Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > iOS Blog Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Apr 1, 2013, 02:59 PM   #76
SmoMo
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
To live outside the law you must be honest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anarchopath View Post
Circular logic is fallacious reasoning. Norms And I wouldn't expect the mindless drones who support government out of failure to think critically to challenge it in one of it's most economically and morally defunct institutions: IP. So I understand why you support government and IP, but please, for justice and humanity, stop to think for a second.
Wow, what an interesting conversation, but I do think we need to really focus back on the main question of Piracy.

Look there, is no guarantee that you are definitely going to enjoy the App, some things in life come with a guarantee, some don't.

Should everything in life should come with a money-back guarantee?

Is this really your whole crusade in life, that you want a money back guarantee for spending a $1 on a game for your iPhone?

What about all those aggressive and violent corrupt and immoral IP inventing and imposing glazed eyed modern overly powerful propaganda governments you've been invoking at every opportunity in a conversation about iPhone App piracy?

Do you actually care about the real people in the world who are being tortured and killed , or living in poverty, or crushed by violent regimes?

If you do care about them, then please do something more than just pleading for a money-back guarantee on a $1 game for your iPhone.

You have completely missed the point.
SmoMo is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2013, 04:28 PM   #77
Snowy_River
macrumors 68020
 
Snowy_River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Corvallis, OR
Send a message via AIM to Snowy_River Send a message via Yahoo to Snowy_River
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVonMagnum View Post
I devoted 7 years of the spare time of my life to making pinball games for Visual Pinball and gave it all away for free...
Interesting argument. The main thrust, as I see it, is "I chose to give away a bunch of my work for free, therefore no one can really expect to get paid for their work, and thus piracy is completely justified."
Snowy_River is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2013, 05:40 PM   #78
anarchopath
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowy_River View Post
...therefore no one [is entitled to income] for [copies and derivatives of non-scarce information]
Fixed your red herring and turned it into a relevant comment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowy_River View Post
...thus [peacefully making use of non-scarce information] is completely justified.
Fixed that for you.
anarchopath is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2013, 06:14 PM   #79
SmoMo
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Expect to be entitled

Quote:
Originally Posted by anarchopath View Post
Fixed your red herring and turned it into a relevant comment.
Fixed that for you.
In your fixing you replaced the word 'expect' into 'entitled' but why?

To expect payment for creating an App, and to be entitled to payment for creating an App are quite different things, but in this context does it make any difference?

Of course the majority of App authors expect payment, this is why they put a price on the App and don't just release it for free.
And y'know what, they are pretty much right in their expectations most of the time, perhaps they are surprised at how little ( or even how much ) they get paid but to expect payment for making an App is a very sensible expectation.

Now to be entitled to something, what does that mean? I'm not sure if you can really be entitled to anything without that entitlement being written into a legal system. Would you say you were entitled to clean air and water just from the fact of being a human, it seems to me that everyone should get that, but to be 'entitled' to it seems to be that it should be written in some kind of constitution right?
Or a bill on human rights etc..

So is an App author entitled for payment for his App, well the law says that if he puts a price on it and someone makes use of the App then Yes, quite clearly yes he is entitled to payment for the App.
As we just saw, there isn't any other meaning of entitlement outside of the law, so you just demonstrated nothing by changing the word from 'expecting' to 'entitled'

Are you actually reading back what you have been writing, it is very ill thought out, repetitive and has all the hallmarks of a poncy pseudo-intelectual, I have a good mind to ask you what books you have read.
How about we move the discussion onto Hobbes' social contract, contrasting with Rousseau's Popular sovereignty, I'd be fascinated in your views on how you reconcile Jean Baudrillard's total simulacrum of those govermental foundations with DeBord's Society of the Spectacle.
Alas I've only read an English translation, I'm sure you will have read the French original so you can lead.
SmoMo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2013, 06:27 PM   #80
MagnusVonMagnum
macrumors 68040
 
MagnusVonMagnum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowy_River View Post
Interesting argument. The main thrust, as I see it, is "I chose to give away a bunch of my work for free, therefore no one can really expect to get paid for their work, and thus piracy is completely justified."
Well, I guess you only see what you want to see because that sure as heck isn't what I was saying at all.
__________________
Mac Mini Server 2012 (2.3GHz Quad i7, 8GB, 2x1TB RAID 0) ; External 12x Memorex Blu-Ray USB3, External WD 3x3TB,1x2TB HD USB3)
15" Matte MBP 2.4GHz, 4GB/500GB, NVidia 8600M GT; 3 ATV; 2 iPod Touch
MagnusVonMagnum is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2013, 07:52 PM   #81
coolspot18
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unggoy Murderer View Post
Well said Sir.

On a side note, I hate people who say "I download stuff to try it out. If I like it, I'll buy it." The logic is so stupid, it's like stealing a car for a weekend, and then going back to the dealership, or driving it off a pier.

Just buy stuff, or look up reviews. Save the economy, and small businesses.
When you steal a car, you are stealing a single, unique, physical item.

Stealing software or other intellectual property is different, you are a stealing an idea, which has no material value.

This being an online game is different in the fact that physical resources are used to support the game, but if it were an offline game, if 1 or 1 million stole the game, the developer has lost nothing really.
coolspot18 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2013, 08:55 AM   #82
anarchopath
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmoMo View Post
In your fixing you replaced the word 'expect' into 'entitled' but why?

To expect payment for creating [non-scarce information], and to be entitled to payment for creating [non-scarce information] are quite different things
Sure, I'm all for a deep intellectual discussion, but you'll have to demonstrate that you can pay attention to detail... You pretty much explained in several paragraphs what I'd already said. Of course someone isn't entitled to income by mere virtue of creating something.

What I was saying is no one is entitled to income for copies of non-scarce information. Granted, a person may be said to be entitled to income for copies where he and the buyer have made a mutually voluntary exchange, but people copying information over the internet are generally quite happy to avoid promising money for non-scarce information.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmoMo View Post
well the law says that if he puts a price on it and someone makes use of the App then Yes, quite clearly yes he is entitled to payment for the App.
And if the law says I'm your slave, does that mean you're entitled to me? You aren't able to jump to the moon just because a law says you are.

Anyway I've read a lot. I'd be interested in a rigorous intellectual discussion, especially since I happen to have a lazy day at work today!

Last edited by anarchopath; Apr 2, 2013 at 11:40 AM.
anarchopath is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2013, 09:27 AM   #83
iSee
macrumors 68030
 
iSee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmoMo View Post
So are the developers saying that they sold X copies of the game, but for every legitimate copy there were Y pirate copies being played?

I don't understand how this resulted in their server experiencing too much congestion unless Y is a really large number right?
Even if 99% of the copies were pirate I am surprised the server could not cope, after-all surely they were prepared for that eventuality in case they had actually managed to sell that many copies.

Perhaps they were using a scalable cloud service and they just couldn't afford to keep it running due to such poor sales, and emphasising the large number of pirate copies was a way to save face.

I don't know, so I would take what they say at face value, but I'd love to know the value of Y.
If 99% of the players were pirating, then they'd need 100 times the server capacity... Without any money to pay for it. Servers aren't free to buy, rent or maintain, and neither is bandwidth. Pirates like to say that it doesn't take anything away from anyone but obviously that's not true.

Note that they've switched to single-player model, so that at least the piracy doesn't actually cost them money beyond lost sales.
__________________
"Nobody ever reads these things so I can write anything. I'd eat bananas every day if they were crunchy."
iSee is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2013, 11:47 AM   #84
anarchopath
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSee View Post
Note that they've switched to single-player model, so that at least the piracy doesn't actually cost them money beyond lost sales.
You're making the same fallacy as most IP supporters: assuming the maintenance and enforcement of a monopoly-grant system is costless. And beyond that, do you stop to consider that the cost to obtain these monopoly grants, and the litigation these companies go through, is born by the consumer?

Nothing in life is free, least of all the leviathan apparatus that supports IP.
anarchopath is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2013, 12:57 PM   #85
iSee
macrumors 68030
 
iSee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by anarchopath View Post
You're making the same fallacy as most IP supporters: assuming the maintenance and enforcement of a monopoly-grant system is costless. And beyond that, do you stop to consider that the cost to obtain these monopoly grants, and the litigation these companies go through, is born by the consumer?

Nothing in life is free, least of all the leviathan apparatus that supports IP.
Sorry, but taking server resources paid for by someone else (stealing, that is) has nothing to do with monopoly grants.
It's not even (directly) an IP matter.
The fallacy, I'm afraid, is all yours.

BTW, I agree that IP systems are not at all free to maintain. Of course, neither is the lack of an IP system. The purpose of an IP system is to encourage ceative endevors to benefit society. Of course, if behooves us to do this in a way that is as cheap to implement effectively as possible. That's really a side issue, though.

The problem is that the companies that are on top right now do not agree on the purpose of an IP system. They want to subvert it so that it maximizes their own profits and keeps them on top.

E.g., in general IP systems work by granting a temporary exclusive right to the results of a creative process, which, after a time reverts to the public. The creator has a chance to profit in the short term, while society ultimately gets the benefit of what is created.
Companies have been chaning temporary into essentially forever (there are limits, but all the cases where real profit is at stake -- that is, where the creative product has most societal value -- the limits have been increased to very long periods.) . And they've been working on subverted the enforcement mechanisms so that the costs of protecting the IP falls mainly on tax payers. That is, the benefit accrues mainly to private companies and the cost fall mainly to tax payers. At this point it's become a pretty ineffective system.
You call me an IP supporter. And I am, in general. I believe a correctly implemented IP system will encourage creative contributions to society. But I don't actually support the current IP system that has been thoroughly subverted.

But none of that justifies stealing stuff. That's what it going on here.

I feel the current IP laws have been subverted by corporations, that they no longer represent an ethical bargain, and I don't feel any ethical obligation to follow them. But that doesn't mean I can just take stuff I want.

If you don't want to be a simple thief, at least go back to the foundations of a fair IP system: don't pirate anything that is less than, say, 10 years old. Before that, either pay the asking price or wait.
__________________
"Nobody ever reads these things so I can write anything. I'd eat bananas every day if they were crunchy."
iSee is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2013, 01:15 PM   #86
anarchopath
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSee View Post
The problem is that the companies that are on top right now...want to maximize their own profits and keep on top.
You must not have been following the thread, so let me clarify the fundamental premise of IP, and you'll see why it's inherently violent and therefore corrupt and why it always tends to expand:

Some people with an institutionalized monopoly on violence hand out grants of monopoly privilege, and use violence to enforce those grants against peaceful people. What else would you expect besides intelligent people using and expanding the system to their advantage? Power corrupts.

Like someone once said, "you know flies are attracted to ****, so you don't place a gigantic pile of **** on top of society if you don't want flies everywhere." The system (inherently corrupt) is operating exactly as it's intended to. It's not an accident...
anarchopath is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2013, 06:12 PM   #87
bilboa
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneMadRssn View Post
That's true, but it's similar to someone sneaking into a theater and taking a seat, thereby depriving someone else of a seat. It's still similar to trespass, not theft. The thing being stolen is commoditized in this case, but I still don't think its exhaustible.

The server limit is artificial in a way.
The server limits aren't artificial. Servers are physical computers, with finite computing power, that cost actual money to operate. Server limits are only artificial in the same sense that movie theater seating limits are artificial; sure you could buy more servers or build a bigger theater to handle additional demand, but that takes actual money and time to do.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by AFDoc View Post
Logic is silly... I can test drive a car if I wish. IF I pay for an app and it's **** I'm stuck with a crap app and out my X$. Sorry but people are stupid and their reviews can't be trusted. I am one of those, "I download stuff to try it out" people. Give a refund policy on apps and this wouldn't be an issue. I d/l, try, delete if crap, purchase if good. Developer gets my business/money if their product is worth it, no one is harmed if it's crap because I certainly don't keep it.... so basically I keep myself protected from the developer's possibly crappy app and them keeping my money if I'm not satisfied with their app.
True, but on the other hand cars cost tens of thousands of dollars, whereas most mobile games cost about as much as a burger at McDonalds. It's not at all an equivalent situation. I would like it if more game makers provided free demos, but really, when you're talking about apps that cost $2 or $3, or even horrors, sometimes up to $6.99, just read some reviews of the app and decide whether to take the risk, and then pay the developer.
bilboa is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2013, 09:32 AM   #88
bilboa
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by smetvid View Post
The argument that if there was a trial version this wouldn't happen is just not true. Look at software like Adobe Photoshop that does in fact have a 30 day fully functional trial version and yet is one of the most pirated pieces of software out there. Having a trial version does nothing to curb pirating. Diablo 3 in fact had a trial version up to a certain point in the game but people still pirate it.

Humans are not honest enough for that kind of thinking. Maybe some of you can sleep at night with this justification but that doesn't change the fact that you are making up your own rules to cater to your own selfish needs. You as an individual do not get to decide how and when a copyrighted material is ok or not ok to pirate.
I totally agree with this. This justification is even sillier for iOS games, since many of them cost less than $5, and almost all are less than $10. That, combined with the fact that you can read reviews of games on the iTunes store and game websites before buying a game, means that having a demo to try is much less of an issue in this case. I really can't believe that many people are pirating iOS games just to avoid the risk of spending $2 or $3 on a game they end up not liking. Do these same people demand a free sample of every burger or snack they're trying for the first time, before buying it?

I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to have a trial period like the Android store has, but I just don't think the lack of this feature is really the main reason people are pirating iOS games.
bilboa is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2013, 11:59 AM   #89
MagnusVonMagnum
macrumors 68040
 
MagnusVonMagnum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by smetvid View Post
The argument that if there was a trial version this wouldn't happen is just not true.
And what proof do you have? I have purchased numerous games after playing a demo/trial version. I would not have purchased them without that demo. I'm not alone in this regard. Do you buy a car without so much as a test drive? If you do, you're probably more likely to hate the car you get than someone who has tested it out first.

Quote:
Look at software like Adobe Photoshop that does in fact have a 30 day fully functional trial version and yet is one of the most pirated pieces of software out there.
Like it or not, it's heavily pirated because of its high price (those who make money can justify that cost while many who do not and never will find it much harder to palette). Logic Pro sales took off into the App Store top ten for most of the past two years when the priced dropped from $499 to $199 (and it was once $999 before that). Because most people don't equate "copying" with "theft" in the material sense (and neither do the laws; they are completely separate), they feel more justified in doing what they feel is FAIR since most laws aren't designed these days to be "fair" but to cater to the richest lobbyists, which sadly isn't the general populace. You can argue they should just change the laws, but that's hard to do when all the money is on one side of the issue. Many people prefer vigilante justice over no justice at all, so to speak. I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying that's how it is. The Napster versus iTunes examples supports the same idea. People do the right thing when it's FAIR to do so. Ethics are not laws and laws aren't always ethical. And like it or not, copying doesn't remove any material goods so trying to equate it directly to "theft" is just plain wrong and yet that is constantly the first thing people type when they want to argue against it. If you can't even argue the TRUTH, don't even bother to argue since starting with a LIE gives your argument no credence what-so-ever.

From a religious standpoint in the most popular religion in the U.S., is that ALL humans are self-centered (save perhaps one named Jesus) and all have fallen short. From that viewpoint, if you think Steve Jobs is at the 9th level of Heaven right now for never giving a single dime to charity when he had BILLIONS and made no bones about it, I think you might be disappointed. Selfish behavior is not limited to what is "legal" or not in the eyes of God. I don't recall a "Thou shalt not copy" in the 10 Commandments or anywhere else in the Bible and so I don't see a religious foundation for the concept of a "copyright" law. To the contrary, the Bible was widely distributed free of charge as it should be. The Bible also teaches to sell your material wealth and use it to help the poor. I don't see many on here doing that so I'd conclude the Bible is correct in saying all have fallen short.

Of course my faith is not your faith, but it is your lack of respect for ideas other than your own that drives me to reply in the first place. You've taken what is really a complex issue and reduced it to being black and white. That's fine if you're a prosecutor for the legal system, but it doesn't explain human behavior which is a lot more complex. Many people believe in free information and devote a lot of their time to making and giving away free software (I spent 7 years of my life doing it) and even entire operating systems like Linux are based on it and they don't do it because they're "selfish". They do it because they're NOT selfish. Think about it.

Quote:
Having a trial version does nothing to curb pirating. Diablo 3 in fact had a trial version up to a certain point in the game but people still pirate it.
It does "nothing", eh? I think your argument problems stem from your use of absolutes. It's just plain poppycock at that point. I only have to show one person bought Diablo 3 after playing the trial to prove your statement false and that's not hard to do.

Quote:
Humans are not honest enough for that kind of thinking.
Your assessment of humans is pretty condescending. I think most people inherently want to do the right thing, but are put off by the sheer examples of greed and carelessness demonstrated by large companies and corporations doing everything from dumping toxic waste (because the fines are less than the disposal fees or they feel they can get away with it). Right or not, vigilante justice is very real. People don't want to hear a murderer got off on a legal technicality. Laws often fall short. Make a FAIR law and people will obey it because they AGREE with it (of course some will always disobey, but this isn't a 100% kind of thing). Make what people see as unfair law and people will often IGNORE it.

Quote:
Maybe some of you can sleep at night with this justification but that doesn't change the fact that you are making up your own rules to cater to your own selfish needs.
No, I try to follow God's laws, not YOUR laws and I sleep quite well doing that.

Quote:
You as an individual do not get to decide how and when a copyrighted material is ok or not ok to pirate.
Did the founders of the United States of America get to decide that we split from the British government? What gave them the right to do that? Their own personal desire to REVOLT against their own government??? That sure as hell wasn't LEGAL!!! They decided their WILLS and the use of force makes right, not the existing law and they didn't decide to do it through legal channels. Try reading the Declaration of Independence some time. The believed that corruption and misuse of government was all the justification needed to declare all the laws null and void and create a new government. That is a FAR CRY from the idea that we should blindly obey all laws and people seem to forget that in this country.

So how is that different from what you're talking about? Man's "laws" aren't all there is to life and laws can be changed and they can be ignored and the only thing another person can do is try to force their punishment on that person. If I lived in Nazi Germany should I have obeyed the government's laws??? WTF is a "law" other than someone trying to force their will on you? What if you have a problem with a given law? Do you obey it without question? Think about it.

I'm not responding in this forum to encourage people to pirate. Quite the contrary, I encourage those that can afford it to support those that create good games, music, etc. But I'm also encouraging people to think about things before acting rather than just blindly follow people since they might just end up following them off the side of a cliff. I keep seeing legal arguments when the reason for a law's existence in the first place is supposed to be an ethical one, but it's just not always the case.

In short, I buy software for the RIGHT reason, not just because it's a law and WHY you do things is FAR more important in my beliefs than what you actually do. Obeying laws out only out of fear of being punished shows no decision making and no spiritual progress. If you break a law (ethical or not), you can expect to pay the consequence of that law. In some cases, it might well be worth it (i.e. if it saves a human life like in Nazi Germany). It may not be worth it even if the law is bogus (i.e. perhaps jaywalking when there's no traffic). But that's a decision people have to make for themselves and that decision is an important one. Regardless of the outcome of that decision, at least they made one and will probably learn from it either way instead of being a mindless sheep.
__________________
Mac Mini Server 2012 (2.3GHz Quad i7, 8GB, 2x1TB RAID 0) ; External 12x Memorex Blu-Ray USB3, External WD 3x3TB,1x2TB HD USB3)
15" Matte MBP 2.4GHz, 4GB/500GB, NVidia 8600M GT; 3 ATV; 2 iPod Touch
MagnusVonMagnum is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2013, 12:50 PM   #90
bilboa
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVonMagnum View Post
And what proof do you have? I have purchased numerous games after playing a demo/trial version. I would not have purchased them without that demo. I'm not alone in this regard. Do you buy a car without so much as a test drive? If you do, you're probably more likely to hate the car you get than someone who has tested it out first.



Like it or not, it's heavily pirated because of its high price (those who make money can justify that cost while many who do not and never will find it much harder to palette). Logic Pro sales took off into the App Store top ten for most of the past two years when the priced dropped from $499 to $199 (and it was once $999 before that). Because most people don't equate "copying" with "theft" in the material sense (and neither do the laws; they are completely separate), they feel more justified in doing what they feel is FAIR since most laws aren't designed these days to be "fair" but to cater to the richest lobbyists, which sadly isn't the general populace.
I think your general point is valid, but I think applying your arguments about cars which cost tens of thousands of dollars, and Nazis oppressing people, to the topic of buying apps whose cost generally ranges from $1 to at most $10, is a bit of a stretch. I agree with your general point that people are more likely to follow rules which they think are reasonable and make sense. For example many otherwise law-abiding citizens think nothing of going over the speed limit on highways, because the speed limits seem unreasonably low on most highways.

I think one of the negative consequences of having laws on the books which most people consider to be unreasonable, is that people can develop a general disrespect for following rules and start using that as a rationalization for breaking other more justifiable rules. To continue with the speed limit example, due to unreasonably low speed limits on major highways, some people might develop a habit of disregarding all speed limits, and drive much too fast through residential areas where they actually are endangering people by doing so. To come back to the present discussion, it seems to me like you're using the fact that some people think software like Photoshop and Logic Pro, produced by large wealthy companies, is unreasonably expensive, to justify people pirating other software which costs just a few bucks and is often produced by small developers.
bilboa is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2013, 01:01 PM   #91
MagnusVonMagnum
macrumors 68040
 
MagnusVonMagnum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by bilboa View Post
I think your general point is valid, but I think applying your arguments about cars which cost tens of thousands of dollars, and Nazis oppressing people, to the topic of buying apps whose cost generally ranges from $1 to at most $10, is a bit of a stretch. I agree with your general point that people are more likely to follow rules which they think are reasonable and make sense. For example many otherwise law-abiding citizens think nothing of going over the speed limit on highways, because the speed limits seem unreasonably low on most highways.
I was simply trying to give a more extreme example (which thousands used as a defense...they were only following the law/orders) to make a point, not to compare it directly to piracy. The basic principle of evaluating laws versus your own beliefs/ethics is still the same, however.

Quote:
I think one of the negative consequences of having laws on the books which most people consider to be unreasonable, is that people can develop a general disrespect for following rules and start using that as a rationalization for breaking other more justifiable rules. To continue with the speed limit
This is why I stress that having a strong sense of ethics and respect for others is far more important. If you care about others, you don't try to hurt them. Treat others as you would have them treat you is the basics of all ethical behavior. The problems arise when people make unreasonable laws or behave in unreasonable manners towards others. Those people then feel a desire to "return the favor" so-to-speak.

Quote:
example, due to unreasonably low speed limits on major highways, some people might develop a habit of disregarding all speed limits, and drive much too fast through residential areas where they actually are endangering people by doing so. To come back to the present discussion, it seems to me like you're using the fact that some people think software like Photoshop and Logic Pro, produced by large wealthy companies, is unreasonably expensive, to justify people pirating other software which costs just a few bucks and is often produced by small developers.
Like I said, I was talking about general principles. It's still a bad idea for Apple to not allow demos.
__________________
Mac Mini Server 2012 (2.3GHz Quad i7, 8GB, 2x1TB RAID 0) ; External 12x Memorex Blu-Ray USB3, External WD 3x3TB,1x2TB HD USB3)
15" Matte MBP 2.4GHz, 4GB/500GB, NVidia 8600M GT; 3 ATV; 2 iPod Touch
MagnusVonMagnum is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 4, 2013, 02:18 PM   #92
Unggoy Murderer
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Livingston, Scotland
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolspot18 View Post
When you steal a car, you are stealing a single, unique, physical item.

Stealing software or other intellectual property is different, you are a stealing an idea, which has no material value.

This being an online game is different in the fact that physical resources are used to support the game, but if it were an offline game, if 1 or 1 million stole the game, the developer has lost nothing really.
You're such a child, you should be embarrassed by that statement. If you stole 1 game, then another person did the same, then a million others did, and the game costs $1.00... that dev's lost out on $700,000.

Just because it doesn't have material value doesn't mean it's worthless or right to take. I mean, I could steal your wife, I'd struggle to sell her on Ebay, but she has value to you...

Wake up.
__________________
27" iMac, i7 3.4GHz, 16GB RAM 13" MBP 2.66 GHz, 8GB RAM 3rd Gen iPad 64 GB Wifi+4G, iOS 7 iPhone 5 32 GB, iOS 7 Mac Mini 2.00 GHz, 2GB RAM
Unggoy Murderer is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 4, 2013, 06:07 PM   #93
MagnusVonMagnum
macrumors 68040
 
MagnusVonMagnum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unggoy Murderer View Post
If you stole 1 game, then another person did the same, then a million others did, and the game costs $1.00... that dev's lost out on $700,000.
Before I begin, I'll reiterate MY position is to support art I like and artists I like. The copying aspect is meaningless to me since the act itself is just shuffling bits of ones and zeroes around and trying to equate THAT to breaking into someone's house and taking their television is just utterly absurd. Stealing is stealing and copying is copying. The former is always wrong. The latter happens every time you boot your computer whether you know it or not. In fact, just thinking about a song you heard on the radio is pretty much playing back a copy your brain AUTOMATICALLY stored in your head (can they sue me for that too?). You can't un-hear something. God designed my brain to RECORD EVERYTHING so I could technically even make a case that God is 100% for copying information since he designed a brain that does it constantly. But the real QUESTION is whether intellectual ideas that get converted into stored data (i.e. ART) is worth supporting or not and I say YES, it is. But it can't all be supported so I support art I actually LIKE. And if I don't like it, I don't generally watch/listen to it so I find myself in line with copyright law most of the time without even trying.

But the idea that every copy of something like a game or even an album is a lost sale is really a fallacy because it's ONLY true IF those same people would have bought the game if they could have not have gotten a pirated copy but that is obviously NOT always the case (probably not most of the time). In other words, what you'll take for free is different for what you're willing to pay for. People who copies Commodore C64 games at users groups weren't too picky on what they copied. They had no idea what games were good and what weren't until they got home. To say each game they copied was a lost sale is absurd. They wouldn't have bought a fraction of those games if there wasn't a user group and that's were these statistics from the record industry, etc. are WAY OFF.

IMO, it's far more important to stress ethical concerns (i.e. pay for what you actually like/enjoy because you should support artists you like) rather than some strict idea of what you can and cannot preview since it becomes utter absurdity when you get to library comparisons or hearing an album in a friend's car or house, etc. It's illegal to preview a song by downloading it, but legal to hear the same song on the radio or in your friend's car? WTF is the DIFFERENCE!?!? THERE IS NONE and that's why the laws are ridiculous to treat the same as a law against theft since they are not remotely the same thing no matter how much you pretend they are. No goods are missing. It's legal to watch/listen to the same material at Place A but not Place B??? WTF?! It's therefore reduced to pointlessness and that's why it's rarely enforced.

You'd do FAR better to get the ethical idea across to people to support artists they like or those artists won't bother anymore. THAT at least makes logical AND ethical sense and more importantly, it's deals with the SOURCE of the issue which is convincing people to SUPPORT ART. Putting tons of DRM on video games just cheeses off the people who legitimately bought the software while the pirated stuff has all the DRM wiped out so who are these people REALLY hurting???)

Another basic problem is that current laws don't recognize the digital age and allow for ridiculous ease of data transfer (and yet they recognize libraries letting you watch/listen to the SAME art for free so it's absurd). Besides, copyright lengths are far too long for media with very short shelf lives like arcade games that have mostly long since been abandoned and without projects like MAME to preserve those games, they'd eventually be lost as their circuit boards all degraded and failed or were thrown into a landfill. Like old music and books, they had their time. Unlike them, there are only a few nostalgics that still want to play a game a game like Armor Attack or Dig Dug 2.

Even stranger, whether you've even committed a "crime" or not depends on WHEN you do it. If I copy a tv show to watch and later delete it (i.e. time-shifting) it's "fair use" (despite the fact I recorded and therefore COPIED the digital bits). If I copy Beethoven's music and even sell it, it's not a crime. If I copy Lady Gaga, it is a crime. But if I take a lamp out of someone's house, it's still illegal even if it's 300 years old and yet people like you want to say copying is THEFT. No, copying is copying. How wrong it is depends on whom you ask. I personally think it's an ethical matter, not a physical crime. You support art you like because you'd want someone to support your art in that position too if they liked it.

I'm a music artist too with a copyright on an album of rock music so it's not like I have nothing to lose by saying such things. But I have no issue with someone hearing my album for free. It's art. It's meant to be heard. It's on Spotify so it might as well be free anyway. If people like it and want to support me as a music artist, they can buy a copy off iTunes, Amazon, etc. But I'd be a total hypocrite to act like Metallica did with Napster. All they did is piss off potential fans that having heard their music might come and pay big money to hear them play and in the process they looked like a bunch of greedy SOBS (i.e. they're not starving artists or anything so it only came across as pure greed). I lost a lot of respect for them because of that (as if they never listened to music at a friend's house or taped something off the radio in their entire lives).

Ultimately, what is needed are better laws and better education and in some cases better understanding from all involved. But what we get instead are people like yourself yelling THIEF and thus driving those that disagree with you even further away from your position.
__________________
Mac Mini Server 2012 (2.3GHz Quad i7, 8GB, 2x1TB RAID 0) ; External 12x Memorex Blu-Ray USB3, External WD 3x3TB,1x2TB HD USB3)
15" Matte MBP 2.4GHz, 4GB/500GB, NVidia 8600M GT; 3 ATV; 2 iPod Touch
MagnusVonMagnum is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > iOS Blog Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OS X: Anyone know of a good dungeon crawler game? old-mac-man Mac and PC Games 38 Jan 1, 2014 12:37 PM
'Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition' Returns to App Store Following Contractual Dispute MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 13 Aug 16, 2013 01:35 PM
Dungeon Master available in the app store! russo045 iPhone and iPod touch Apps 1 Mar 18, 2013 03:19 PM
App Store Gifting Returns to iOS Devices MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 25 Dec 17, 2012 05:35 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:36 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC