[Wreck]

Originally Posted by Lucien21

What if the developer wants to develop the sequel and include a copy of the origional as an incentive/gift to purchase the new one.

If everyone has already downloaded a free copy from the internet that would potentially devalue that offer.

Besides since when does the fact that the product is no longer available or rare mean that it is OK to obtain it by illegal means.

You either pay the market value or you do without it's as simple as that.

Very good point.

[squarejawhero]

I think there's cultural differences to be aware of when discussing this globally, btw. What if you're from a communist country where ownership is by the state? Would that effect your perception of legality in this case? Of course it would. Also bear in mind countries where the tools may be available to play games, but the games themselves are either scarce or too expensive due to exchange rates. That would also affect your view. Games aren't a necessity, true, but people still enjoy them and they offer a break from reality. You can be relatively middle-class in one country, but poor in another. Electronic goods to create PC's could be cheap but the software nearly always isn't.

Worth thinking about.

[Tramboi]

I think all this copying problem would be solved if all publishers would install Starforce or another marvelous protection schemes on their products, therefore allowing gamers to play only when the original CD is in the drive...

...and the moon is full
...and Uranus is aligned with Saturn
...and France is qualified for the World Cup


This would solve the piracy problem instantly, as pirates would be unable to find cracks for the games, as can be seen on gamecopyworld, for instance!

[Aj_]

Copyright Law has not encouraged creativity, in its current form, and possibly never will. Copyright Law has been written, not to support the creators, but to support the publisher. This is not why it was created in the first place, it was to protect the creator from the publisher, who were acting like pirates, holding artists and alike to ransome, as kidnapping is a common activity for pirates. The industry and most big business today is ruled by unethical (professional meaning) practices that are not going to allow an artist of any kind to benefit from their work. As it is the producer, not the creator, who is in control. Crony capitalism is one of the hurdles blocking the success of Copyright Law, because of this Copyright Law has been manipulated, and wrongfully applied, for the ends of the Publisher, not the creator. New laws like the DMCA will cripple creativity.

Copyright Law is a new concept, and there are plenty of periods where it did not exist, but creativity was at an all time high. Copyright Law is not proven to have helped creativity at all. It has stopped creativity by not allowing the natural flow of infomation to occur.

It can be said that Copyright Law has allowed Publishers to negatively impact the adoption of new works, because channeling efforts to a limited ammount of artists is cheaper than trying to promote the most you can. For them the best way to find an audience is for there work to be seen by as many people as possible for free, but the Publisher would never allow this.

Technology allows for cheap reproduction of works that do not require a large business to produce and promote, but very few artists have taken the opportunity to embrace this medium, but they have been strong armed into an industry that doesn't allow them to retain their rights, where all parties collude and act against the free market that so many people say is benefit to creativity.

[SakSquash]

Originally Posted by Tramboi

I think all this copying problem would be solved if all publishers would install Starforce or another marvelous protection schemes on their products, therefore allowing gamers to play only when the original CD is in the drive...

...and the moon is full
...and Uranus is aligned with Saturn
...and France is qualified for the World Cup


This would solve the piracy problem instantly, as pirates would be unable to find cracks for the games, as can be seen on gamecopyworld, for instance!

Haaaaaaaa. Yeah. Ok. Like starforce has stopped anything...

[gillyruless]

Originally Posted by Aj_

Copyright Law has not encouraged creativity, in its current form, and possibly never will. Copyright Law has been written, not to support the creators, but to support the publisher. This is not why it was created in the first place, it was to protect the creator from the publisher, who were acting like pirates, holding artists and alike to ransome, as kidnapping is a common activity for pirates. The industry and most big business today is ruled by unethical (professional meaning) practices that are not going to allow an artist of any kind to benefit from their work. As it is the producer, not the creator, who is in control. Crony capitalism is one of the hurdles blocking the success of Copyright Law, because of this Copyright Law has been manipulated, and wrongfully applied, for the ends of the Publisher, not the creator. New laws like the DMCA will cripple creativity.

Copyright Law is a new concept, and there are plenty of periods where it did not exist, but creativity was at an all time high. Copyright Law is not proven to have helped creativity at all. It has stopped creativity by not allowing the natural flow of infomation to occur.

It can be said that Copyright Law has allowed Publishers to negatively impact the adoption of new works, because channeling efforts to a limited ammount of artists is cheaper than trying to promote the most you can. For them the best way to find an audience is for there work to be seen by as many people as possible for free, but the Publisher would never allow this.

Technology allows for cheap reproduction of works that do not require a large business to produce and promote, but very few artists have taken the opportunity to embrace this medium, but they have been strong armed into an industry that doesn't allow them to retain their rights, where all parties collude and act against the free market that so many people say is benefit to creativity.

I don't see why this has anything to do with someone illegally downloading a game and enjoying it without paying for it. I suggest you go and ask a developer like Martin and Steve what their opinion is on software piracy. Having an issue with the way that the games are created and distributed doesn't justify software piracy. I challenge you to ask any author, musician, or artists how they view the copyright law. I reject this notion that copyright laws do not protect people who create.

[Lucien21]

As for it being Ethically and Morally wrong.

Developers create games for consumers to buy - it's not for free. They want to be paid for all their hard work and enjoyment that they are providing for your benefit Nothing is for free.

It has long been the social norm for artistic expressions or intellectual property, especially those we use for entertainment and education, to be sold - not taken.

If you are at all interested in playing the game you are ethicall and morally obligied to reward the developer by paying him for his efforts.

I feel sorry for those who try to justify it by semantics that software is intangible and can't be theft because they developer still has possession of the origional code and can just make another one.

That nothing is really been stolen just copied. In real life this is factually true, but morally it is very supect. The enjoyment and entertainment you encounter should be tinged with the realisation that someone spent 2 years and a few million dollars making something that you deem you should be entitled to without rewarding the people involved.

They hide behind the idea that it is a victimless crime and justify it with "well the developer isn't losing anything because I would never have bought it in the first place".

I don't understand that philosphy because why download it if it's something you don't want to buy? And if you did want it why are you not prepared to pay for that privilage?

People wonder why adventure game companies go out of business due to low sales.

[Stoofa]

I don't download adventure games not from a sense of morality or a fear of it being illegal, but because I want to support the game and the people that created and produced it. It's the same reason I have thousands of CDs and often donate money to free web sites I enjoy (e.g., audioscrobbler). I want music artists I enjoy to keep creating music, I want my favourite free web sites to stay open, and I want the adventure game industry to stay alive. It's in my own self interest, really.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Lucien21

What if the developer wants to develop the sequel and include a copy of the origional as an incentive/gift to purchase the new one.

Honestly, how often is this done? I don't recall getting the original when I bought Half-Life 2. Or getting the first No One Lives Forever when I bought NOLF2. Or Max Payne 1 with MP2. Or Silent Hill 1 with SH2, 3 or 4 (and I really would've appreciated it, because I had a hell of a time tracking down SH1.)

The only game I can think of that did this is Day of the Tentacle, though I may have my facts wrong since I still haven't played it myself.

And anti-piracy measures don't work. There is always a way around them. I read articles about how Steam would minimise HL2 piracy, and yet I still saw cracked versions of the game for sale in pirate stores the day after it was officially released...

[Lucien21]

Originally Posted by Aj_

Copyright Law has not encouraged creativity, in its current form, and possibly never will. Copyright Law has been written, not to support the creators, but to support the publisher. This is not why it was created in the first place, it was to protect the creator from the publisher, who were acting like pirates, holding artists and alike to ransome, as kidnapping is a common activity for pirates. The industry and most big business today is ruled by unethical (professional meaning) practices that are not going to allow an artist of any kind to benefit from their work. As it is the producer, not the creator, who is in control. Crony capitalism is one of the hurdles blocking the success of Copyright Law, because of this Copyright Law has been manipulated, and wrongfully applied, for the ends of the Publisher, not the creator. New laws like the DMCA will cripple creativity.

Copyright Law is a new concept, and there are plenty of periods where it did not exist, but creativity was at an all time high. Copyright Law is not proven to have helped creativity at all. It has stopped creativity by not allowing the natural flow of infomation to occur.

It can be said that Copyright Law has allowed Publishers to negatively impact the adoption of new works, because channeling efforts to a limited ammount of artists is cheaper than trying to promote the most you can. For them the best way to find an audience is for there work to be seen by as many people as possible for free, but the Publisher would never allow this.

Technology allows for cheap reproduction of works that do not require a large business to produce and promote, but very few artists have taken the opportunity to embrace this medium, but they have been strong armed into an industry that doesn't allow them to retain their rights, where all parties collude and act against the free market that so many people say is benefit to creativity.

Possibly all true, but that is an entirely different discussion and has little bearing on piracy.

Copyright law was written to allow the owners or Creators of Intellectual Property to be recognised as the owner/creator and to benefit financially.

Copyright law has nothing to do with creativity.

While it is true that some publishers treat developers as an employee, where IP is the property of the person paying you to create it, that has no bearing on whether it is legally,morally or ethical to download the game (no matter who owns the copyright).

[Lucien21]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Honestly, how often is this done? I don't recall getting the original when I bought Half-Life 2. Or getting the first No One Lives Forever when I bought NOLF2. Or Max Payne 1 with MP2. Or Silent Hill 1 with SH2, 3 or 4 (and I really would've appreciated it, because I had a hell of a time tracking down SH1.)

The only game I can think of that did this is Day of the Tentacle, though I may have my facts wrong since I still haven't played it myself.

If you bought the full version of Half Life 2 from Steam you received a Source version of Half Life, but other than Day of the Tentacle I can't think of another game that has done it.

Doesn't mean that the copyright holder isn't entitled to explore using an old copyright at any time in the future in any way he sees fit.

Ninetendo have repeatedly re-released old IP games on new hardware many years after the origional game was released.

Namco and other companies have made classic game complilations.

Lucasarts released an XP version of Day of the Tentacle/Sam and Max/Full Throttle and The Dig in one box set a couple of years ago.

[natalia]

I'm in way over my head in this conversation, but people keep mentioning that if an artist creates something, puts work into it, people should always pay to enjoy the work. But what about public libraries where people read other people's works for free everyday? It's true, that if someone wants to own a rare edition of a book, they'll have to pay big money for it, but if they just want to read the book to experience the story, they can read it for free. Shouldn't that apply to old games that publishers don't distribute anymore?

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Lucien21

Doesn't mean that the copyright holder isn't entitled to explore using an old copyright at any time in the future in any way he sees fit.

True, but until it actually happens more often, I will likely continue to be cynical.

Lucasarts released an XP version of Day of the Tentacle/Sam and Max/Full Throttle and The Dig in one box set a couple of years ago.

And yet I still have so much trouble finding it in any games store...

On the other hand, Beneath a Steel Sky became freeware, and my purchase of BASS2 has now been guaranteed by playing through a game I'd never have played otherwise.

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by gillyruless

I don't see why this has anything to do with someone illegally downloading a game and enjoying it without paying for it. I suggest you go and ask a developer like Martin and Steve what their opinion is on software piracy. Having an issue with the way that the games are created and distributed doesn't justify software piracy. I challenge you to ask any author, musician, or artists how they view the copyright law. I reject this notion that copyright laws do not protect people who create.

You base your justification on how it improves society, and that's not my view, you can reject the notion all you want, possibly giving reasons next time, but I still don't agree with you.

Originally Posted by Lucien21

Possibly all true, but that is an entirely different discussion and has little bearing on piracy.

The effectiveness of copyright to advance society is one of the main features of the debate for having Copyright Law.

Copyright law was written to allow the owners or Creators of Intellectual Property to be recognised as the owner/creator and to benefit financially.

That's not the history of copyright law, and it is not how the law is being applied and changed.

Copyright law has nothing to do with creativity.

It has everything to do with creativity, there is no moral ground that people should get paid for their ideas. Moral ground for compensation when trading, obviously, but since ideas can't be taken, i.e. if someone tells you an idea they don't suddenly not have that idea, then applying the same rulse of physical property on intangible concepts does not work.

[Lucien21]

Originally Posted by natalia

I'm in way over my head in this conversation, but people keep mentioning that if an artist creates something, puts work into it, people should always pay to enjoy the work. But what about public libraries where people read other people's works for free everyday? It's true, that if someone wants to own a rare edition of a book, they'll have to pay big money for it, but if they just want to read the book to experience the story, they can read it for free. Shouldn't that apply to old games that publishers don't distribute anymore?

Do libraries still have to puchase the books so the copyright holder still gets paid? I'm not sure but I would imagine that they do.

There is also a copyright law that says that 70 years after the artist dies the book becomes public domain.

[mag]

Holy shit! Am I actually in agreement with Aj_ on something? That can't be right...

Anyway, publishers really bring this on themselves. Piracy can only thrive in an environment where the consumer is being totally ripped off. Because that's the only time when it's worth risking legal ramifications to get what you want.

Also, when you say that publishers and developers are losing money when people pirate games, you're assuming that these people would still play these games if they weren't free. In reality, if piracy was somehow obliterated, most of these people would probably just not play the game at all, and the publisher still wouldn't make any money.

Originally Posted by Lucien21

Possibly all true, but that is an entirely different discussion and has little bearing on piracy.

Copyright law was written to allow the owners or Creators of Intellectual Property to be recognised as the owner/creator and to benefit financially.

Copyright law has nothing to do with creativity.

On the contrary, copyright law is at the very heart of the issue. The whole idea behind copyright is that art is a commodity that is owned by the creator. Without copyright or the principles behind it, there would be nothing wrong with pirating video games.

The idea that art is something that is owned by the person who made it is somewhat new and very arguable. In the past, people have thought of art as belonging to the public. I tend to think that that's a much healthier view on art, and it's one that lends itself better to further creative expression.

mag

[fov]

Originally Posted by natalia

It's true, that if someone wants to own a rare edition of a book, they'll have to pay big money for it, but if they just want to read the book to experience the story, they can read it for free. Shouldn't that apply to old games that publishers don't distribute anymore?

There are rules at the library, though. You can't just keep a library book (and making a Xerox of the whole thing and taking it home with you is a violation of copyright laws, the same way downloading a game is).

[natalia]

Originally Posted by Lucien21

Do libraries still have to puchase the books so the copyright holder still gets paid? I'm not sure but I would imagine that they do.

There is also a copyright law that says that 70 years after the artist dies the book becomes public domain.

Hi Lucien, libraries do have to make the initial purchase and then have a right to loan the books. Things are becoming stickier in the digital age though. Do libraries loan out computer games?

I found this on a quick google search:
Once a library or an individual has lawfully acquired a copy of a work, the first sale doctrine of the copyright law (17 U.S.C. Section 109) allows that the library or individual may exercise another exclusive right of copyright - the right to distribute the copy - without the permission of the copyright holder. First sale enables libraries to loan books or conduct interlibrary loan without committing copyright infringement. Does the first sale exception transfer to the digital environment? Currently, the answer is no.
http://www.michaellorenzen.com/eric/copyright.html

[natalia]

Originally Posted by fov

There are rules at the library, though. You can't just keep a library book (and making a Xerox of the whole thing and taking it home with you is a violation of copyright laws, the same way downloading a game is).

I definitely understand that, but I was just wondering if libraries wouldn't be an option if people who want to just play old games that are out of commission and aren't available for sale anymore.

[SoccerDude28]

Whatever. You can sit for days justifying if it is moral or not or if it hurts publishers or developers or neither, but the bottom line is that it is illegal in the US and Europe, and by copying games you are breaking the law in these countries. I don't know if it affects anybody to do so, but if you want to live in a country, you should abide by its law, regardless how you feel about them.