't lose anything material. You don't lose anything, actually, you simply don't gain and that makes you angry. IP rights are what you believe it to be. Something 100% conventional.Aguable. On the other hand, you can't argue that you lose when someone actually takes an _item_ from you.

[ ] I would prefer my game to be bought by 90 people and pirated by 0
[ ] I would prefer my game to be bought by 100 people and pirated by 90.

Unless you've got something to back up these numbers - something that says pirating software gives the developers about an extra 10% in sales - you might as well be asking if we'd prefer apples or oranges.
I have little something called example. Ok, this one should be simpler to understand.
1) 50 people buy, 0 people pirate
2) 50 people buy, 666 people pirate
In case of material things, you get +50 in first point and -616 in second.
In case of immaterial things, it doesn't matter. Both are the same. I can hear you saying "but in 2 I'd have +X". Prove it how much exactly. Prove that they would buy it if pirated version wasn't available.

B0rsuk says:
You don't lose anything when your software is pirated. You still own it. You still have ability to sell and distribute it.

The developer is losing potential sales. If you want to get technical about it, let's say that I have a large software package that is crippled unless you enter a registration key. Some warez kiddie makes a keygen and distributes it. Now tons of people who wouldn't have even downloaded my software before come and download it, because they can register it for free. That costs me bandwidth, and bandwidth costs money.

Potential does not equal "as many as pirated", except for lawyers. They are ruled neither by logic nor emotions. Other than lust for money, of course.
Majority of software still isn't sold by download.

Microsoft makes patches available to owners of pirated Windows not because they can't prevent it, but because it would be counterproductive. It prevents such pirate from trying out competitive software. Microsoft is stealing customer base from other companies.

No, it's because they can't prevent it, and because it's not worth their time (= money) to try, beyond a token effort to stop casual copying.

They can, to a degree. By the way, it should generate money, not take it, because it prevents from pirating. And "pirating prevention" = money, you seem to say. Aren't you contradicting yourself, then ?

Mainstream developers are too 1337 to answer your questions/suggestions.

Mainstream developers have millions of people playing their games. They're not too "1337", they don't have the TIME to answer everyone's questions. And the mainstream developers generally have people to answer the questions, instead of doing it themselves.
There's little effort required to patch serious ballance problems. Just changing one variable, don't you think ? If one side wins 70% of the time, and the company doesn't care, how do you call it ? Some examples:
- CNC games in multiplayer, especially from Westwood era.
- Heroes Of Might&Magic 2,3,4. I can't say too much about 2 in multiplayer (no net back then), but Sorceress hero was pitiful in multiplayer. In 3rd - Necropolis pretty much banned in Tournament Of Honour (unnoficial H3/H4 league). Even worse in H4, vampires, lvl3 unit feels like lvl4 unit, you can hire 2 at day 2, and conquer most nearby of treasures with them. Necropolis even more often banned than in H3.
You may say that balancing multiplayer games is never easy, but if it can't be much worse (balance), then something should be done. It won't be perfect, but at least a bit better.

If you write Ford and suggest a new spoiler design for the Mustang, does the CEO respond to you? Does *anyone*?
Actually, that's irrelevant. What's the point? That because they don't respond to your questions/suggestions, you have the right to get their software for free?

Majority of people have no clue about car design. I don't make shoes for living, but I can recognize very good/exceptionally bad shoes. If they fall apart after few weeks, there's no room for speculations.
It's no wonder that game developers play their own games less than most casual gamers. Otherwise they wouldn't need beta testers at all. Outrageous game balance can be discovered by someone who has no programming skills.

Don't even start about demo versions, because they (in general) suck and are quite annoying to manage, download etc. And demo content is often insufficient/misleading.

If the demo sucks, don't buy the game. Annoying to manage and download? Certainly no more annoying than downloading and managing the full pirated versions?

Yep :-).
The word "misleading" should've pointed you in right direction. Alas it didn't. I didn't mean that _games_ themselves suck, just that often demo doesn't allow you to judge how the full game will look. Or they put shiniest bits in the demo to impress you.

I don't think that "not having a computer game" is really comparable to "not dying". In your example, I'm sure that many charitable organizations would purchase replicators and supply as many people as they could with free food. Maybe you should start up a charitable organization to supply all of the poor children of the world with computer software.

You left my question unanswered. Does it bother you or not ? (to shower them with JTRH copies, which they can't play anyway because of no computers). I tried to make examples more clear.
It's called copying. It doesn't take much effort, and that's why the whole discussion started in first place. Yes, I don't mind my software being redistributed for free, even if there's none at the moment. I always wanted to earn by developing computer games, but at certain point realised commercial game developing sucks, at least at the moment. Especially in a country like Poland, where only decent game (Painkiller) was recently released. Most game developers fail here, not just because of piracy but because their games are average at best when compared to western countries.
So I decided to make games for fun, and earn money another way. I prefer to influence indy games. They care more about playability, because other than that they have little to show without heaps of money. If I can profit&have fun from games one day, I won't complain.
No I can't code, so I probably don't count. I helped with numerous games and rarely been credited for that, mainly because I can't code. It doesn't bother me much, because seeing a game becoming "more suitable for you" in another release is quite rewarding.

Piracy is harmful only if particular pirate can easily afford to buy software. In such case it prevents him from buying it. Vast majority of Earth's population lives for less than 1$/day, and I consider myself to be a member world's financial elite.

Wait a sec.... It's harmful if you can afford the software. You're a member of the world's financial elite. You pirate software. Therefore....

Therefore "cat has a tail, dog has a tail, cat equals dog" logic doesn't apply. When compared to zillions of starving people, I am member of elite. Or just people who have no electricity, or can take water from wells only. (lack of vocabulary).
It is possible to have enough money/luck for x, but not for y.

[Edited by b0rsuk at Local Time:03-22-2005 at 04:35 PM]

____________________________

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20051128/adams_01.shtml

b0rsuk wrote:
That's beside the point. Note the bold words... My point was that you don't lose anything material. You don't lose anything, actually, you simply don't gain and that makes you angry. IP rights are what you believe it to be.[conventional.Aguable. On the other hand, you can't argue that you lose when someone actually takes an _item_ from you.

I have little something called example. Ok, this one should be simpler to understand.
1) 50 people buy, 0 people pirate
2) 50 people buy, 666 people pirate
In case of material things, you get +50 in first point and -616 in second.
In case of immaterial things, it doesn't matter. Both are the same. I can hear you saying "but in 2 I'd have +X". Prove it how much exactly. Prove that they would buy it if pirated version wasn't available.

Potential does not equal "as many as pirated", except for lawyers. They are ruled neither by logic nor emotions. Other than lust for money, of course.

Microsoft makes patches available to owners of pirated Windows not because they can't prevent it, but because it would be counterproductive. It prevents such pirate from trying out competitive software. Microsoft is stealing customer base from other companies.

No, it's because they can't prevent it, and because it's not worth their time (= money) to try, beyond a token effort to stop casual copying.

They can, to a degree. By the way, it should generate money, not take it, because it prevents from pirating. And "pirating prevention" = money, you seem to say. Aren't you contradicting yourself, then ?

There's little effort required to patch serious ballance problems. Just changing one variable, don't you think ? If one side wins 70% of the time, and the company doesn't care, how do you call it ? Some examples:
- CNC games in multiplayer, especially from Westwood era.
- Heroes Of Might&Magic 2,3,4. I can't say too much about 2 in multiplayer (no net back then), but Sorceress hero was pitiful in multiplayer. In 3rd - Necropolis pretty much banned in Tournament Of Honour (unnoficial H3/H4 league). Even worse in H4, vampires, lvl3 unit feels like lvl4 unit, you can hire 2 at day 2, and conquer most nearby of treasures with them. Necropolis even more often banned than in H3.
You may say that balancing multiplayer games is never easy, but if it can't be much worse (balance), then something should be done. It won't be perfect, but at least a bit better.

Majority of people have no clue about car design. I don't make shoes for living, but I can recognize very good/exceptionally bad shoes. If they fall apart after few weeks, there's no room for speculations.
It's no wonder that game developers play their own games less than most casual gamers. Otherwise they wouldn't need beta testers at all. Outrageous game balance can be discovered by someone who has no programming skills.

Annoying to manage and download? Certainly no more annoying than downloading and managing the full pirated versions?

Yep :-).

The word "misleading" should've pointed you in right direction. Alas it didn't. I didn't mean that _games_ themselves suck, just that often demo doesn't allow you to judge how the full game will look. Or they put shiniest bits in the demo to impress you.

You left my question unanswered. Does it bother you or not ? (to shower them with JTRH copies, which they can't play anyway because of no computers). I tried to make examples more clear.

So I decided to make games for fun, and earn money another way.

The whole monetary issue is a big reason for people to pirate games. New games are very expensive, generally around 50USD. Is that price justified?

RoboBob3000 wrote:
I think drod.net was due for a bit of a heated discussion. Not always the most enjoyable thing to go through, but it certainly adds some spice that we don't neccessarily see around here too often. I'm not saying that endless arguing equals good. I am saying, however, that it's gonna put a little hair on the board's chest.

ErikH2000 wrote:
Naw. Indie games get pirated and posted all the time. Believe me, I hear about it all the time from other developers. There is a good chance the same will happen to JtRH. It won't be a popular offering if that happens, sure, but small games get pirated right along with the big ones.