Warez: A discussion [Archive] - PlanetSide Universe

Cyanide

2004-03-12, 01:50 AM

I agree that trying to stop warez and piracy is futile. I think the biggest problem is that the RIAA will sue 14 year old kids for sharing a few songs, but the guy with a $5000 automated CD burner sitting in his closet churning out 200 copies of the latest Pop CD per hour, can SELL his stuff on the street right in front of a cop and nobody bitches about that. That goes for movies, games, and every other piece of software. They seem to be more concerned with the people sharing the stuff for free than the million dollar piracy rings that sell illegal copies of expensive software like PhotoShop for $90.

I don't see a problem with sharing software as long as it's for evaluative purposes or there's no way you could ever actually afford the stuff. What I mean is, no kid can afford a real copy of a $1000 peice of software, so the company isn't really losing anything because the kid has a copy, since there's no way he could ever pay for it and he didn't really take anything from anybody to get it.

Now if you can afford the software and you've decided that you like it, then you should go buy it in order to support the company that made it. If the software is crap and you hate it, then don't buy it, because companies who make crappy stuff should not be supported. I think PC game makers in particular are against piracy because it allows people to cut through the hype and actually try out the game before they pay for it. It means that if the game is bug ridden and/or is a general piece of junk, maybe the consumer won't buy it, even though you put millions of dollars into advertising. Companies don't like that.

Derfud

2004-03-12, 01:54 AM

$20-15 per game? I'd like to know where you shop. I usually end up paying $65-$70 (USD) or $90 (CDN) when I buy a new game. Only a few years ago it was at least $30 cheaper to buy stuff. How can the publishers expect any revenue if they are charging $90 for a game, when you could just as, or more easily get it for free? It's time someone gave them a wake-up call. Creating counter-piracy measures only makes the pirates more determined, and alas, they always find a way around. So why not do what the responsible company should do and lower the price of the products? It's not like they will be losing any money over $20 less per copy sold. Thats pocket change to them. To me, $20 is the price of my pants.

Dharkbayne

2004-03-12, 01:58 AM

I said 20-50, which is insanely high for something you don't even know if you will like it.

MilitantB0B

2004-03-12, 02:05 AM

I said 20-50, which is insanely high for something you don't even know if you will like it.
But people buy it, and even with warez, most people that want to play a game will buy it.

The fact is that any company that has any finnancial sense at all will charge however much they can get away with. Which means, as long as everyone still buys games at $50, they will always sell em at $50 dollars, regardless of cost, and that is true the world round.

I do agree about MMOGs though, if I have to pay every month, I ought to not have to pay up front, or at least pay a very low amount, like 10 bucks or something, not 20.

Honestly, I think a great idea would be a MMOG set in either the future or present (I'm thinking a crime MMORPG...) that does not cost a monthly fee, but instead runs off of ads, I'm not talking about pop-ups here, just ads like we see in real life, which wouldn't look out of place if the game was set in a large city in future or present... But that is just my idea...

Jaged

2004-03-12, 02:15 AM

Lol, virtual billboards, private message spam, and TV ads at the startup. I would rather pay the monthly...

UncleDynamite

2004-03-12, 02:20 AM

It's not like they will be losing any money over $20 less per copy sold. Thats pocket change to them. To me, $20 is the price of my pants.

Well, when you're losing $20 per copy, and seeing that thousands of copies are sold for each game, that amounts to quite a bit. For example, if a game sells a conservative 100,000 copies, that's 100,000 x 20 = $2 million dollars in lost revenue. Now, I agree that games are pretty expensive, but that's also because it's getting more expensive to produce a game in the first place. Today's games require a whole host of professionals, from programmers to 3D artists. Many games also purchase the graphic engines from other products, which can get quite pricey indeed. In other words, the price on the box is there for a reason: to pay for making the game, and to make a profit so the company can stick around to make another. Warez undermines that system, making it more difficult for companies to design new products. This is not to say that the companies should do their best to reduce the cost of their goods: they should, but that's more difficult than it sounds.

Firefly

2004-03-12, 02:30 AM

Anyone who pays for things with Canadian money deserves everything they get, along with the thirty percent tax.

Derfud

2004-03-12, 03:00 AM

14.5% actually.

Well, when you're losing $20 per copy, and seeing that thousands of copies are sold for each game, that amounts to quite a bit. For example, if a game sells a conservative 100,000 copies, that's 100,000 x 20 = $2 million dollars in lost revenue.

$2 million gained because games only used to cost $60 opposed to the now, $80. I dont think the gaming market has had that tight competition. If at all, not enough to merit a $20 increase in software. I recall purchasing C&C Renegade at release for a total of $60 14% tax included. (It was only 14% back then). It seems like the price of everything is going up, but nobody is getting payed any more than they used to. Makes you wonder, where all the money is going to?

Phaelon

2004-03-12, 09:04 AM

Warez has been around since the early 90's, i remember downloading wolfenstein on the warez newsgroups back in the early 90s.

What the RIAA and other orginizations need to do, is to follow the Adult Entertainment industry, to learn from them that Stopping the end person in the chain will do nothing. What they need to do is offer exciting new ways to transfer that data, accept new mediums and try new things. Instead of being stuck in thier ways and fighting for this or that, they need to expand thier enterprises and approach the situation differently. If you remember back in the mid 90s, The Adult entertainment industry went toe to toe with file sharers and newsgroups for hosting thier content out there and with illegal piraters. The Adult industry lost. But they learned not to burn the bridge of the end user.

The money thing is out of control, and is another topic in and of itself. You want to sell your game for 50 dollars with a manual and a cd and that is it? I am going to think twice about buying it. Now if you sell your game for 60 dollars, with a huge manual, a cool map, maybe a mouse pad, a figure I can put on my desk now we are talking. I feel like I am getting something good out of this deal.

Madcow

2004-03-12, 09:29 AM

Software manufacturers need to embrace downloading as not only accepted but encouraged, but they need to do it on their own. It might cost 5 cents to make a disk, but once you take into account all of the packaging/creation of the artwork/booklets etc. then it obviously gets higher. Why don't more companies encourage paying them a lesser fee than the store cost to do direct downloads? They can avoid paying the shipping costs, packaging costs, the cut that stores are going to take, everything else. I'm still dumbfounded that Sony didn't do that with Planetside and the expansion.

As for the idea that it's okay to download something if you would never have had the money to purchase it, that's half-assed validation. If you're downloading it and using it you'd never have to scrounge up the money to pay for it. The idea that it's not hurting the company because the person (supposedly) would never have bought it anyway is such twisted logic it hurts my little head.

_-Gunslinger-_

2004-03-12, 09:43 AM

On the topic of games getting expensive. We really dont know how much it costs to produce a game. However I think that its obviouse that gaming companies are making a massive profit from them. What needs to change is that they make it worth whatever they are charging, be that by price cuts or new stuff added, or both. For instance as Phaelon pointed out we have a fealing of being cheated when I purchase that game and all that comes is a CD case with a small manual in the CD case, cant forget the ad that almost always comes with aswell.

However it seems assanine to simply include more, especially when what you include could be useless. For instance if every game I bought came with a mousepad I would just have a vast colleciton of mousepads, but if that game came with a small notepad that had a vague background to it then I might be more satisfied.

Now my favorite idea I have seen coming from the gaming industry would be steam2. You can pay a monthly fee for supirior DL service and access to ALL thier valve related content. Meaning that you get Counterstrike, Day of Defeat, Team Fortress 2, and any other content that others will have to buy from the store. Now span that COMPANY wide. So if, say, sierra released some random other game that wasnt valve related you could download that aswell, then put them in ISO format so that they can be extracted onto a CD and stored on your HD. In essence I am saying that the smartest move would be for the game companies to come up with a way to profit from the warez.

Fear not about MMO's I think that they will eventually be a downloadable format that you simply pay a monthly fee for at the beginning. EG. you download Planetside and simply pay the 12.95 for your first month instead of getting it free.

_-Gunslinger-_

2004-03-12, 09:47 AM

Pilgrim

2004-03-12, 10:39 AM

Funny thing is

Before piracy became so prevelant games cost 30-45$

after piracy is the way that the 1337 kiddies get their software then the price goes to 50-60$

Yet no one thinks that maybe... just maybe the piracy is driving up prices?

Also remember that computers in the last 5 years have jumped ALOT in ability. To take advantage of the new features (and any game that wants to sell will take advantage of as many as possible) game developers have to spend more time and effort and therefore money.

As a reality check a game without a licensed engine costs on average 3-4 million to produce. that's a non-mmo. An MMO will cost between 3-6 million.

Now take a company that puts out 5 titles of those 2 may sell over 100,000 so that $55 or so per broken up

$55 -%40 (standard retail markup)
$33 - distribution costs
$28 - packaging, =$5 per unit (including paying artists, printing and such)
$23

Now let's just say they get to keep that $23 buck (and don't forget 1/4 will go to the government in taxes) that's 2.3 mil. less then the development cost if a game only sells 100k coppies.

Now of those 5 titles

1 will be awesome and sell 400,000
2 will be good and sell 150,000
2 will be OK and sell 100,000
and 1 will suck ass and sell 25,000

While this model makes the bussiness still profitable the margins a razor thin (look at what happened to Black Isle if you don't believe me because they made a games that were primarily single player they took a bath because of piracy and are now out of bussiness)

Why do you think soooo freaking many people are making MMO's now it forces people to buy the Software and at least offset the development costs. The monthly barely covers the costs of servers and support while still trying to maintain a (GASP) profit margain! Those greedy bastards.

In base.

People who do Warez are mindless fucktards that are stealing from me and every other honest consumer. A person works their ass off on a product they deserve to profit from it.

/rant off

@ Gunslinger

You do not pay for the effort that went in to developing the software, therefore you do not deserve to use it! That is simple logic. It's the Moronic mindset of "I'm entitled to everything in the world I want!" You're not. You are entitled to anything in the world you can afford!

And photoshop wouldn't be so freaking expensive if people hadn't stolen it in the first place. So you're logic sucks

Phaelon

2004-03-12, 12:15 PM

Hold on there a second Pilgrim, I don't know where you shop, but I can buy every game to date, that comes out 2 days after release at Best buy here in Wisconsin for 40 dollars, no more, no less. SO prices have not generally shot up to the extent you think they have.

Second off, a lot of the prices you mentioned are pure speculation and don't actually show true profit margins. The profit for Production company's is HUGE where the profit for the actual developers is very small. That is why Black Isle went out of business. They had a huge fan base, but few people actually bought the game, and Interplay hosed black Isle for all the money they could. If 23 dollars is the end profit, 4 dollars of that goes to the developers, and 19 goes to the production business.

Developers in the end are always the one getting short sticked, but don't go spouting about how the margins are so small. They are not.

About MMO's, the profit margin for MMO's is Gigantic. A brand new DL 380 from Compaq fully loaded costs about 6,000. With OS and other operations, it could be around 10,000 fully loaded. That is a Enterprise server rated for 3 years of full on site in 4 hour repair. Now take one Network engineer to monitor it, and keep it running with say around 20 other servers for him alone. For a decent administrator lets say a salary of 50,000 dollars. Now lets talk internet lines, Depending on who you are dealing with, lets say you want 100,000 subscribers. that comes to 20,000 online at any given time. 20,000 subscribers at 7 KB/s down and 4 KB/s up. so I pay for 25,000 * 7 down just to be safe. That is 175,000 KB/s down which is 175 MB down. Theoretically you would not need that, but for the heck of it, lets say you want that much. SO you get three OC-192 lines, capable of 77.75 MB/s of pure download and upload heaven. That comes out to 24,000 a month for that.

Lets add our costs up
Intetnet - 24,000 dollars a month
personal - 4200 dollars a month
servers - 20 *10,000 one time initial cost - 200,000
total - 228,200 dollars and 28,200 a month after that, for a basic 100,000 subscriber game. THEORIES to principals here.

Money brought in a month - 12.95 * 100,000 = 1,295,000

They are making over one million dollars a MONTH in net profit before taxes and other issues.

100,000 subscribers is big, but most MMO's are starting to really grow in size as people start wanting to play them more.

Think about it a sec, seriously, EQ has over 430,000 active subscirbers, that is 5,568,500 dollars a MONTH. For that many subscribers, I would estimate monthly hardware and resource costs to be around 1.1 million dollars. Which means they have a net profit of over 4 million dollars a month. That is insane.

Madcow

2004-03-12, 12:56 PM

The logic is simple and very sound. The company isnt being cheated because they woudnt of gotten the money anyhow. Like I photoshop 7 and use it about once every two weeks. Now if I were to have been forced to purchase it instead of downloading it then I would have just not gotten it. So the company gets nothing in BOTH scenarios.

Oh, the logic is simple. It's not even remotely sound. It's half-assed validation, just like I already mentioned. If you "don't have" the money for the program then your choices are to use a cheap free version of the same program or to save up the money to actually buy the program. Are you telling me that taking the program for free isn't a crutch that allows you to not have to worry about scrounging up the necessary scratch? The company is being cheated, and you are pitching in to cheat them. On some level you're obviously aware of what you're doing because you are attempting to validate it.

Cyanide

2004-03-12, 01:21 PM

Funny thing is

Before piracy became so prevelant games cost 30-45$

after piracy is the way that the 1337 kiddies get their software then the price goes to 50-60$

Yet no one thinks that maybe... just maybe the piracy is driving up prices?

Here's a shocker for you. The gaming industry is worth more than it's ever been worth in the past. Game companies are making more money now than they ever have before. So saying that piracy is a legitimate reason to drive up prices is BS.

Also remember that computers in the last 5 years have jumped ALOT in ability. To take advantage of the new features (and any game that wants to sell will take advantage of as many as possible) game developers have to spend more time and effort and therefore money.

Actually, it's not really that much harder to develope a quality game now than it was back then. DirectX makes things easier with every new version. Unified drivers make programming for multiple cards easier. Existing tools (3D studio max, etc) are getting easier and improving workflow all the time. There are more and more existing physics and graphics engines on the market. So no, it's not that much harder to develope a game now than it was 5 years ago.

As a reality check a game without a licensed engine costs on average 3-4 million to produce. that's a non-mmo. An MMO will cost between 3-6 million.

Now take a company that puts out 5 titles of those 2 may sell over 100,000 so that $55 or so per broken up

A game selling only 100,000 copies in its entire life span would deserve to lose money. Diablo2 sold about 2.75 million copies in 6 months. WarcraftIII, even higher. I don't even want to think about how many copies games like Half-life and Starcraft have sold. Good games sell well, and they deserve to make money. Shitty games do not deserve to make money.

$55 -%40 (standard retail markup)
$33 - distribution costs
$28 - packaging, =$5 per unit (including paying artists, printing and such)
$23

Now let's just say they get to keep that $23 buck (and don't forget 1/4 will go to the government in taxes) that's 2.3 mil. less then the development cost if a game only sells 100k coppies.

Now of those 5 titles

1 will be awesome and sell 400,000
2 will be good and sell 150,000
2 will be OK and sell 100,000
and 1 will suck ass and sell 25,000

While this model makes the bussiness still profitable the margins a razor thin (look at what happened to Black Isle if you don't believe me because they made a games that were primarily single player they took a bath because of piracy and are now out of bussiness)

Why do you think soooo freaking many people are making MMO's now it forces people to buy the Software and at least offset the development costs. The monthly barely covers the costs of servers and support while still trying to maintain a (GASP) profit margain! Those greedy bastards.
Well, if the company had any sliver of a brain, they would not waste money on the 5 shitty games, and will only spend time developing the 1 awsome game. Which, if you use Diablo2's sales numbers, will make it to the black in less than a month from release at $55.

BTW, 1+2+2+1 = 6...not 5

In base.

People who do Warez are mindless fucktards that are stealing from me and every other honest consumer. A person works their ass off on a product they deserve to profit from it.

/rant off

In base.

Mindless fucktards who buy shitty games are promoting the making of shitty games, instead of the making of good quality games. They are helping to polute the gamming world with junk like "FDNY firefighter" and the "Maddog McCree" series. That's right, series. It wasn't enough to make ONE of the worst games of all time. They felt the need to make another, because the first one actually made some money. (See PCgamer.com for more info on those games).

BTW, I don't care how much effort you put into a product. If it sux ass, you don't deserve a dime for it.

@ Gunslinger

You do not pay for the effort that went in to developing the software, therefore you do not deserve to use it! That is simple logic. It's the Moronic mindset of "I'm entitled to everything in the world I want!" You're not. You are entitled to anything in the world you can afford!

Still not seeing how me having a copy of something that I could never pay for hurts or detracts from anyone. A company can't lose money when there's no way they could ever have had it. It's not like I use photoshop or any of that stuff to make money for myself. I use it to learn how to use it, and for no other reason. There would be a lot of people with a lot fewer skills in this world if people only learned about stuff they could afford to buy.

And photoshop wouldn't be so freaking expensive if people hadn't stolen it in the first place. So you're logic sucks

PhotoShop has cost $600 from the day it was first released. It's not like they lose a lot of sales, nobody who pirates photoshop can afford to buy it anyway.

Dharkbayne

2004-03-12, 01:34 PM

Yeah, and last time I checked, isn't 3DS MAX like, 3500? I have it, and the only reason I have it, is to say "I have it" I never use it, I used it once, it scared me, never opened it up again, but I DO have it. So :p.

Happy lil Elf

2004-03-12, 02:02 PM

Until you have some idea of how the game development and publishing world works, I'd really suggest shutting the hell up so you don't look like a compete and utter idiot. That's just some friendly advice though.

_-Gunslinger-_

2004-03-12, 02:06 PM

Oh, the logic is simple. It's not even remotely sound. It's half-assed validation, just like I already mentioned. If you "don't have" the money for the program then your choices are to use a cheap free version of the same program or to save up the money to actually buy the program. Are you telling me that taking the program for free isn't a crutch that allows you to not have to worry about scrounging up the necessary scratch? The company is being cheated, and you are pitching in to cheat them. On some level you're obviously aware of what you're doing because you are attempting to validate it.

Ok since we are using photoshop whitch currently costs $549 on Newegg (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=32-105-110&depa=6) now lets assume that there is a %20 markup because of pirating. That drops the price to $440. Now I use photoshop to make avatars, backgrounds, sprays, sigs, and other random picure adjustments/crops. I do those things probably 15 times a YEAR. I have now esablished how rarly I use photoshop, less than twice a month. Given the choice of having $440 and limited ability to edit images I would take 440 dollars. What I am saying is that I wouldnt spend almost two weeks pay on one program that I use that infrequenly.

Allow me to illistrate my argument even further. I am attempting to draw a parallel between our arguments.

Your argument applied to my scenario(correct me if im wrong):
Looks at photoshop price, compares to the cost of having to upgrade, doesnt purchase photoshop.

My argument applied to my scenario:
Downloades photoshop, uses it 15 times over one year, has edited images.

In both scenario's adobe NEVER gets my money, therein lies the argument. (And it is sound, in this case I condone theft.)

Everyone must admit that downloading software/music is theft, technically.

Dharkbayne

2004-03-12, 02:06 PM

Who, me? I admit I don't know much about it, I just know that 50 dollars a game is a little overpriced, the thing that REALLY pisses me off is music CD's though, they get on our asses for downloading it, yet they play the songs for free on the radio. 15 dollars for some sounds is waaaaay too much.

Happy lil Elf

2004-03-12, 02:46 PM

CDs you have a logical argument for, of course you also don't have a team of 30 people working 60 hours a week on that CD for two years.

CDs and their production process are not compareable to the creation of a quality game. Apples and oranges.

Madcow

2004-03-12, 03:01 PM

Ok since we are using photoshop whitch currently costs $549 on Newegg (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=32-105-110&depa=6) now lets assume that there is a %20 markup because of pirating. That drops the price to $440. Now I use photoshop to make avatars, backgrounds, sprays, sigs, and other random picure adjustments/crops. I do those things probably 15 times a YEAR. I have now esablished how rarly I use photoshop, less than twice a month. Given the choice of having $440 and limited ability to edit images I would take 440 dollars. What I am saying is that I wouldnt spend almost two weeks pay on one program that I use that infrequenly.

Allow me to illistrate my argument even further. I am attempting to draw a parallel between our arguments.

Your argument applied to my scenario(correct me if im wrong):
Looks at photoshop price, compares to the cost of having to upgrade, doesnt purchase photoshop.

My argument applied to my scenario:
Downloades photoshop, uses it 15 times over one year, has edited images.

In both scenario's adobe NEVER gets my money, therein lies the argument. (And it is sound, in this case I condone theft.)

Everyone must admit that downloading software/music is theft, technically.

Again, half-assed validation. You completely disregard my suggestion to find a worse program which would be available for free. You could still use it for the things you are discussing, it would most likely be harder to use and the end result would most likely not be as nice as you would like. That being said, this is exactly what you should be doing, this is the exact reason such programs are out there and available. If you can't afford Photoshop, if it's just beyond your means, there are plenty of viable alternatives. By just downloading an illegal copy you are completely copping out. So 15 times a year isn't excessive use of a pirated program? Is 30? Is 50? What constitutes using a program enough to validate purchasing it? Who gets to make that decision? You? What qualifies you to make that decision? Are you honestly going to pretend that if you begin using the program more you'd think harder about making the purchase? Because if you're saying that I'm saying you're lying.

Happy lil Elf

2004-03-12, 03:19 PM

Ok since we are using photoshop whitch currently costs $549 on Newegg (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=32-105-110&depa=6) now lets assume that there is a %20 markup because of pirating. That drops the price to $440. Now I use photoshop to make avatars, backgrounds, sprays, sigs, and other random picure adjustments/crops. I do those things probably 15 times a YEAR. I have now esablished how rarly I use photoshop, less than twice a month. Given the choice of having $440 and limited ability to edit images I would take 440 dollars. What I am saying is that I wouldnt spend almost two weeks pay on one program that I use that infrequenly.

Allow me to illistrate my argument even further. I am attempting to draw a parallel between our arguments.

Your argument applied to my scenario(correct me if im wrong):
Looks at photoshop price, compares to the cost of having to upgrade, doesnt purchase photoshop.

My argument applied to my scenario:
Downloades photoshop, uses it 15 times over one year, has edited images.

In both scenario's adobe NEVER gets my money, therein lies the argument. (And it is sound, in this case I condone theft.)

Everyone must admit that downloading software/music is theft, technically.

By that same logic:

I would love to have a 42 in flatscreen HDTV. I am not, however, willing to pay the price for one of them. Now Bob, my imaginary next door nwighbor, has one so if I happen to go next door while he's out of town and take it then I can have what I want. Sure, Bob is out some money, but lets be honest, Bob next door makes over 500k a year he can easily afford to go buy another one so it's not like I'm really stealing it, right?

Wrong. Theft is theft, you moron. You are not entitled to Photoshop, or any other product. If you want to steal it go for it. But don't try to make lame excuses or justify it. In the end after all the wriggling and playing around with semantics and imaginary situations, you're still a theif. Skip the bullshit and just say "Yeah I'm a thief, so?".

EarlyDawn

2004-03-12, 03:27 PM

Happy lil Elf

2004-03-12, 03:53 PM

A few things to consider-

A- The respective industries forget to take into account that a good majority of those who hear the song or play the game once Warezing it won't buy it anyway. You can't consider these a "lost sales" because they wouldn't become sales for an overwhelming majority of the rips.This is pure conjecture on both sides. I seriously doubt "that a good majority of those who hear the song or play the game once Warezing it won't buy it anyway". I also seriously doubt that everyone who downloads a game/CD would go out and buy it if they couldn't download it. Neither side has any hard numbers or evidence, so statistics are made up to support the argument of whoever happens to talking.

B- If you totally get rid of warez (impossible, but stay with me), you lose the "hit maker" machine. This applies more to music then to games. Lots of songs are popularized by how easily they're found, and spread by word of mouth. Programs like Kazaa, Limewire, ect, have become a HUGE part of building a popularity base for smash hit songs.
Not true. There were huge hits before warez and there would be huge hits without warez. The role that file sharing plays in creating a best selling record or #1 song is peripheral at best.

C- This is survival of the fittest, and the record labels don't like it. By selectively screening every disc if the need hits us, we decide what we like and what we don't. The music industry can't plan what songs (more then likely) will become hits and that's whats hitting them hard. No more paying for a whole CD for two songs. It also eliminates huge revenue from otherwise crap music that you don't know if you'll like. This is sort of true. The is indeed survival of the fittest and the way things are going, the record companies are going to lose. It isn't about the record companies controlling what becomes a hit and what doesn't though, believe me if they could manage it every record would be a hit. It's them being concerned that people will stop buying music from them if they can get it for free, and it's a legitimate concern. Now whether people actually should buy music from them is another issue entirely.

Phaelon

2004-03-12, 04:51 PM

"Not true. There were huge hits before warez and there would be huge hits without warez. The role that file sharing plays in creating a best selling record or #1 song is peripheral at best."

Warez has been around since when TCP/IP was invented by the defense department. I used to use newsgroups on a 2400 Baud modem. Music hits have existed long before file sharing on the internet yes, but back then we were using Tapes we recorded songs from, and other sources. Technology is progressing, Stealing is stealing and unless record company's and production company's change thier policies, they are all going to lose.

EarlyDawn

2004-03-12, 05:08 PM

Not true. There were huge hits before warez and there would be huge hits without warez. The role that file sharing plays in creating a best selling record or #1 song is peripheral at best.I never said anything to the contrary. However, removing the method of hearing the song almost instantly would be a huge hit to the teenage music market.

Happy lil Elf

2004-03-12, 05:08 PM

Warez has been around since when TCP/IP was invented by the defense department. I used to use newsgroups on a 2400 Baud modem. Music hits have existed long before file sharing on the internet yes, but back then we were using Tapes we recorded songs from, and other sources.

Neither of which come anywhere near to the volume that has taken place in recent years. You're comparing a 1/8" hole in a dam to a hole you could drive a Mac truck through.

Hamma

2004-03-12, 06:35 PM

I think it's illegal, and should be stopped. On the other hand I am a realist because I know it cant be stopped.

Ouroboros

2004-03-12, 06:41 PM

*cough* Halo(evaluation version) *cough*

Spee

2004-03-12, 06:52 PM

I buy the Cd's with the songs I download on them, if I have the money. The music industry has made FAR more money off of me, then they have lost.

However, regarding warez, I only use them because its outlandish that I have to pay fitty bucks for it. In teenager terms, 50$ = assload of money. Seriously. Im not gonna piss that away on something that I may or may not like, and cant take back. If you think thats wrong, you need a firm whacking on the skull.

Happy lil Elf

2004-03-12, 07:08 PM

As I said before, save the justifications, because there are none. Pirating a game is the same thing as stealing a TV. Now personally I don't give a shit what other people do, so if you want to steal, fine. Just be damn sure you're not doing it to me and you can rob people to your hearts content. Dont' try to justify it with lame excuses though, just say "Yeah, I'm a thief, as long as I don't get busted, so fucking what?".

Phaelon

2004-03-12, 07:37 PM

The size of the hole is irrelevant, I was stating the truth, Since the dawn of games on computers, there has been warez and trafficing.

Stealing is stealing, i will not argue that point with you, but the way in which they are confronting the problem, and the way in which they envision to fix it, will not work, would never work, and was screwed the second they concieved it.

Cyanide

2004-03-12, 08:07 PM

By that same logic:

I would love to have a 42 in flatscreen HDTV. I am not, however, willing to pay the price for one of them. Now Bob, my imaginary next door nwighbor, has one so if I happen to go next door while he's out of town and take it then I can have what I want. Sure, Bob is out some money, but lets be honest, Bob next door makes over 500k a year he can easily afford to go buy another one so it's not like I'm really stealing it, right?

That is possibly the single most ignorant unfounded and rediculously stupid analogy i've ever seen in my entire life. It does not apply to warez, at all. First off, a TV is a physical object, software is a logical object. I can not walk into a store and make a copy of a TV. I can however break into your computer and copy your entire hard drive over night and you would never notice. Why? Because it does not involve me removing anything from your possession. You lose absolutely nothing. Warez does not involve taking anything from anybody. Nobody loses or has to replace anything because you made a copy of a program. If you could go to bobs house and copy his TV, then that analogy would apply to warez. But then it wouldn't support your argument very well.

Wrong. Theft is theft, you moron. You are not entitled to Photoshop, or any other product. If you want to steal it go for it. But don't try to make lame excuses or justify it. In the end after all the wriggling and playing around with semantics and imaginary situations, you're still a theif. Skip the bullshit and just say "Yeah I'm a thief, so?".

Actually there's quite a grey area when it comes to software. Stealing something involves removing it from somebody else's possession. In the case of warez, nothing is being removed from anybody's possession. So no, he or anybody else who has warez, is not a theif. Theives take things. Warez takes nothing. That is the difference, and it is a big one. I know that new concepts like this are hard for some people, but I have faith in you.

If it was possible to make copies of a Ferrari at no expense to anybody, why shouldn't everybody who wants a Ferrari have one? The Ferrari's that are copied can't drive on the 4 lane highways (as you can't play most warezed games online), but you can still have one if you want, and nobody loses. Please, I ask again, provide to me some evidence as to how anybody loses when I copy a peice of software that I can't afford anyway.

Perhaps this word "copy" is foreign to you. I'll attempt to demonstrate. Select this text, now hit control-C. Now open notepad and hit Control-V. You have just copied my text. But see, the original text is still here. Isn't that magical? And you can copy it over and over and over, and the existing copies never go away or move or are affected in any way, no matter how many times you copy it. Do you get it now?

I think you just don't want anybody to have anything they can't afford, even if they aren't actually taking, hurting, or otherwise detracting from anything or anyone in order to obtain what they want. You must be a rich bitch.

_-Gunslinger-_

2004-03-12, 08:10 PM

Fragmatic

2004-03-14, 08:39 AM

Click me (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/link/altside.html)

Happy lil Elf

2004-03-14, 07:19 PM

Looks like this might take awhile so we might as well get started.

The size of the hole is irrelevant, I was stating the truth, Since the dawn of games on computers, there has been warez and trafficing.Incorrect. The size of the hole determines how much damage is being done and thus what kind of backlash it will cause.
Stealing is stealing, i will not argue that point with you, but the way in which they are confronting the problem, and the way in which they envision to fix it, will not work, would never work, and was screwed the second they concieved it.I've never argued that they aren't going about it the wrong way. There is no way they are going to stop it with lawsuits, I completely agree.
That is possibly the single most ignorant unfounded and rediculously stupid analogy i've ever seen in my entire life. It does not apply to warez, at all. First off, a TV is a physical object, software is a logical object. I can not walk into a store and make a copy of a TV. I can however break into your computer and copy your entire hard drive over night and you would never notice. Why? Because it does not involve me removing anything from your possession. You lose absolutely nothing. Warez does not involve taking anything from anybody. Nobody loses or has to replace anything because you made a copy of a program. If you could go to bobs house and copy his TV, then that analogy would apply to warez. But then it wouldn't support your argument very well.Weak attempts at flames aside, there is a problem with your entire premise. Software or music is a product just as a TV is. That one has a physical manifestation is irrelevant. Under your theory software programmers, musicians and numerous other professionals should be paid nothing as they are, at least under your twisted logic, producing nothing.

We have copywright laws for a reason. That various people ignore them is beside the point. It is still breaking the law, you ignorant jackass.

Actually there's quite a grey area when it comes to software. Stealing something involves removing it from somebody else's possession. In the case of warez, nothing is being removed from anybody's possession. So no, he or anybody else who has warez, is not a theif. Theives take things. Warez takes nothing. That is the difference, and it is a big one. I know that new concepts like this are hard for some people, but I have faith in you.
[quote]This is where you're right. There is a gray area however that grey area is quickly becoming black and white because the issue has become larger in recent years. In the end though, there are laws governing intellectual property, which software and music both fall under.

[quote]If it was possible to make copies of a Ferrari at no expense to anybody, why shouldn't everybody who wants a Ferrari have one? The Ferrari's that are copied can't drive on the 4 lane highways (as you can't play most warezed games online), but you can still have one if you want, and nobody loses. Please, I ask again, provide to me some evidence as to how anybody loses when I copy a peice of software that I can't afford anyway.How you can not see the hole in your logic I will never understand. A shitload of work goes into the disign and creation of a ferrari. By letting anyone who wants one have one the company who designed and built the first one is hurt. Tell me, you fucking jackass, if you spent years working on something, sold one, and then found out everyone copied the one you sold and thus had no further use for your product would you feel you had been robbed? That's what I thought. Idiot.

I think you just don't want anybody to have anything they can't afford, even if they aren't actually taking, hurting, or otherwise detracting from anything or anyone in order to obtain what they want. You must be a rich bitch.Wrong you fucking jackass. Maybe you missed the part where I said I really don't give a shit what you do, as long as it doesn't affect me. Here let me quote it for you, you semi-literate fuckstick:Now personally I don't give a shit what other people do, so if you want to steal, fine. Just be damn sure you're not doing it to me and you can rob people to your hearts content.

Now next time, even though I know it hurts your tiny little brain oh so much to do so, think before you speak.

Warez does hurt people, you flaming fucking moron. Or rather, specifically it hurts businesses. However what do those businesses employ? C'mon, you can do it. It's those things that *work* at said businesses. That's right! I knew you could do it! People.

The argument of "Well, I wasn't gonna buy it anyways" doesn't work. Why? Because then everyone can say that and guess what? No sales, no money to pay people, business goes under. It also doesn't change the fact that it's illegal.

Don't believe that can happen? Do some research on Black Isle. Blatant copying is cited as one of the major reasons they went under.

_-Gunslinger-_

2004-03-15, 10:31 AM

Happy didnt you say:

This is pure conjecture on both sides. I seriously doubt "that a good majority of those who hear the song or play the game once Warezing it won't buy it anyway". I also seriously doubt that everyone who downloads a game/CD would go out and buy it if they couldn't download it. Neither side has any hard numbers or evidence, so statistics are made up to support the argument of whoever happens to talking.

And yet you still argue:

The argument of "Well, I wasn't gonna buy it anyways" doesn't work. Why? Because then everyone can say that and guess what? No sales, no money to pay people, business goes under. It also doesn't change the fact that it's illegal.

You stated that neither side had any facts and still argued that warez is killing companies. Black Isle is still plagued by many issues as well.

Its a single playergame, I will never pay an agrediouse $50 for a SINGLE player game unless it will at some time come to a multiplayer world. Even if you took warez away I would not make that purchase. Most warez people at my school felt the same way. Black Isle assumed that the buisiness market was going to pay for thier game however thier second release of Baulders Gate was utter crap, all it had was an involved plot. But that isnt enough to draw sales, you need newer features and a more complete RP element to it. Yes this asks for 3 total games in one but that just adds to a singleplayer replay value whitch is the largest factor of a single player game. Allow me to give and example:

I downloaded Max Payne 2. My friend bought it. He played through ONCE, as did I. That game was trash and had I had full information of how little they added from the original I would have stopped my friend from buying it.

The point I am trying to show is that Black Isle went into a very low yield market, with BG2 being what BG1 SHOULD have been. I felt extreamly offended that a company would take my $50 dollars with promises that I would get to play an AD&D experience in a Computer RPG and not allow me past 86,000 exp thus limiting my game play. On top of that the evil side of the game (BG1) was so poor that I didnt even continue past the third chapter, it just felt like the same game except I stole what I needed and was hated by the town guards.

If I wanted interesting plot developements I could have went to boarders and purchased some Fantasy books for much cheaper.

Please, this goes to everyone, can we TRY to keep these posts flame free?

GreyFox

2004-03-15, 10:36 AM

I only use warez to try games out. If I like the game, I will buy it.

Sometimes I download a game I've preordered. To get it as early as I can.

Madcow

2004-03-15, 11:52 AM

Ok then madcow time for you to flech out your argument. How is it twisted logic if I were to NEVER buy it either way?

Happy lil Elf did you even read the last paragraph of my previouse post? I admitted TWICE that it was theft! Or were you too busy ranting and getting all worked up to notice both of those admitions? Earlier you also stated that there is no statistical proof, I am here to say that there is only ONE game I have ever warezed that I would have bought, Hitman 2: Silent assassin.

You are a walking contradiction. How is it twisted logic if you were never to buy it either way? You then turn around and admit illegally downloading a game that you would have bought. Oh, sorry, your argument just crapped out!
The point is that if you download it for free, and then use the program a whole bunch, what is there to make you then be honest and actually pay for something that you're using? Since you've already admitted with your Hitman 2 comment that you can't be trusted to be honest, it's kind of a silly argument isn't it?
If you were never going to buy it anyway, don't use it. Pretty simple. Unfortunately, whether you would use it or not truly isn't relevant because you aren't paying either way.

_-Gunslinger-_

2004-03-15, 12:21 PM

You are a walking contradiction. How is it twisted logic if you were never to buy it either way? You then turn around and admit illegally downloading a game that you would have bought. Oh, sorry, your argument just crapped out!
The point is that if you download it for free, and then use the program a whole bunch, what is there to make you then be honest and actually pay for something that you're using? Since you've already admitted with your Hitman 2 comment that you can't be trusted to be honest, it's kind of a silly argument isn't it?
If you were never going to buy it anyway, don't use it. Pretty simple. Unfortunately, whether you would use it or not truly isn't relevant because you aren't paying either way.

Way to use that as a scapegote out of our little discussion. BTW I did buy hitman2 but it was only $10. And when did I LIE? I admitted to having only downloaded one game that I would have bought. However thats not lying. I had intended to mention that I indeed had payed for it but simply forgot. You still havent answered my prevoiuse question...

Phaelon

2004-03-15, 01:02 PM

Black Isle went under for a number of reasons, many deal with things you and I don't know because Interplays records are not public. One of those reasons is copying, but it is not the only reason, there are huge amounts of other reasons.

Don't tell me a companys game being copied is why they went under, that is bullshit. A company goes under because of Poor business descisions AND thier games being pirated. Both have to occur for a company to really hit rock bottom.

Madcow

2004-03-15, 01:44 PM

Way to use that as a scapegote out of our little discussion. BTW I did buy hitman2 but it was only $10. And when did I LIE? I admitted to having only downloaded one game that I would have bought. However thats not lying. I had intended to mention that I indeed had payed for it but simply forgot. You still havent answered my prevoiuse question...

Your previous question? No problem.

I enjoy editing video. It's just one of those things I enjoy personally. Unfortunately, it's something that costs an awful lot of money to do well. To put together an editing suite that is capable of doing a good job costs an awful lot of money. Obviously, I have the ability of renting time at a company which makes these editing suites available which would in turn cost significantly less than the up-front money that buying the equipment would cost me. I also have the option of doing a worse job using the equipment that I have available to me. Now let's say theoretically that I knew of an editing suite somewhere in my city that was left unlocked on the weekends. Not only that, I knew for a fact that there was no security at the building. Rather than making my crappy videos with the equipment I have available, I should go ahead and use that editing suite that I know I can get access too, right? As an added bonus, even if I somehow end up with the money to buy equivalent equipment I really won't need to and can spend the money elsewhere and buy other things since the access to the equipment has eliminated the need to actually purchase it. Are you having trouble drawing the correlation? It's actually pretty simple. You know where the building is, you know security is gone, you're happy to take something that others worked hard to create.

Cyanide

2004-03-15, 02:45 PM

Ah yes, I'm the semi-literate fuckstick. But you're the one who can't come up with a more civilized adjective than "fuck" or some derivative of it. You need to calm down son.

I've written software in the past and distributed it under the GPL. I spent countless hours on it and never made a cent. Millions of people do the same thing, and they don't feel robbed. Obviously one person buying a product and everybody else copying it is not what happens with software piracy. If that was the case then there would be no software to pirate. Pirating software even though you can afford it is wrong and that does hurt the company, I never said that it does not. My arrgument was not about that scenario. My argmunet was about people who can't afford the software pirating it. And you've still not given any reason why that hurts anybody. If Ferrari spent years making a car that only 1 person could afford, then they deserve to lose money because that would be stupid and that is bad business. Who cares if a bunch of people copied it. They could only have sold one of the cars anyway. I don't think pirating software that they can afford is right, and I never said I did, so using that scenario to argue with me is pointless.

The bottom line is that people who can buy software usually do. Only a very small percentage pirate software they can afford. Software developers are making more money now than they ever have in the past, dispite P2P technology. So all this about piracy putting companies out of business and keeping them from making profits is just BS. Software companies go under because of bad business practices, over saturation of the market, and poor quality software. Those are the major threats to a software developer. Piracy is not a major threat to any company that makes quality software, has good business practices, and is not in a market that is over saturated. The reason most software developers don't last very long is market saturation. There are simply too many developers out there for all of them to survive.

Phaelon

2004-03-15, 02:55 PM

Further more Cyanide, when the market saturation occurs, those company's make poor business descisions and fail to branch out and reach in new directiosn to keep thier loyal customers.

Warez is wrong, i doubt anyone on this thread is disagreeing with that, however the piracy issue is not the biggest issue the industry should have at this present time. If these company's got 1 ounce of an idea and a hint off how the world is evolving, they would be sitting fine, but because these company's, production company's, are more concerned with ANY money they could/might/maybe/not even are losing, they are freaking out because they are greedy. Because it is capitalism at it's best, The free market and economy.

Zodiac

2004-03-15, 03:17 PM

Thread sucks. warez are bad mmmkay.

Happy lil Elf

2004-03-15, 09:26 PM

Ah yes, I'm the semi-literate fuckstick.Glad we got that cleared up.
But you're the one who can't come up with a more civilized adjective than "fuck" or some derivative of it.My apologies, but I wasn't sure you'd be able to comprehend anything more complicated than that so I kept it simple. Afterall, what's the fun in beating a retard if they can't feel it?
You need to calm down son.Please, don't call me "son". The very thought of containing any of your genetic material is enough to make me feel ill.
I've written software in the past and distributed it under the GPL. I spent countless hours on it and never made a cent. Millions of people do the same thing, and they don't feel robbed. Nice attempt at a dodge, the question however still stands. If you produced something with intent to sell it to make a comfortable living, and the product was stolen instead of bought, would you be pissed? Yes.

As to the above quote: Good for you. This is not a relevant to the argument at hand. Software companies do not operate on the theory that they're good samaritans freely giving their time to improve a bunch of random peoples lives.
Obviously one person buying a product and everybody else copying it is not what happens with software piracy. If that was the case then there would be no software to pirate. Pirating software even though you can afford it is wrong and that does hurt the company, I never said that it does not. My arrgument was not about that scenario. My argmunet was about people who can't afford the software pirating it.You are not entitled to software, any more than you're entitled to a plasma TV. Because you can not afford it does not make it "Ok" to pirate it any more than it would make it ok to steal a TV. My point is if you're going to steal, great. But save the lame excuses because, in the end, you're still a thief. I personally don't care if you're a theif, I really really don't. What bothers me if someone stealing something and then trying to justify it and say it was ok because . Stealing=illegal. Stealing because you can't afford to have something that is inarguably a luxury item=illegal. Trying to justify it with lame excuses=Really dumb.

And you've still not given any reason why that hurts anybody.It hurts the businesses that produce it. They employ people and therefore it can indeed hurt those people. Does anyone die from it? No. Can it cause people to get laid off? Yes.

Please tell me your not trying to argue that piracy doesn't hurt any businesses/professionals. If you are, I strongly suggest you do the world a favor and at the bare minimum have yourself steralized or, preferably, go play a game of chicken with a Mac truck and don't puss out.
If Ferrari spent years making a car that only 1 person could afford, then they deserve to lose money because that would be stupid and that is bad business. Who cares if a bunch of people copied it. They could only have sold one of the cars anyway. I don't think pirating software that they can afford is right, and I never said I did, so using that scenario to argue with me is pointless.You still don't seem to get it. You are not entitled to someone elses hard work for free simply because you can't afford to buy it.

The bottom line is that people who can buy software usually do. Only a very small percentage pirate software they can afford.This is entirely possible, but post some numbers or shut the hell up. Wait, there's no numbers to post. Ah well, at least we can "take your word for it" all common sense and knowedge of human nature to the contrary.
Software developers are making more money now than they ever have in the past, dispite P2P technology.Possibly true, but irrelevant to the argument at hand. Not only that but please, back this up. Oh and try not to forget that gaming has become appealing to a larger audience than ever in recent years, please factor that in to your figures.
So all this about piracy putting companies out of business and keeping them from making profits is just BS.Faulty argument. I never said it was putting companies out of business. I gave Black Isle as an example of a company that had been adversely affected by piracy. You can [b]not argue piracy has no impact on software sales. Actually let me clarify my statment since I'm pretty sure there were some other people who failed to comprehend what I was saying. Here's what I said:
Don't believe that can happen? Do some research on Black Isle. Blatant copying is cited as one of the major reasons they went under.Now this could have been a little more clear but if you note I said "Blatant copying is cited as one of the major reasons they went under.". That is not "Black Isle went under because of piracy". That is not "Black Isle would be the number one software company in the world, if not for piracy. That is "Black Isle went under and one of the primary reasons cited was piracy". If you fail to see the difference, stop posting or attempting to respond immediately, at least until your reading comprehension skills are a little more up to par.

Software companies go under because of bad business practices, over saturation of the market, and poor quality software.Yes those are often contributing factors. This is true of any business and is common sense. Are you going to tell me the sky is blue on clear days next?

Those are the major threats to a software developer. Piracy is not a major threat to any company that makes quality software, has good business practices, and is not in a market that is over saturated.This is true at this time. However as piracy becomes easier to do, this could easily change.
The reason most software developers don't last very long is market saturation. There are simply too many developers out there for all of them to survive.This is part of it, but it is only one of many problems that contribute to the problems that nearly all software developers face. Piracy is a relatively small problem now but one that could bloom into something far bigger as technology advances.

Now honestly, that wouldn't bother me a whole lot. I don't ever plan on getting into the business of making video games for various reasons. Eventually, however, it will reach a point where the government is forced to do something, which is something I can promise you will fuck over everyone. There are ways to stop file sharing over the web. It would completely fuck ISPs and internet users as far as speeds, but it is possible. Right now piracy's not a large issue, at least not as large as those affected by it make it out to be. But in ten years? Or even five? Look at the kind of crap that has come as a result of the governmet getting involved in the regulation of other industries. Is it wise to hand them a reason to over regulate this one on a silver platter because you don't want to save up for photoshop, a CD or a video game? Probably not.

_-Gunslinger-_

2004-03-16, 12:30 PM

Happy what is your occupation? Or you intended occupation? Honestly givin a viable option I would rather argue against a feminazi than debate against you in written form (Or a verbal form that allowed more than 5 minuits of deliberation). You took what he said and then stated he was wrong because of key parts of his arguments. Any argument as complex as this one is can be "proven" flase if you seperate supporting premises.

Cyanide said this:
I've written software in the past and distributed it under the GPL. I spent countless hours on it and never made a cent. Millions of people do the same thing, and they don't feel robbed. Obviously one person buying a product and everybody else copying it is not what happens with software piracy. If that was the case then there would be no software to pirate. Pirating software even though you can afford it is wrong and that does hurt the company, I never said that it does not. My arrgument was not about that scenario. My argmunet was about people who can't afford the software pirating it. And you've still not given any reason why that hurts anybody.

You broke it up into this:

I've written software in the past and distributed it under the GPL. I spent countless hours on it and never made a cent. Millions of people do the same thing, and they don't feel robbed. Obviously one person buying a product and everybody else copying it is not what happens with software piracy. If that was the case then there would be no software to pirate. Pirating software even though you can afford it is wrong and that does hurt the company, I never said that it does not. My arrgument was not about that scenario. My argmunet was about people who can't afford the software pirating it.

And you've still not given any reason why that hurts anybody.

And you responded to them seperatly. But you see the second statment was directly tied to the first. It would be unfair to break them appart and attack them seperatly without the other arguments support.

If you are in college (or if your High school has this class), I strongly suggest you take logic (or whatever the debate course is called). Not that you are an inadept debat(er?) but rather that you refuse to follow simple protocoll to how arguments are constructed. The reason they were established was because when arguing from the standpoint of which I previously stated, you argue from fallicy (as I just showed you).

Allow me to restate that portion of the paragraph into a seperate statment:

My previous scenario in mind you have yet to give any reason that warez hurts anyone.

Warez can also benifit a company: EG, When I downloaded C&C Generals, just to say I had tried it, I would never have thought that I would acually buy the game AND its expasion pack. I thougt that a game with no population limit and only one recourse was idiotic and far to simple. However after playing this game I came to realise that the game was still challenging and, more importantly, entertaining. I then purchased condition zero the day it was released. That totals $90 that EA recieved as a RUSULT of piracy.

Now if you were to say

Cyinide The bottom line is that people who can buy software usually do. Only a very small percentage pirate software they can afford.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Happy This is entirely possible, but post some numbers or shut the hell up. Wait, there's no numbers to post.

Happy has a small point. There are no numbers to support EITHER argument. As such lets do what Happy asks and declare this point moot (or stfu as he put it). Niether side "wins" this point however due to the fact that we cannot assume either side is right about whether or not people would buy the software either.

Now to reply to Madcow

I enjoy editing video. It's just one of those things I enjoy personally. Unfortunately, it's something that costs an awful lot of money to do well. To put together an editing suite that is capable of doing a good job costs an awful lot of money. Obviously, I have the ability of renting time at a company which makes these editing suites available which would in turn cost significantly less than the up-front money that buying the equipment would cost me. I also have the option of doing a worse job using the equipment that I have available to me. Now let's say theoretically that I knew of an editing suite somewhere in my city that was left unlocked on the weekends. Not only that, I knew for a fact that there was no security at the building. Rather than making my crappy videos with the equipment I have available, I should go ahead and use that editing suite that I know I can get access too, right? As an added bonus, even if I somehow end up with the money to buy equivalent equipment I really won't need to and can spend the money elsewhere and buy other things since the access to the equipment has eliminated the need to actually purchase it. Are you having trouble drawing the correlation? It's actually pretty simple. You know where the building is, you know security is gone, you're happy to take something that others worked hard to create.

Ok so you are going to the studio, and using thier equipment for free. First off I would like to congratulate you for drawing the FIRST non-fallacious argument for your side that involves material goods, on top of that it only has two ****** in the armor, bravo; 1) that you still amassed enough money to buy the equipment and therefor this example does not apply to my scenario. And 2) assuming that you didnt gross enough capital to rent/purchase your own suite you still are not harming anyone else. I am also assuming you are going to be using this suite every weekend. With this in mind you have to consider that A) You will wearout equipment, B) This is technically not "theft" as again you arent taking anything from them. I would be perfictly ok if I were the owner of those facilities and you, a person who could never (key point: NEVER) afford those equipments, would use them if point A) wasnt true. So basically if you left no change with your use I wouldnt mind.

CorDharel

2004-03-16, 01:13 PM

@Cyanide
You are right with the fact that copying isn't stealing. But you also know that you're not right :bouncy:

I think I would really hate warez if I would produce a game. But computers are weird. And you can't do anything against it :P

Madcow

2004-03-16, 01:35 PM

Ok so you are going to the studio, and using thier equipment for free. First off I would like to congratulate you for drawing the FIRST non-fallacious argument for your side that involves material goods, on top of that it only has two ****** in the armor, bravo; 1) that you still amassed enough money to buy the equipment and therefor this example does not apply to my scenario. And 2) assuming that you didnt gross enough capital to rent/purchase your own suite you still are not harming anyone else. I am also assuming you are going to be using this suite every weekend. With this in mind you have to consider that A) You will wearout equipment, B) This is technically not "theft" as again you arent taking anything from them. I would be perfictly ok if I were the owner of those facilities and you, a person who could never (key point: NEVER) afford those equipments, would use them if point A) wasnt true. So basically if you left no change with your use I wouldnt mind.

Actually, I never said that I amassed enough money to buy my own suite. I said that on the off-chance that I did get the funds that I could actually spend them elsewhere, that because I had easy access it would be much easier to ignore the moral aspects and continue with my free ride.
By the way, I never said that I had the owner's permission. I think it pretty well goes without saying that the owner of the equipment isn't going to allow some random schmoe to use the equipment when he isn't actively using it. To say that you would allow random people to use your goods if you didn't need them at the moment is really a weak attempt at validating your argument. Can I borrow your car? How about your computer once you log off? Of course I can't, you'd be a fool to allow people access to items which you worked hard to earn. Unfortunately, you're busy validating the idea that you aren't hurting people so swiping their stuff is kosher. It isn't.

_-Gunslinger-_

2004-03-16, 05:33 PM

Actually, I never said that I amassed enough money to buy my own suite. I said that on the off-chance that I did get the funds that I could actually spend them elsewhere, that because I had easy access it would be much easier to ignore the moral aspects and continue with my free ride.
By the way, I never said that I had the owner's permission. I think it pretty well goes without saying that the owner of the equipment isn't going to allow some random schmoe to use the equipment when he isn't actively using it. To say that you would allow random people to use your goods if you didn't need them at the moment is really a weak attempt at validating your argument. Can I borrow your car? How about your computer once you log off? Of course I can't, you'd be a fool to allow people access to items which you worked hard to earn. Unfortunately, you're busy validating the idea that you aren't hurting people so swiping their stuff is kosher. It isn't.

Ok you do have a point about the money issue, I require more time to deliberate on that. The point is that I would not buy any of that technology, the only reason I would be using it is that it is there for free.

1024

2004-03-16, 07:44 PM

(I'm just going to step in and give my contribuition. if it's already been stated, excuse me, as i got bored after reading the first 10 sentences of this thread.)

Companies are addressing warez in the wrong way. Theres no way they're going to stop it. People will find a way. They need to just find a different way of approaching the problem.

Happy lil Elf

2004-03-16, 08:17 PM

First of all a request, Gun, please use quotes. It really helps to seperate what you're saying form what you're quoting. :lol:

Now to dive headlong into a bit of a derailment.
Happy what is your occupation? Or you intended occupation? Honestly givin a viable option I would rather argue against a feminazi than debate against you in written form (Or a verbal form that allowed more than 5 minuits of deliberation). You took what he said and then stated he was wrong because of key parts of his arguments. Any argument as complex as this one is can be "proven" flase if you seperate supporting premises. What do I do for a living? Irrelevant, but I work as a CSR, which probably explains why I go after idiotic things with a large bat. Most people would rather argue with people other than me, because I'm really good at picking apart arguments and destroying them piece by piece, which allows for less bullshit.

Yes, I took apart his argument and destroyed each supporting point. Because an argument based on points that are easily countered isn't much of an argument. If your argument is based upon bullshit, you need to find a new way to prove/support it. It's not an issue of the complexity of the issue, it's an issue of the validity of the supporting arguments.

You broke it up into this:

I've written software in the past and distributed it under the GPL. I spent countless hours on it and never made a cent. Millions of people do the same thing, and they don't feel robbed. Obviously one person buying a product and everybody else copying it is not what happens with software piracy. If that was the case then there would be no software to pirate. Pirating software even though you can afford it is wrong and that does hurt the company, I never said that it does not. My arrgument was not about that scenario. My argmunet was about people who can't afford the software pirating it.

And you've still not given any reason why that hurts anybody.

And you responded to them seperately. But you see the second statment was directly tied to the first. It would be unfair to break them appart and attack them seperatly without the other arguments support.Acutally no, I broke it up even more than that, because he is mushing mulitple points into a single grouping and while they are semi-related, in that they are all attempting to support his view of piracy, they do not support each other on their own merits. They flow nicely into one another, but they do not directly support each other.

If anything the way I broken them up is simply a different writing style, not an issue with debate. I countered each of his arguments individually and seperated a few out to pound home various things, such as putting "And you've still not given any reason why that hurts anybody." by itself and reiterateing a counter. In the end, the arguments are countered. That I chose to seperate out my counter arguments instead of mushing them into a single paragraph makes no difference.

Feel free to take issue with my style of writing, but I find it much preferable to mushing all points into a single over sized paragraph, because not only is it easier to read and understand but it is also generally easier to counter individual points coherently. There is nothing in debate that makes it wrong to destroy your opponents arguments one by one. If you form an argument out of 5 easily counterable points, your argument can be proven false, at least in the sense that there is no longer anything supporting it. If the original points you're basing your argument on are faulty, then you need to find a better way to support it. This is also why it's generally easier to argue than it is to present. It's much easier, and usually more fun, to find the holes than it is to fill them.

Ok, on with the Warez discussion.
Warez can also benifit a company: EG, When I downloaded C&C Generals, just to say I had tried it, I would never have thought that I would acually buy the game AND its expasion pack. I thougt that a game with no population limit and only one recourse was idiotic and far to simple. However after playing this game I came to realise that the game was still challenging and, more importantly, entertaining. I then purchased condition zero the day it was released. That totals $90 that EA recieved as a RUSULT of piracy.
You seem to be arguing that piracy helps sales and while in a few cases that could very well be true, in a broader sense chances are it is not. If you are trying to use it as an argument to support piracy I'm afraid I have to tell you it's a faulty argument. You in no way represent the whole, or even the majority of those downloading warez. Although I suppose technically you're not even presenting an argument, only an antecdote. However this argument (that warez help sales) is yet another argument that can't really be "won" since there is currently no way to accurately track any of this.

I will say this though, sure there are those that go out and buy a CD after listening to it off of Kazaa. Those people, however, are not the problem that we're talking about.

Phaelon

2004-03-16, 08:39 PM

Now honestly, that wouldn't bother me a whole lot. I don't ever plan on getting into the business of making video games for various reasons. Eventually, however, it will reach a point where the government is forced to do something, which is something I can promise you will fuck over everyone. There are ways to stop file sharing over the web. It would completely fuck ISPs and internet users as far as speeds, but it is possible. Right now piracy's not a large issue, at least not as large as those affected by it make it out to be. But in ten years? Or even five? Look at the kind of crap that has come as a result of the governmet getting involved in the regulation of other industries. Is it wise to hand them a reason to over regulate this one on a silver platter because you don't want to save up for photoshop, a CD or a video game? Probably not.

Let me ask you something Happy, what do you do for a Living? Do you know ANYTHING about how the internet works? DO you know what BGP stands for or OSPF? DO you know how MAC address tables work, how packet fragmentation is broken apart and re-assembled? DO you even know what CIDR means? I mean SHIT since CIDR was implemented nothing that at all pertains to IP addresses is even relevant when it comes to the internet. Seriously Kid, shut up and sit down. When you get a degree in Network Engineering and get your CCIE then come and talk about this and that that can be accomplished over a medium that was developed in the 60's.

IF you honestly think that they can stop File sharing you are seriously overstating your boundaries.

Today, I came into the office, Booted my laptop with my Linux shell, and ran a nifty little program, Called a switch sniffer. I Poisoned the ARP cache on all the switches at my corporate network. I have Two Cisco 6509 Backbone switches at work in additions to a bunch of 3550's and 2950's. These backbone switches DENY packets to be passed on port 22(SSH) - they are layer 2/3 switches. Within 1 minute of poisoning thier arp tables, I saw an administrator log onto the switch. I took his user name and password. I was able to compromise the switch, and give myself access through port 22 to anywhere I wanted. Within 15 minutes I got a call from one of my Support techs that said the IDS boxes were getting angry at an invalid ARP table being passed. 5 Minutes after that my Pager started going, because my IDS boxes paged me with a 0 codec for red alert breach.

Now if the Switch implicitly states in its Access Control List that it will NEVER pass port 22 traffic, How did I get through? DO you SEE the hole? ISP'S Cannot stop it, Because I could get around it in the blink of any eye. You can't stop what you don't see. Furthermore All it would take is for me to Sit down and perform a "man in the middle" attack on some exec who isn't paying attention and gain access through the ISP's network, then I would be on the inside and could easily allow myself to file share.

Think before you post next time. Again we aren't arguing whether File sharing is wrong, we all agree it is wrong, but your points are just horribly constructed and your misguided ways have clouded the freedom of others.

Happy lil Elf

2004-03-16, 09:23 PM

I'll forgive you the bullshit, Phae, and respond to you in a civil manner, mostly because you seem to just be misnderstanding me and I'm all flamed out for today:

Does the average file sharer have any idea what you're talking about any more than I do though, Phaelon? I think it's safe to say no. It's an interesting read and while I follow the gist of what you're saying, there's not much I could do to exploit it. This is probably safe to say about most of the people who spent hours downloading music off of Napster for example. Getting through what you're talking about takes knowledge and rather specific knowledge at that.

Would draconic requirements on ISPs hurt your average internet user? Bet your ass. For someone who is so obviously educated on the subject you don't seem to grasp that. It's great that you could get around all of the theorectical bullshit with ease. The problem with that is that not everyone has the knowledge to do so. Would they stop file sharing by doing so? They could put a slowdown on it, but I don't think it would be a total stop no.

If you'll read the quote you posted you might understand that whether they could stop it or not is rather irrelevant to the argument I was making. Giving the government an excuse to get involved with policing the internet even more than they already do (which is very, very minimal at this time) because someone doesn't want to shell out some cash for a product is a foolish thing to do.

Now I am more than ready to admit this: "There are ways to stop file sharing over the web." should have been left out. Honestly I thought I had deleted it before posting but, oh well, damage done. I will readily agree that currently there is no way to stop it. Theoretically speaking though, there are ways. It would involve a lot of research and more importantly money to do so, so It will probably not happen. However will that stop the government from trying? Probably not ;)

but your points are just horribly constructed and your misguided ways have clouded the freedom of others. Then by all means, please, counter them instead of writing a flame or rather if you're going to write a page long flame, try tackling more than one if they're all "horribly constructed". I don't think I'll hold my breath though. And while you're at it, please, elaborate on how my "misguided ways have clouded the freedom of others". This statement makes no sense at all.

Phaelon

2004-03-17, 12:22 AM

It wasn't meant as a flame, I was pissed because a machine I was playing with was not happy about the Ram I used for it.

I guess that was all I was argueing about, I dislike it when people use Extremes to explain something. You admitted there was a way around it, like with everything in Life, that is cool by me.

My reasoning behind the freedoms things is pointless at best. I don't know what I was trying to get at there. I suppose it deals with the fact that the Industry needs to change, big time. And to me you seem to be avoiding that issue, and talking more about how users should stop or there should be government regulation when the people who need to act are the developers, not the production companies.

Nice attempt at a dodge, the question however still stands. If you produced something with intent to sell it to make a comfortable living, and the product was stolen instead of bought, would you be pissed? Yes.

As to the above quote: Good for you. This is not a relevant to the argument at hand. Software companies do not operate on the theory that they're good samaritans freely giving their time to improve a bunch of random peoples lives.

Lets see :
www.webmin.com
www.nagios.org
www.phpnuke.org
www.mandrake.com
http://fedora.redhat.com/
www.gentoo.org
http://www.debian.org/

Shall I go on? :) All of those company's make FREE software BASED on the fact that people will use it to better thier lives. Fedora from Red hat is free. Mandrake is free. Gentoo is free. Debian is free.

There are HUGE amounts of company's that offer free software. For every company that charges, there is a company that gives it away.

Happy lil Elf

2004-03-17, 01:27 AM

That's cool Phae, today wasn't the best day I've had in awhile either, and it's just another in a long string lately. It's rather amazing how quiet life can be and suddenly the shit hits the fan seemingly overnight >_<

Honestly I'm suprised I manged to keep that post anything near civil :lol:

Shall I go on? All of those company's make FREE software BASED on the fact that people will use it to better thier lives. Fedora from Red hat is free. Mandrake is free. Gentoo is free. Debian is free.

There are HUGE amounts of company's that offer free software. For every company that charges, there is a company that gives it away.

That's still beside the point though. If you made something, with the intent to sell it to provide yourself and your employees with a comfortalbe living, and it was stolen and rather rampantly at that, would you be pissed? Obviously it's a rehtorical question since I really don't think anyone could answer "No" truthfully.

It's great that there are companies that want to put out software for free. I don't have any problem with them wanting to do that, in fact I'm all for it. But the fact that those companies simply exist doesn't justify pirating software from a company that isn't giving their software away. Obviously this isn't a perfect example but isn't that a lot like saying it's ok to shoplift food because there are soup kitchens?

_-Gunslinger-_

2004-03-17, 04:59 PM

Ok happy you clearly didnt notice how in my example you ignored a portion of his supporting arguments. Ok so let me use the nifty quote feature:

Pirating software even though you can afford it is wrong and that does hurt the company, I never said that it does not. My arrgument was not about that scenario. My argmunet was about people who can't afford the software pirating it.

That is the poriton in whitch you ignored. I believe this because you responded this way to this comment:

And you've still not given any reason why that hurts anybody.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It hurts the businesses that produce it. They employ people and therefore it can indeed hurt those people. Does anyone die from it? No. Can it cause people to get laid off? Yes.

Please tell me your not trying to argue that piracy doesn't hurt any businesses/professionals. If you are, I strongly suggest you do the world a favor and at the bare minimum have yourself steralized or, preferably, go play a game of chicken with a Mac truck and don't puss out.

Now how does it hurt a company if they would not have gotten the money anyhow? I realise that this is not always 100% of the time in warezing, however this is the way that I use it. Because niether side can acuratly claim that a certain percentage of warez are future customers from whatever company they steal from, we must stick to what I do.

Happy lil Elf

2004-03-17, 08:26 PM

Now how does it hurt a company if they would not have gotten the money anyhow?

One could easily argue they didn't pay the money only because it was so easy to get it for free. Were it not so easy to steal it would people save up for it? Some probably would, but they don't have to, because it's so easy to get it fror free. That right there hurts the company.

If you refuse to buy something because it's too expensive, you simply don't buy it. Am I the only one who believes if you want something that is out of your current price range, you save up to buy it? Because you don't want to pay a certain amount of money for something, it's ok to steal it, because you weren't going to buy it anyways? That's rather faulty logic. In reality it's more along the lines of pure rationalization.

_-Gunslinger-_

2004-03-18, 11:47 AM

One could easily argue they didn't pay the money only because it was so easy to get it for free. Were it not so easy to steal it would people save up for it? Some probably would, but they don't have to, because it's so easy to get it fror free. That right there hurts the company.

If you refuse to buy something because it's too expensive, you simply don't buy it. Am I the only one who believes if you want something that is out of your current price range, you save up to buy it? Because you don't want to pay a certain amount of money for something, it's ok to steal it, because you weren't going to buy it anyways? That's rather faulty logic. In reality it's more along the lines of pure rationalization.

Your first paragraph does not adhear to the scenario that cyanide and I have built. I am not here to discuss IF people download games that they COULD afford. I have stated what I am arguing before yet you persist on this path, while my argument is similar it does not apply to your first paragraph. My argument entails that people wont pay the prices set by companies, even if warez wasnt around. An example is that I wont pay $50 for a single playergame. In the absence of warez I would STILL not pay $50. So in essence I am infact not hurting anyone because I would not have purchased thier game anyhow.

Kikinchikin

2004-03-18, 12:14 PM

First off my experience with warez.

Downloaded Kazaa 6 months ago. Downloaded around 70 songs then realized it sucks and clogs my computer up to no end. Never downloaded software or movies.

I don't think it's right to download software, games or movies off warez. Songs on the otherhand are fine, because A. Many who download a song will buy the CD, B. Many just want the one song and are not willing to purchase an entire CD, and C. Downloading actually helps get the band's name out by word of mouth.

CD's don't take nearly as long to make as games/movies do, and the people that make the CD's (bands/artists) don't get jack for them.

Basically I think songs/CD warez is acceptable, but you should pay for any game/program you want to buy, due in large part to the amount of money and time it takes the creators to make it.

Madcow

2004-03-18, 12:42 PM

An example is that I wont pay $50 for a single playergame. In the absence of warez I would STILL not pay $50. So in essence I am infact not hurting anyone because I would not have purchased thier game anyhow.

But you do enjoy single player games enough to play them. If an option to steal them did not exist, there is a very real chance that in the absence of such easy availability you would plop down your own cash on occasion to fill that void (there obviously would be a void or else you would not bother to download and play them now). It's possible you would wait until they hit the bargain bin, it's possible you'd grab them when the hype machine convinced you that you needed to own them right that second. Nonetheless, your cash would factor into the equation.

Quit validating your theft.

JakeLogan

2004-03-18, 12:56 PM

http://www.justagimmick.com/newsphp/viewmovies/flops.html you'll like it

_-Gunslinger-_

2004-03-18, 03:23 PM

But you do enjoy single player games enough to play them. If an option to steal them did not exist, there is a very real chance that in the absence of such easy availability you would plop down your own cash on occasion to fill that void (there obviously would be a void or else you would not bother to download and play them now). It's possible you would wait until they hit the bargain bin, it's possible you'd grab them when the hype machine convinced you that you needed to own them right that second. Nonetheless, your cash would factor into the equation.

Quit validating your theft.

That is a possibility..oh wait NO its NOT! Before I warezed I didnt fall victem to advertising (hype machien) and I told myself that I would wait until the price goes down. However I ended up never buying them (with the exception of Hitman2) because usually A) A new game came out with almost the same features but better grafics, or B) I read reviews about the downsides to the game and decided that it wasnt worth my money. Either way what you put forth is conjecture, not fact. The scenario before this post is how I use Kazaa and bittorrent. If you dont want to believe me then fine, but remember that if you dont then refuse me alltogather and Ill stop replying to posts covered by my argument. And as almost EVERY post you have made has applied to me in a broken way I am very close to just not replying to you. Your issue NO LONGER STANDS ok? So leave it alone.

Jakelogan: That is the single most effective tool the industry has against warez. If they put everyone through that annoying rap EVERY time I tried to warez something, I might have to stop.

Dharkbayne

2004-03-18, 03:40 PM

What about this , I bought NFS:U for my xbox, but when my xbox broke, and I felt like playing it, I "acquired" it on my PC, would THAT be legal, since I payed for the game already, but a different form of it?

Madcow

2004-03-18, 04:01 PM

That is a possibility..oh wait NO its NOT! Before I warezed I didnt fall victem to advertising (hype machien) and I told myself that I would wait until the price goes down. However I ended up never buying them (with the exception of Hitman2) because usually A) A new game came out with almost the same features but better grafics, or B) I read reviews about the downsides to the game and decided that it wasnt worth my money. Either way what you put forth is conjecture, not fact. The scenario before this post is how I use Kazaa and bittorrent. If you dont want to believe me then fine, but remember that if you dont then refuse me alltogather and Ill stop replying to posts covered by my argument. And as almost EVERY post you have made has applied to me in a broken way I am very close to just not replying to you. Your issue NO LONGER STANDS ok? So leave it alone.

Jakelogan: That is the single most effective tool the industry has against warez. If they put everyone through that annoying rap EVERY time I tried to warez something, I might have to stop.

You're on the verge of not responding? As if that's some sort of punishment for me? You didn't buy these games after you had downloaded them. In your mind, you tried them out and found them unworthy. If you didn't have the ability to steal them to try them out, there's a distinct possibility you would have purchased them. Perhaps you would have regretted the purchase, but the money would have already changed hands. Denying that is the only way for you to not lose footing in this argument, but denying that is also obviously not true. Heck, the fact that you're trying so hard to get people to agree with your validation tells me everything I need to know.

Happy lil Elf

2004-03-18, 07:34 PM

Gunslinger, it's pure rationalization and that's all it is. Let it go.

martyr

2004-03-18, 07:36 PM

warez entertains me.

http://www.brentroad.com/photos/00027214.jpg

Dharkbayne

2004-03-18, 07:39 PM

warez entertains me.

http://www.brentroad.com/photos/00027214.jpg

owned. :lol:

Ultimatedogg

2004-03-18, 11:14 PM

http://www.justagimmick.com/newsphp/viewmovies/flops.html you'll like it
could i get that sound track by any chance?

_-Gunslinger-_

2004-03-19, 09:43 AM

Gunslinger, it's pure rationalization and that's all it is. Let it go.

I wasnt the one to engage in rampent flame wars with cyinide. The only reason madcow pissed me off is that he just restated his argument OVER, and OVER. It didnt stand, yet he still fights like it did. On top of that he wont take what I say as truth. For instance he refuses to believe that I would not buy a game without reserching it? It is infact my $50 on the line, it would be quite assanine to put down that ammount of money on a game that I hadnt read alot about (from many sources other than fansites and the creator). But I digress. If he refuses to accept that I am telling the truth just because he doesnt like it I have no other choice than to ignore him, as he has effectivly removed the only way I can communicate with him.

Madcow

2004-03-19, 09:56 AM

I wasnt the one to engage in rampent flame wars with cyinide. The only reason madcow pissed me off is that he just restated his argument OVER, and OVER. It didnt stand, yet he still fights like it did. On top of that he wont take what I say as truth. For instance he refuses to believe that I would not buy a game without reserching it? It is infact my $50 on the line, it would be quite assanine to put down that ammount of money on a game that I hadnt read alot about (from many sources other than fansites and the creator). But I digress. If he refuses to accept that I am telling the truth just because he doesnt like it I have no other choice than to ignore him, as he has effectivly removed the only way I can communicate with him.

Wow, this is interesting. I've continued to make a point that you have not refuted. Maybe in your mind you have, but nonetheless the questions are still not answered. Yes, you would do research. You would read reviews. You would listen to friends. Does all of this insure that you would not buy a game that you would end up not caring for and wishing you hadn't dropped $50 on? Think carefully before answering, because an answer of 'yes' is either an outright lie or an admission of complete disillusionment on your part. An answer of 'no' is an admission that you are quite possibly taking money from game makers. Tricky line.

Happy lil Elf

2004-03-19, 11:20 AM

I wasnt the one to engage in rampent flame wars with cyinide.

You agree with him, why would you? Not only that, but how exactly does that have anything to do with people trying to rationalize their crimes? Again, I don't really have a huge issue with piracy, it's trying to say it's not bad because [lame_excuse] that annoys me. If your going to steal something don't try to play innocent afterwards, let alone tell me it was ok for you to steal it because you weren't going to buy it.

Red October

2004-03-19, 11:36 AM

Well lets address the economics of the situation. Thier are indeed huge marketing and production (not jsut the cd) costs with games, movies and music. They are often passed on to the consumer in the price. We know that. Video tapes and tapes were touted to be the end of the industry because people would just copy the video or tape. Well, it didn't happen. Most people just copied a tape for thier own use (should thier VCR or tape deck eat their original) or gave a copy to a friend who was too cheap or too poor to buy it. Thus sales were not heavily impacted and the record companies looked like a bunch of money hungry bigots. Thier was no impact because thier was no infrasturcture to distribute "pirated" copies.

Today is a different story, there is an infrastructure for pirated copies and record sales are down. Now are the sales down because of this infrastructure for pirated distribution? Or is it because the price is too high and/or quality is poor? I would argue both. I don't buy as many music cd's because...well most of it just sucks. As for DVD's, I usually just rent. If I like the movie and have a high probability of watching it again, I buy it. As for video games, rent first, wait for price to drop, then buy. I don't pirate or buy pirated stuff because I don't have the ability to record DVD's and CD's (yet) and pirated stuff can some times be of very poor quality. But when I do get the ability to copy, will I? Hell yes. I spent money to buy this stuff and I want the ability to make a back up copy. But I'm sure some have made this into a business.

The pro's of this, people who want to get "published" can do so via electronically (no or little production/marketing costs and don't need some executive to tell them yes). The con is business's who invest $$ into an actually good product may never realize a profit (thier in this for profits, make no mistake about that) because a free version may be downloaded.

So who's at fault? In my opinion, the recording industry for falling asleep at the wheel. When CD's, first came about, the recording industry embraced them (a high quality product exceeding tapes with little ability by the general public to reproduce) and the CD player manufacuturing companies got what they wanted because it forced everyone to buy CD players.. This gave recording companies what they wanted, lots of profit. But the problem is they rested on thier laurels and technology moved foward. Evenutally economics caught up and their once "unique" product no longer was unique. The writing was on the wall that tech would eventually eclipse and recording CD's and electonic copies would soon be available and the ENTIRE industry did nothing (which makes no sense since a new media outlet would have companies scrambling to be first on the market...which leads me to believe thier wasn't any competition and collusion may have been occuring). Had the industry been on the up and up, they would have embraced the new media outlets (slowly phasing out CD's as thier primary sales, just like tapes) all the while developing the technology to make it very difficult to make electronic copies that could be redistributed (don't tell me that it can't be done, I'm sure it could be if they paid someone enough to do so).

The reality is the recording industry cannot afford to litigate every single person that copies from the internet (litigation is costly and sends a bad image), what thier doing now is simply using scare tactics in order to curb some of it untill they can technology wise catch up. Proof of the pudding; video games are coming out with just your basic game while having the real content via onlin w/ paid subscriptions (which is economicaly and business wise fantastic, you can literally caputure large sums of the market...assuming you have worthwhile products). Music companies are now starting to offer music via online and the music can be tracked should it end up being swaped with everyone (which allows them to eventually catch abusers and perhaps deny service...how do you think they find every new major file sharer), but its still going to take time to catch up. I think this is a good lesson for the inustry to learn that resting on thier laurels (and perhaps relying on collusion) will be detriment in the long run.

Sorry if this doesn't seem to coherent, on allergy meds right now.