Leak

[ThunderTitan]

Yes they do.Its called a membership fee.

There are public libraries, but I think they only have books that are either educational or the copyright expired.

He also missed the point about intelectual theft.

[King Imp]

And I notice nobody answered my question about reading a book they didn't buy, you bunch of intelectual thieves.

It's called a library. They don't charge you to take out books. They will though if you refuse to return them.

Yes they do.Its called a membership fee.

Must suck to live in your country. We don't have that here.

[King Imp]

U telling me you never read a book from a friend?!

Nope, never have done that.

And that wasn't the point at all. If my country had a place you could go play all the games you wanted without paying you'd see it as not hurting the developers?

If this place that is providing the games didn't actually pay the devs for the rights first, then yes it is hurting them. If they did pay, then no.

[Wildbear]

Same old argument, still dosent change the fackt that ill not get to play the expantion becus of piracy!

You should avoid such conclusions Znork, because if you're right there won't be any expansion, but if there is an expansion it will prove you're wrong and prove the pirates are right.

Actually many studies are completely contradictory on the point of knowing whether piracy have a bad influence or a good one, or no influence at all on sales. It is far from being a simple process where one pirated copy is one copy not sold.

Take MS Windows as an example. It is pirated a lot (the net is plagued enough by viruses that should have disappeared long ago thanks to security patches to understand it), but would MS have sold so many copies if all the pirates had install linux or similar rather than using a pirated copy? Probably not. But the opposite in a different case is true too. Take World of Warcraft, it sells very well and the fact that piracy is about useless with it probably helps.

"Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

[ThunderTitan]

Must suck to live in your country. We don't have that here.

Seeing as you find 1000$ small potatoes i'm not suprised.

But I still think you can't get books that are still under copyright from a library, maybe unless the owners of the copyright give you the OK (which might void the copyright).

[Veldrynus]

krimals

[ThunderTitan]

If this place that is providing the games didn't actually pay the devs for the rights first, then yes it is hurting them. If they did pay, then no.

Really?! Wouldn't they actualy lose money because people get to play the game for free anytime they want and wouldn't have any reason to actualy buy the game?!

It is pirated a lot (the net is plagued enough by viruses that should have disappeared long ago thanks to security patches to understand it),

Huh?! You telling me that pirated windows can't be patched?

[theLuckyDragon]

Gee, this thread is growing fast... My honest opinion:
Piracy=theft. But since not all things are just black or just white, I must mention: there are all sorts of circumstances. Absolute laws and real life do not go together... IMO.

[ThunderTitan]

My honest opinion:
Piracy=intelectual theft.

Fixed it for you.

[Znork]

Same old argument, still dosent change the fackt that ill not get to play the expantion becus of piracy!

You should avoid such conclusions Znork, because if you're right there won't be any expansion, but if there is an expansion it will prove you're wrong and prove the pirates are right.

Actually many studies are completely contradictory on the point of knowing whether piracy have a bad influence or a good one, or no influence at all on sales. It is far from being a simple process where one pirated copy is one copy not sold.

Take MS Windows as an example. It is pirated a lot (the net is plagued enough by viruses that should have disappeared long ago thanks to security patches to understand it), but would MS have sold so many copies if all the pirates had install linux or similar rather than using a pirated copy? Probably not. But the opposite in a different case is true too. Take World of Warcraft, it sells very well and the fact that piracy is about useless with it probably helps.

"Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

there will be an expatnion but there will be sf on it! And i can not acsept sf! And this is my whole point becuse of you the use harder cp!

[Znork]

My honest opinion:
Piracy=intelectual theft.

Fixed it for you.

yes it is still the same!

[theLuckyDragon]

@TT
Picking on such details and unnecessary specifications seems irrelevant to me. The connotations of the term "theft" in this discussion are pretty obvious, I think.

Besides, I intentionally wrote only "theft", because, yes, I do compare stealing a game with physically stealing something, as was discussed somewhere earlier in this thread. In either case, one assumes something that he did not create without consent* from that object's actual creator.

*receiving payment for a game is a form of consent

IMO.

[Ethric]

My honest opinion:
Piracy=intelectual theft.

Fixed it for you.

Misquoting someone because you think they should have typed something else is not the way to do it. So don't. Do not change or misrepresent quotes. And saying you fixed it after spelling the "fix" wrong doesn't help

[soupnazii]

how did he spell it wrong? its spelled "fixed" isnt it? thats how you wrote it in ur post...

[theLuckyDragon]

Intellectual, with "ll", not "l". Another irrelevant detail.

[Bandobras Took]

But until you show me how ubi or nival is supposed to know whether a person who downloads a game illegally also buys an authorized copy, you've got no basis for saying it doesn't hurt them.

Huh?! What does them knowing about it has to do with their bottom line?! Saying that it might hurt the users because they migth use draconic cd-protection schemes because of this I'd get, but if you still give them the money what do they lose?!


And I notice nobody answered my question about reading a book they didn't buy, you bunch of intelectual thieves.

That's okay; nobody's responded to my point about claiming to have the right to participate in the distribution of somebody else's hard work when they've specifically said they do not want you.

I'll agree that the economic end of things is muddled enough that we can't tell whether it will be good or bad for the company.

But if that's the case, then the creator's wishes ought to be respected.

There is no inherent human right to play H5 simply because:

1) you can't wait another two weeks;
2) you can't afford it; or
3) it hasn't been distributed in your area.

Obtaining a person's work in spite of their disapproval for any of the above reasons is wrong because you don't have a right to what you're getting; that right remains in the hands of the creators.

Now, for the library argument -- do libraries still retain books in stock if an author requests that they not make their book available?

[Znork]

That's okay; nobody's responded to my point about claiming to have the right to participate in the distribution of somebody else's hard work when they've specifically said they do not want you.

I'll agree that the economic end of things is muddled enough that we can't tell whether it will be good or bad for the company.

But if that's the case, then the creator's wishes ought to be respected.

There is no inherent human right to play H5 simply because:

1) you can't wait another two weeks;
2) you can't afford it; or
3) it hasn't been distributed in your area.

Obtaining a person's work in spite of their disapproval for any of the above reasons is wrong because you don't have a right to what you're getting; that right remains in the hands of the creators.

Now, for the library argument -- do libraries still retain books in stock if an author requests that they not make their book available?

i like this post!

[Gaidal Cain]

krimals

You know, if you'd pick on someone who doesn't have an obvious problem with his spelling (called dyslexia, if you must know), you'd actually have a chance of being funny...

[ThunderTitan]

Now, for the library argument -- do libraries still retain books in stock if an author requests that they not make their book available?

Only if the copyright is gone. And if the author is the one that owns the right to it. And my argument wasn't about libraries anyway.

There is no inherent human right to play H5 simply because:

1) you can't wait another two weeks;
2) you can't afford it; or
3) it hasn't been distributed in your area.

Huh?! Capitalism isn't an inherent human right either.

Obtaining a person's work in spite of their disapproval for any of the above reasons is wrong because you don't have a right to what you're getting; that right remains in the hands of the creators.

So Robin Hood was wrong because the rich obtained their treasures legaly?!

You should also note that if they would say it's ok then they'd lose the copyright so of course they dissaprove of this.

[Kareeah Indaga]

Now, for the library argument -- do libraries still retain books in stock if an author requests that they not make their book available?

I’m not sure.

I was under the impression that authors were paid a royalty in order for their books to be in libraries. But I freely admit I have done no research on this. I’ll go do that now.

Edit: Here's what wikipedia says.

I was close. : )