nexus hate?

[JimboUK]

Modern DRM is self defeating, it does nothing to stop piracy, the only people who suffer are those of us that have bought the product, those who stole the thing don't have any DRM to deal with in the first place. As I said in the Ubisoft thread, you don't tackle piracy by making the retail product inferior to the pirate version. That said you don't fight DRM by stealing their products, the only message that sends is either you're skint or too tight to pay for your goods, either way you're an irrelevance to them. Keeping your money in your pocket and ignoring their products is the only way to make them think, even the morons over at Ubisoft must know their woes are self inflicted, if they don't then maybe the stockholders need to force a shake up.

[amycus]

Modern DRM is self defeating, it does nothing to stop piracy, the only people who suffer are those of us that have bought the product, those who stole the thing don't have any DRM to deal with in the first place. As I said in the Ubisoft thread, you don't tackle piracy by making the retail product inferior to the pirate version. That said you don't fight DRM by stealing their products, the only message that sends is either you're skint or too tight to pay for your goods, either way you're an irrelevance to them. Keeping your money in your pocket and ignoring their products is the only way to make them think, even the morons over at Ubisoft must know their woes are self inflicted, if they don't then maybe the stockholders need to force a shake up.

http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/791728635_VJ8Qa-L.jpg

[buddah]

That image sums it up nicely !

[JimboUK]

That image sums it up nicely !

 

It certainly does. I look at this way, games are supposed to be entertainment, a fun pass time. When I'm expected to jump through hoops to play or have my private data stolen then they stop being fun and I'm no longer interested.

[Quetzlsacatanango]

Dark0ne's manifesto

 

I will always stand on the side of the right of an individual to use their property as they see fit, for whatever reason's they see fit, and to engage into contracts as they see fit providing they are enforceable.

 

But if we are having a philosophical discussion about piracy, and I guess intellectual property in general, I think time will show that you are on the wrong side of it this time.

 

Until this century, copyright infringement != theft, either in law or the public consciousness. Copyright infringement was a civil matter, theft a criminal one (speaking for the US of course, IANAL, etc and so forth). Now we have the DMCA and all manner of lunacy and the more proposed laws and related legal situations that come up around it, the more it becomes clear that in the real world there is no such thing as intellectual property. If I download an album from some website, no one lost anything. The artist didn't, the record company didn't, the website didn't. If your hired coder walks off with a copy of the code he wrote you still have it. Yes he violated your contractual agreement, and if you can prove it (i.e. make the contract enforceable) then you should pursue all manner of legal remedies against him for that breach. If he took it to the other site across the street and made you less competitive as a result, you should pursue that matter as well. But at the end of the day, him walking off with the code didn't take anything from you.

 

Further, I don't recall anyone, ever, showing that unauthorized distribution of their creative works materially harmed them in any way, many tech companies notwithstanding, as a lot of them have their value tied up in their software patent portfolios, whose foundation is resting on this house of cards to begin with.

 

If anything, companies like Microsoft and Adobe have shown that widespread piracy of their products create more demand for their product. Photoshop didn't become a verb by accident.

 

I think the future will show that any cool idea you have that can't be protected without legislation will be deemed not worth protecting. If this turns out to actually stifle innovation as **AAs, software patent portfolio holders, etc. contend, I will eat my skintight silver jumpsuit, or whatever we are all wearing in the future.

 

FYI this is coming from someone who has made and sold artwork for money.

[Jaguarnaut]

If I've mistaken your identity, just consider that which applies and disregard the rest.

 

If you are talking to me yes, you are completely and sadly mistaken. I am not banned from the Nexus. I don't know or care about creating multiple identities. I bought Skyrim because it was worth the money, but I actually care about other people, hence my complaints.

 

Anyway, my questions have been answered and I wish you all a good evening/ day.

[LadyMilla]

Dark0ne's manifesto

 

I will always stand on the side of the right of an individual to use their property as they see fit, for whatever reason's they see fit, and to engage into contracts as they see fit providing they are enforceable.

 

 

With the below argument, you just denied the individual the right to exercise control over their own property.

 

 

But if we are having a philosophical discussion about piracy, and I guess intellectual property in general, I think time will show that you are on the wrong side of it this time.

 

Until this century, copyright infringement != theft, either in law or the public consciousness. Copyright infringement was a civil matter, theft a criminal one (speaking for the US of course, IANAL, etc and so forth). Now we have the DMCA and all manner of lunacy and the more proposed laws and related legal situations that come up around it, the more it becomes clear that in the real world there is no such thing as intellectual property. If I download an album from some website, no one lost anything. The artist didn't, the record company didn't, the website didn't. If your hired coder walks off with a copy of the code he wrote you still have it. Yes he violated your contractual agreement, and if you can prove it (i.e. make the contract enforceable) then you should pursue all manner of legal remedies against him for that breach. If he took it to the other site across the street and made you less competitive as a result, you should pursue that matter as well. But at the end of the day, him walking off with the code didn't take anything from you.

 

Further, I don't recall anyone, ever, showing that unauthorized distribution of their creative works materially harmed them in any way, many tech companies notwithstanding, as a lot of them have their value tied up in their software patent portfolios, whose foundation is resting on this house of cards to begin with.

 

If anything, companies like Microsoft and Adobe have shown that widespread piracy of their products create more demand for their product. Photoshop didn't become a verb by accident.

 

I think the future will show that any cool idea you have that can't be protected without legislation will be deemed not worth protecting. If this turns out to actually stifle innovation as **AAs, software patent portfolio holders, etc. contend, I will eat my skintight silver jumpsuit, or whatever we are all wearing in the future.

 

FYI this is coming from someone who has made and sold artwork for money.

 

If you walk away with an authorized copy, you denied the owner the right to control his property. In a physical sense, you did not take anything from him because he still have his own original copy - but you denied him the right, or rather you violated his right to exercise control over it. He said: "I won't give you a copy of my work if you don't pay me a certain amount of money". In response, you ignored his intent, took a copy and walked away. You came into possession of something that was not meant for you unless you satisfy certain conditions (e.g. payment) imposed by the owner. Did you cause him verifiable financial loss? Hard to tell. Pirates usually claim that there is no verifiable loss due to illegal copying because it cannot be proved that, given all other options to acquire the item are blocked, the person who obtained a copy of the product would have bought it. Still, both the party who illegally obtained a copy, and the middleman (the illegal distributor) are guilty because: a) they both violated the owner's right to control his own product, and b) the distributor also deprived the owner of the chance to sell his products under his own terms to the person who illegally obtained a copy of it through the distributor.

 

How does this compare to e.g. shoplifting?

- You own something;

- You are not willing to provide other people with that something unless they satisfy certain conditions (e.g. payment);

- They obtain that thing without satisfying your conditions.

- Through their action, the number of people you can potentially provide with that product under your own terms has been reduced.

 

For me, the ability of exercising control over the property I own is a fundamental principle, regardless of the fact whether or not I intend to use the earning capacity of that property. But let's see another scenario: what if I invested heavily into an intellectual product that I intend to sell on a niche market (consisting only a couple of customers)? If you take a copy of that product, and distribute it to that couple of people, you basically destroyed my business, and you caused me real financial loss. The fact that out of that dozen potential customer, maybe four or five would have bought it anyway does not negate the other fact that now NONE of them will be buying, because they already have a copy. So in that regard, copying was no different than breaking into a factory and removing physical products from it.

 

Just some food for thought.

[buddah]

Just some statics, only 5080 banned members out of the over 3 million registered accounts. Yeah, we are real hard to get along with.

 

But you would not know on other sites, this is one of the few that announces their staff actions.

 

A good portion of the banned are offensive user names. No threads are created to these folks, it would violate the rules to post them.

[Quetzlsacatanango]

With the below argument, you just denied the individual the right to exercise control over their own property.

 

...

 

Just some food for thought.

 

No I didn't because I am arguing that intellectual property is not property at all :)

[LadyMilla]

With the below argument, you just denied the individual the right to exercise control over their own property.

 

...

 

Just some food for thought.

 

No I didn't because I am arguing that intellectual property is not property at all :)

 

Then I argue that it is a property, because, except its duplicability, it has the same characteristics as any other property.