I say sue as many as they can, even if it doesnt go through. I liked those videos that used to play before movies, about people not stealing cars, bikes, candy from babies, but how they would steal movies. There needs to be more risks involed for file sharing and the sort.
What do you guys think? Jail the hackers and theives? or let them have anything they want?
__________________
give me a second go, dont let me go alone, you saw me at the worst, you caught me falling first
You steal something, you should get prosecuted. Simple as.
The punishment should fit the crime though.
I download music and movies and, if I like them, I buy them, hence having almost 600 original DVDs.
I downloaded a copy of Photoshop, cos I simply cannot afford several hundred, just for putting my boss's face onto a horse's arse.
But my games? I buy each and every single one of the buggers. I don't own a single copied game (save for the Amigas, but they were given to me), and I own thousands.
I'd happily pay a small fine for Photoshop, but the fact is I spend more than enough on films and games to balance.
People who rip and copy to make money, they need to die in fires.
Hacker: Genuine person only interested flaws in the system, not necessarily exploiting them. Hackers typically only go after high profile people (think CIA), but have since gone quiet. No need to worry about them.
Cracker: Little kids with nothing better to do than steal code and use it for themselves. These are the ones you have to worry about getting into your computer. These types are also referred to as 'Script-Kiddies'. These little bastards typically ruin your fun in online gaming as well.
Jacker: Don't know too much on this.
Modders: Those who like to customize the content that is given to them. No need to worry about these either, unless you have a Modding-Cracker (think Halo 2).
Since digital distribution is the way of the future, it seems pointless in going after these people now. Eventually the big companies are going to realize that digital is the way to go. Yes, stealing is still stealing, but going after them like this is in bad taste as, IMO, suing your customers isn't really good karma.
Lets refer to Jackers as people who create programs and viruses designed to infect peopels computers to get at their personal information, just spread further, or advertise **** you dont want.
I like the idea of if you find out someone has stolen your product, you ask them to pay for it in a polite letter. If they refuse you sue them for 5x the value of the product, or whatever it takes to cover the cost of you suing them. Blinger they arent your customers if theyre stealing. Its not like going after someone who buys 5 cds, and downloads a few individual songs, its going after people who download all their music.
Quote:
Apparently, file-sharing got really obnoxious recently — 691,000 downloads of Operation Flashpoint by Codemasters in one week alone.
Thats disgusting. Charge them, if they refuse, sue em, and jail the really bad ones.
Modders dont get sympathy from me, because its their modding that allows fake games to be played on consoles and handhelds. I hate seeing people with a DS or PSP, asking them what games did they buy with it and hearing them say none. I just got an R4 or whatever and downloaded like 25 games.
__________________
give me a second go, dont let me go alone, you saw me at the worst, you caught me falling first
I guess you got a point about them not being customers. But, in all fairness, almost everyone I know who downloads games (piracy) DO EVENTUALLY buy the legit versions. This is usually because they find out they can't go on multiplayer due to anti-piracy checks.
I don't anyone's arguing that game pirates aren't guilty. The current uproar lies in the way that this group of companies has gone about prosecuting them.
I don't anyone's arguing that game pirates aren't guilty. The current uproar lies in the way that this group of companies has gone about prosecuting them.
Yea but asking them to pay 50 bucks for the game, when they really could just sue them for a lot more doesnt seem fair to them. With digital distribution on the rise, if things like this arent ironed out soon then itll get worse. Id bet that half the PS2 population last gen got the system and modded it and never had to buy a real game.
__________________
give me a second go, dont let me go alone, you saw me at the worst, you caught me falling first
Yea but asking them to pay 50 bucks for the game, when they really could just sue them for a lot more doesnt seem fair to them. With digital distribution on the rise, if things like this arent ironed out soon then itll get worse. Id bet that half the PS2 population last gen got the system and modded it and never had to buy a real game.
Didn't I already say something to that effect?
Ah whatever. The point still stands. Suing them hardcore for something they could just be fined with is not cool. It only hurts their image. And I stand by my statement.
Digital distribution will never take over until the industry matures enough to handle it. Sure, the technology is already there, but the maturity isn't. As such, we wait.
Hackers are a necessary evil. They are needed to keep the balance of power between consumer and company. Most companies will rob you blind of your rights if they get the chance. Hackers exist to keep those folks in line. When itunes came out, I thought it was the greatest thing ever. Then DRM ruined it. We thought it was the labels forcing DRM on the downloads...turns out it was Jobs. Should I pay retail price for something that will only pay on Apple products that I don't use? No. But hackers give me the tools to strip that rights infringing DRM off my rightfully purchased music and play it wherever I damn well please. Now, thanks to that resulting outcry, Amazon has a growing music store that I can purchase music from with no DRM whatsoever. I have no issue with them and buy everything commercially available legally from Amazon outright, or from itunes then strip the DRM.
I've lost count how many times I downloaded an album to try, then bought it. I wouldn't have bought it had I not had the chance to illegally download it. You can't hear my kind of music on mainstream radio, or TV. Radio is owned by conglomerates and live TV performances never sound representative of the album. I download it first. If I like it, I'll buy it. If I don't, I'll delete it because it wasn't worth keeping anyway. Should all the people who bought a CD and ripped mp3s to play on their ipod be considered criminals because the record industry thinks they should buy a separate mp3 version of the album as well? That's bullsh*t, but without hackers, that's the kind of bulldog mentality labels would take with their customers.
As for movies, I rarely run into an instance where I needed to pirate a commercially available movie. I'll just buy the DVD, if it's available UNLESS it was released in another country and region codes prevent me from being able to play it. Then I pirate in protest. Usually the release will make it here eventually, but if it doesn't, I have no moral issues with pirating something they wouldn't let me play anyway. I bittorrent a lot of TV shows that won't ever appear commercially (but buy them if/when they do). Companies would love to make that illegal if they could. They tried to make the VCR illegal upon release. Yet illegal piracy has helped home video releases as well. Fansubbers are technically illegal, but they generate interest in anime that would have likely never seen light of day in America otherwise. Tiny Toon Adventures wasn't worth releasing on DVD in Warner's opinion, but the thousands of illegal YouTube videos uploaded and the resulting millions of views finally showed them there is a market for classic 90's cartoons. Would we have gotten them otherwise? Doubtful.
Remember when Windows Vista launched with a built in kill switch Microsoft could use if they found "un-certified software" on your machine? Hackers took care of that. Many people bought the release, then download the crack to make their machines safe from the conglomerate again.
As for games, I buy everything legit. I always have. Yet once I've bought something, I'll do whatever the hell I want with it. I cracked my PSP with custom firmware. I admit it. I could play every retail release without paying a dime, but I don't because of my own conscious. Games aren't like music. Like books, once you've read/played it, you're going to feel less obligated to buy it in many instances. I know this, so I refrain. BUT, once I've bought that UMD, I will occasionally load a backup of the title on the memory stick and play it off that for the sake of helping loading times. Sony says that's illegal. I say, "I bought it--bite me".
Yet hackers also do a great service for all gamers. I've talked about the Virtual Console's limitations before. What would the world do without illegal emulation projects like MAME? Thousands of classic arcade games not seen as commercially viable would be dropped into the anals of time and forgotten. Pac-Man was once seen as one of those titles. MAME changed that perception and now Namco nickles and dimes us for every retro title they have the rights to, but there will be some that are always commercially unavailable thanks to copyright claims. They will never be sold again, so I feel totally legit pirating them because I'm not hurting anyone's bottom line to do it.
Companies have got to realize that things like DRM only exist to punish the people who actually bought the product and is more likely to drive them to hackers and piracy in frustration of the violation of their rights. Pirates were never going to buy it anyway because they are crooks. Hackers keep those greedy companies in check. As long as they serve me, I'm glad to give them all my money. No profit = no future games. Yet somebody has got to be there to kick their ass when they step out of line.
Digital distribution will never take over until the industry matures enough to handle it. Sure, the technology is already there, but the maturity isn't. As such, we wait.
Hackers are a necessary evil. They are needed to keep the balance of power between consumer and company. Most companies will rob you blind of your rights if they get the chance. Hackers exist to keep those folks in line. When itunes came out, I thought it was the greatest thing ever. Then DRM ruined it. We thought it was the labels forcing DRM on the downloads...turns out it was Jobs. Should I pay retail price for something that will only pay on Apple products that I don't use? No. But hackers give me the tools to strip that rights infringing DRM off my rightfully purchased music and play it wherever I damn well please. Now, thanks to that resulting outcry, Amazon has a growing music store that I can purchase music from with no DRM whatsoever. I have no issue with them and buy everything commercially available legally from Amazon outright, or from itunes then strip the DRM.
I've lost count how many times I downloaded an album to try, then bought it. I wouldn't have bought it had I not had the chance to illegally download it. You can't hear my kind of music on mainstream radio, or TV. Radio is owned by conglomerates and live TV performances never sound representative of the album. I download it first. If I like it, I'll buy it. If I don't, I'll delete it because it wasn't worth keeping anyway. Should all the people who bought a CD and ripped mp3s to play on their ipod be considered criminals because the record industry thinks they should buy a separate mp3 version of the album as well? That's bullsh*t, but without hackers, that's the kind of bulldog mentality labels would take with their customers.
As for movies, I rarely run into an instance where I needed to pirate a commercially available movie. I'll just buy the DVD, if it's available UNLESS it was released in another country and region codes prevent me from being able to play it. Then I pirate in protest. Usually the release will make it here eventually, but if it doesn't, I have no moral issues with pirating something they wouldn't let me play anyway. I bittorrent a lot of TV shows that won't ever appear commercially (but buy them if/when they do). Companies would love to make that illegal if they could. They tried to make the VCR illegal upon release. Yet illegal piracy has helped home video releases as well. Fansubbers are technically illegal, but they generate interest in anime that would have likely never seen light of day in America otherwise. Tiny Toon Adventures wasn't worth releasing on DVD in Warner's opinion, but the thousands of illegal YouTube videos uploaded and the resulting millions of views finally showed them there is a market for classic 90's cartoons. Would we have gotten them otherwise? Doubtful.
Remember when Windows Vista launched with a built in kill switch Microsoft could use if they found "un-certified software" on your machine? Hackers took care of that. Many people bought the release, then download the crack to make their machines safe from the conglomerate again.
As for games, I buy everything legit. I always have. Yet once I've bought something, I'll do whatever the hell I want with it. I cracked my PSP with custom firmware. I admit it. I could play every retail release without paying a dime, but I don't because of my own conscious. Games aren't like music. Like books, once you've read/played it, you're going to feel less obligated to buy it in many instances. I know this, so I refrain. BUT, once I've bought that UMD, I will occasionally load a backup of the title on the memory stick and play it off that for the sake of helping loading times. Sony says that's illegal. I say, "I bought it--bite me".
Yet hackers also do a great service. I've talked about the Virtual Console's limitations before. What would the world do without illegal emulation projects like MAME? Thousands of classic arcade games not seen as commercially viable would be dropped into the anals of time and forgotten. Pac-Man was once seen as one of those titles. MAME changed that perception and now Namco nickles and dimes us for every retro title they have the rights to, but there will be some that are always commercially unavailable thanks to copyright claims. They will never be sold again, so I feel totally legit pirating them because I'm not hurting anyone's bottom line to do it.
Companies have got to realize that things like DRM only exist to punish the people who actually bought the product and is more likely to drive them to hackers and piracy in frustration of the violation of their rights. Hackers keep those greedy companies in check. As long as they serve me, I'm glad to give them all my money. No profit = no future games. Yet somebody has got to be there to kick their ass when they step out of line.
Modders dont get sympathy from me, because its their modding that allows fake games to be played on consoles and handhelds. I hate seeing people with a DS or PSP, asking them what games did they buy with it and hearing them say none. I just got an R4 or whatever and downloaded like 25 games.
But what about modders who want legit games? I plan on getting a moddisk/flip top for my PS2 so I can finally play some Initial D. I'd love to purchase a Japanese system, but they're expensive to import. At what point do you draw the line?
But what about modders who want legit games? I plan on getting a moddisk/flip top for my PS2 so I can finally play some Initial D. I'd love to purchase a Japanese system, but they're expensive to import. At what point do you draw the line?
I see no issue with that. Region codes are the most pointless thing in the market today, next to DRM. If a company can't release a game domestically due to copyright claims--fine. But why put code on the disc that limits potential foreign customers from importing the product? It serves no purpose, and is the one thing that should be dead in this HD age. The world will soon share one video format. What use are region codes today other than appease some Japanese third party executive who claims, "If you aren't Japanese, you can't play our games!"?
DRM wouldnt exist if it wsnt for this big problem in the first place. Look at record sales today. 10 years ago, someone with a number one song would easily sell 10million+ records. Now theyd be lucky to break 3, after 4 number ones.
__________________
give me a second go, dont let me go alone, you saw me at the worst, you caught me falling first
DRM wouldnt exist if it wsnt for this big problem in the first place. Look at record sales today. 10 years ago, someone with a number one song would easily sell 10million+ records. Now theyd be lucky to break 3, after 4 number ones.
On the flip side, being able to download music has given thousands of artists who would have otherwise wallowed in obscurity the opportunity to actually be heard. Very few people will pay $15-20 up front for an obscure artist/band but the popularity many smaller acts have gained over the net have allowed them to continue doing what they enjoy. I would argue that none of them have lost sales because it's incredibly unlikely anyone would take a chance on them with no prior knowledge, the free "sample" got their foot in the door.
I also believe that part of story behind the sales decline of chart-topping artists has to do with how diverse the musical landscape has become. The internet has allowed people to find genres and artists they otherwise would have never heard of and they're supporting those people instead of Rihanna, Jay-Z, whatever. I don't think that's really a bad thing either, the pie is just more spread out and in the end we have more choices.
It's also important to note that popular music has become, ironically, more and more popular to loathe as the years pass which has no doubt hurt certain individuals who sit atop the charts regularly.
Defending DRM is a fool's errand anyway, it does absolutely nothing to stop the people it supposedly intends to target because *surprise* they are already savvy enough to download programs illegally to strip the tech as Lucas has noted. All it does is inconvenience the honest customer who just wants to listen to the album they legally purchased without being nickeled and dimed any further.
Fun Surfing
Linear Mode
