necro2607 on 2/3/2007 at 19:31

---

Sure - "registered 1" - but that didn't get you access to the 2nd-4th episodes. Only the first episode of actual maps and data are included with the shareware version. The shareware and full-version executable games are pretty much the same, if not fully identical. :)

Bomb Bloke on 7/3/2007 at 12:29

---

A tangent of sorts is second hand software...

AFAIK most EULAs prohibit reselling games (I haven't read very many of them, and it's been years since the last one, but I'm pretty sure this is the case). But you see very little done to stamp out the practise.

Consider this scenario: Person A buys a game, plays through it, and sells it to Person B for any given amount. Person B repeats the process, selling to Person C, and so on and so forth. All of these people own a "legal" copy of the disc (that is, an original), and no copies are made.

The original distributors gets paid for one copy, and most of the owners of the disc get refunded a percentage (possibly higher then 100%) of what they paid for it as well.

You might think it unlikely that a game would be sold more then a couple of times, but this process is loosely followed day in day out in second hand shops, with games (console or PC), music, and DVD videos. The merchandise goes out, comes back in, and cycles throughout various owners.

Not to mention the trading giant that is eBay.

As far as I can make out, local laws in most countries (if not all) over ride the EULA's statement that the discs can't be re-sold (same goes for the rule against making copies). Hell, I haven't even heard of the RIAA sueing people for re-selling original discs, so it must be legal. But the effect to the sellers must be pretty close to the same effect generated by piracy, and it probably outweighs it in the case of console games and perhaps DVDs.

Well over 90% of the media that I own (games or DVDs, I don't buy music, there's that many free (legal) tunes around) is second hand. The original sellers have made very little money out of me, so in their eyes, I must be the same as a pirate.

The flip side of the coin is that certain titles - System Shock II for example - can no longer be bought first hand. Whether you buy a second hand copy or pirate it, either way the developers won't get a cent.

So, is there really a difference between the two? We feel there is, because if you buy it at least you're giving something up for it: But not to the people who deserve it, so it's not as moral as it feels.

But I can't ever see this forum dropping support to everyone except those who have first hand copies, or allowing it to those who have pirated versions. Nor can I imagine anybody putting forward any serious complaints about this state of affairs.

Bomb Bloke on 7/3/2007 at 13:34

---

That's assuming the pirate spends his saved money on game titles, as opposed to, say, CD-Rs. It's another interesting point though.

RootbeerTapper on 8/3/2007 at 06:06

---

Piracy in itself is a gray area where the law and companies for software, Music, and video entertainment can make their own interpretations of potential pirating and take advantage of people who know nothing about the law.

The RIAA and MPAA constantly try to pin people who are sharing videos and music online. What the RIAA turn a blind eye to is the fact that very few people are willing to buy a CD just for a few good songs. And the rest of the album is crap. Napster saw the need for single track downloads and succeeded. When the RIAA realized that Napsters business model was more successful than it's own that is when the RIAA got jealous and used it's ego to muscle napster down.

Piracy reports over P2P, Torrent, and D2D are largely exagerated and bias for the RIAA and MPAA and Software Corps.

The RIAA by law can not accuse you of pirating in most states if you have a copy of the disk in your posession. The disk is your license indicating you paid for the material. If you are downloading the music from a P2P and it's the
same music that you have on your damaged disk that you can not play back you are not pirating. If you download the music then continue to share it then you are pirating. When the RIAA calls your ISP they say your pirating regardless of whether you have the proper propety license or not. The RIAA does not care neither does the MPAA for pirated videos. Your ISP then has to disable your internet connection untill you call them up and they say you were flagged for DMA infringment.

People have gone to jail by the RIAA and later released because investigators found physical licensed property of the same material people were dling.

People Download information for many reasons.

1. The material is not readily available in their region or country.

2. Access to digital funds for online purchasing is not available to them due to age restraints or regional laws

3. People don't feel like hunting through their disks to find a single song. They rather search for it on P2P or Torrent then download it because it's easier.

4. Disks get damaged with improper care so they download a digital archive of it.

5. They want a song but don't feel like paying because they think they can get away with it.

People download movies for the following reasons.

1. Material is not allowed in their country or not available in their country.
(Japanese anime for example)

2. They rather watch a .avi version of the movie on the computer while doing other tasks then opposed to sitting down and only watching the movie. If the movie is converted to DivX AVI people can watch the video on the computer and multitask and have a much better media experience. People who don't have a DVD ROM drive they watch DVD movies on their computer through DivX. (I am one of them)

3. They never seen the movie and want to watch it.


I have downloaded movies from P2P before,many movies for that matter.
I never saw Wing Commander before and downloaded a DIvX AVI of it.
I liked he movie and shortly after I bought the DVD at Walmart. I have done the same for other movies I loved. Movies I did not care for I deleted off the disk and now knew that it was crap.

Piracy has many positive sides vs negative sides.
I am gonna get flamed for this but here goes.

I downloaded a copy of SS2 from P2P and before I dled it I had a legal copy of the disk, 2 Copies actually.

After I downloaded the version off P2P I have never had to use my SS2 disk again which keeps it safe from wear and tear in my lappy.

did I pirate? yes so sue me but I have a licensed copy so I am legit.

Future of Piracy:

TV shows for the most part are being bundled in season by season DVD packs. With the introduction of DVR consumers now have the power to record TV shows at a decent qaulity that would please them to the point where they would not have to go out and buy a season of their favorite show on DVD.

If a cosumer records every episode from a season of a show on their DVR then transfers them to DVD disk are they pirating?

Example:
According to NBC recording the TV show Deal or no Deal on a DVR and burning to a disk and sharing with a friend is pirating. Uploading the video to youtube or another video sharing site is pirating and DMA infringment. How so? If you saved the video from your DVR and pay for the channel you got the video off of? How did you pirate?

I define pirating as a user deliberately stealing from the creator with no intention of reimbursement or credit.

YouTube is a very popular site with tons of videos. Most of the videos on youtube are posted illegally according to the DMA. Many CBS shows and NBC shows are shown on youtube. NBC and CBS work around the clock to make sure these videos are flagged and removed.

What purpose does this serve besides maintaining control?

Family Feud, Price is Right, Wheel of Fortune these are some examples of gameshows that never ever would have a DVD release so the money made off the show is based on viewer ratings. Past shows never air again or for a very long time. Why can't these shows be shown on youtube?

How do they impair NBC or CBS's potential profit margin? The only answer I can see for NBC and CBS cracking down on youtube users is simply control.


The US goverment needs to pull their head out their *** and wake up and realize that technology is advancing quicker before rules and regulations can be established and need to make tighter laws to protect the consumer from DMA infringment from broadcasting companies and corporations.

The flow of information exchange can not be stopped regardless how many people pull together to control it. There is always a way to get access to the information that people want. If they want it bad enough they will go out the way to get it.

Vigil on 8/3/2007 at 12:28

---

I have no quibble with the rest of your post, but...

Napster didn't have a business model. The downloads were completely free, they weren't hosted, organised or (at first) policed by Napster in any way, and the only thing Napster sold were tshirts.

When your distribution model is "anything you want, for free" you're damn right it's more successful than regular retail. The point at which the RIAA got "jealous", though, was the point at which music was being distributed without anyone involved (besides tshirt manufacturers) seeing a cent.

After getting buried under lawsuits Napster eventually reincarnated with much the same business model as iTunes - single-track downloads of commercial music, for a small cost per track. While the RIAA may resent this distribution model, it's perfectly legal, earns artists money, and they're not doing anything to prevent or discourage it.