Piracy flaming goes here

[luckyovermind]

Name dropping is useless for people who have no clue about them. It's inefficient comunication. I remember I did some of them I apologize. But I believe it's still effective if I was talking toward the right person. If I talk to you or Erhjegel I could name drop in eroges with good game-play, if I talk to Asceai I could name drop with AB2 soft staff, if I talk to agilis I could name drop with Age and Nekoneko, if I talk to chewy I could name drop with Kid/ever17 related things, if I talk to zalas maybe I could name drop with Key?

Originally Posted by Asceai

Sorry, what do you mean, exactly?
I've screamed about G-Senjou no Maou at the top of my lungs for the whole internet to hear, and apart from on 4chan I don't think it's really had that much effect at all.

You've made me add to my list of games to purchase. (Recently picked up 11 eyes, so within the next couple of weeks I should be grabbing Chaos; Head, which leaves G-sen as next on the list--Go Used Games at Softmap!)

Also if you have anymore questions with your translation like the last, let me know. You HAVE gotten me interested at least. It's just going to be a while before I play it, as Seinarukana is hella frickin' long. (Currrently poured over 70hours into the game and only on Chapter 6...of 12, on the first play through of 6 or so routes)

Originally Posted by luckyovermind

if I talk to zalas maybe I could name drop with Key?

I think you could get away name dropping anything with him. ^_^;;

[The One Freeman]

Originally Posted by Enerccio

piracy isn't stealing, which really isn't

Yes it is?

So you're saying that just because you didn't shoplift the physical disc, means you aren't stealing it?

You're stealing information, somebody made that information and put a price tag on it. You got it without paying, you stole it. There is no loop-hole, or clever solution around it, the law says that you must pay for the product, and you didn't, so you have stolen the product.

There's no little principle behind it, and the whole "magical duplication" shouldn't even apply because how many people are going to recreate a game, just to go from pirate to copyright infringer? Are you?

Piracy is theft, you know you can't work around that fact. And nothing justifies it, not even poverty. Nothing is stopping you from making a better life for yourself, you do have the choice to move out of Slovakia and get better wage in a better country.

So you got dealt a worse hand than some of us? Like I said to another person before, I guess I don't know how 'bad' you have it. Because of that, you should have a good sense of responsibility and priority. You can prioritize how ever you'd like, and since I happen to be so lucky as to live in America I can't exactly say what you 'need' to be doing because I'll never have to do it myself.

But you know what? That's life, you can work with what you have, maybe Karma will be nice to you. You can resign yourself to theft and convince yourself it's ok, or find a loop-hole to try and justifiy it.

I assume you'll continue with the latter, since being poor makes criminal activity ok. (/sarcasm)

[Enerccio]

Originally Posted by The One Freeman

tl;dr

You quite didn't get me.
Piracy isn't and will not be stealing. Nor by common sense nor by definition by law it will not ever be stealing. Piracy is copyright infringement. Doesn't matter if it is information. Once you stole it, the other party will not have possession of it. That is called stealing. You can steal information, like if you steal someone's disk with all his important data he doesn't have anywhere. That is theft, because he will lost it. If you copy something, that is not stealing, by common sense.
This is only thing I am trying to present here, please don't accuse me of saying other things.

Originally Posted by Enerccio

You quite didn't get me.
Piracy isn't and will not be stealing. Nor by common sense nor by definition by law it will not ever be stealing. Piracy is copyright infringement. Doesn't matter if it is information. Once you stole it, the other party will not have possession of it. That is called stealing. You can steal information, like if you steal someone's disk with all his important data he doesn't have anywhere. That is theft, because he will lost it. If you copy something, that is not stealing, by common sense.
This is only thing I am trying to present here, please don't accuse me of saying other things.

Actually, data theft includes the copying and transfer of relevant confidential data. So even if you do not delete the data you steal, by copying the data for your own retention, its considered data theft. Which of course is exactly what piracy is, minus the confidential aspect. That is the law, and I have a friend who has data theft on his record for doing said act.

[Asceai]

Originally Posted by kouryuu

Actually, data theft includes the copying and transfer of relevant confidential data. So even if you do not delete the data you steal, by copying the data for your own retention, its considered data theft. Which of course is exactly what piracy is, minus the confidential aspect. That is the law, and I have a friend who has data theft on his record for doing said act.

Data theft is not theft. Theft is a very well defined term in criminal law, and does not relate to any of the following:

- Data theft (criminal law)
- Theft of services (criminal law)
- Copyright infringement (tort law)

Furthermore, "piracy" is not data theft or theft of services.
In case you are thinking that either Enerccio or myself are attempting to show the unauthorised copying and distribution of certain copyright materials in a better light by mincing words, that is most certainly not the case. The use of loaded and inappropriate terms (such as 'stealing', 'theft', 'piracy') is dangerous because it leads to widespread confusion, and confusion is never a good thing in a field where keeping a level head is essential to good decision making.

[Enerccio]

Originally Posted by Asceai

In case you are thinking that either Enerccio or myself are attempting to show the unauthorised copying and distribution of certain copyright materials in a better light by mincing words

I think that is most likely what they think.
Piracy is breaking the law, but not criminal law, only copyright law. And those two things are highly unrelated. That's why you can get sued by copyright owner, but not by state procurator as you would be in case of thievery.

any one living in Canada might be interested in the following story on the register Canada moots tough sanctions for DRM flouters

Copyright infringement is not stealing... that is very true if it wasn't then TOF, your avatar should be removed otherwise Valve will try to take this form down (read http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11...nce_b3ta_dmca/ yes he attacked a website because they used his picture!)

by the way, uploading copyrighted material can get you into trouble.... downloading it doesn't, as far as I know.

Kealdrea, your post is the best description of the community and all of the anime fans. Yes, every single one of us has infringed copyright in one form or another. And as far as the Japanese anime companies are concerned, fan subbing should be stopped. They are even asking the Japanese government to put a stop to it. And it does seem like the G8 will try to do something about it among other things (read the register story posted few pages back).

The question now is, will the Japanese companies be interested in the extra money they can make by subbing their own anime and making it available for download (for a fee) or at the very lest make sure their DVDs come with English sub? And before anyone start to use BOSTtv as an example of why they won't... BOSTtv have 2 "live" animes, and both animes are officially available on YouTube and they won't provide the fans with HD anime. Also it doesn't seem like Gonzo really care for non Japanese fans, both shows are not that great so why experiment using them?

For that matter, why can't the American companies make their digital edition available world wide when it is sold by a 3rd party? I understand that they can't sale it "themselves", but why go ahead and block 3rd parties from selling it?

Oh well, am off, good luck with the discussion.

[Kealdrea]

Originally Posted by The One Freeman

...other stuff...

I assume you'll continue with the latter, since being poor makes criminal activity ok. (/sarcasm)

(Aren't you underage and playing 18+ video games? o.o; That's illegal, too.)

You want him to leave his friends, his family, his country, and his life, all so he can play some visual novels? ._.; Jeez, I can see his ancestors researching their lineage now: "My great grandpa came to America so he could play porn games. :D" (Pardon the terminology.)

I can kind of understand having zero tolerance for stealing physical copies of a game, since that means that the retailer has one less game to sell, and both the retailer and maker of the game lose money. If possible, I always think it's better to buy the game instead of downloading it, but if someone's in a position where they would never be able to buy the game, then downloading it isn't really going to hurt the industry. Technically no one loses money or can't play the game, because it wasn't an actual copy of the game that was stolen.

@Zalas: It doesn't fit with everyone's 0 tolerance policy for pirating visual novels that it should be acceptable to pirate anime simply because uploading the script is inconvenient, so it's still hypocritical.

o.o; And I'm aware that the Limited Edition version isn't being produced anymore-- I foolishly waited for a while, thinking it wouldn't sell out as quickly as it did. That's the reason I'm looking through Yahoo! Auctions, and not Himeya or something.

[zalas]

Originally Posted by Kealdrea

@Zalas: It doesn't fit with everyone's 0 tolerance policy for pirating visual novels that it should be acceptable to pirate anime simply because uploading the script is inconvenient, so it's still hypocritical.

I'm not sure how that's hypocritical since I just explained that the situations were different. Now if we're uploading video game images through BitTorrent and then proclaiming that video game piracy is wrong, I would agree with you. If you're working with such a loose definition of hypocrisy, then you would probably find that most of the people in the US, or even the world, are "hypocrites." I mean... would you consider someone who would speed but who wouldn't run a red light or drive while drunk a hypocrite? Would you consider someone a hypocrite who speeds but participates in campaigns to inform people that drunk driving is dangerous? They're all traffic violations, after all...

[rg4619]

Having just read up on the Canadian issue, it seems that under the proposed bill, downloading copyrighted material might net a maximum fine of $500, whereas uploading would result in much more serious consequences (lawsuits of up to $20,000 per file).

At the moment, copying music (but not anything else) for personal use is actually legal via a judge's twisted interpretation of copyright law. Basically, due to unclear wording in existing law, he ruled that you can

a) lend a CD to your friend so that he can copy it for his personal use

but not

b) burn a CD and give it to your friend (since you copied it for his use and not your own)

As for DRM circumvention, I think it's already illegal in many other countries (which of course makes it impossible to make legal backups, which is messed up), although they now want to write it into Canadian law for the first time.

both shows are not that great so why experiment using them?

Those are Gonzo's latest shows, so why not? People may not be entirely happy with them, but that's the current lineup on TV (and the idea of the experiment is to stream shows that they're currently broadcasting. Whether they suck or not is irrelevant).

Originally Posted by Kealdrea

I can kind of understand having zero tolerance for stealing physical copies of a game, since that means that the retailer has one less game to sell, and both the retailer and maker of the game lose money. If possible, I always think it's better to buy the game instead of downloading it, but if someone's in a position where they would never be able to buy the game, then downloading it isn't really going to hurt the industry. Technically no one loses money or can't play the game, because it wasn't an actual copy of the game that was stolen.

So, according to you, since technically, someone sneaking into a theatre to watch a movie, a swimming pool to swim or a train to travel doesn't deprive their owners of the actual item, and it's a situation where the person would never be able to pay his ticket, then sneaking into the places isn't really going to hurt the industry, no one loses money and it's perfectly okay?

I believe what Kealdrea is trying to get at is that if the person didn't download the game, he/she wouldn't have considered buying the game in the first place. So yes, he/she got a product for free, but if he/she wouldn't have acquired it through any means that requires money, then technically the producers didn't lose a potential sale (as digital copies can be reproduced infinitely).

As for it being perfectly okay, I don't see anything at all in Kealdrea's post that says so or implies so.

[The One Freeman]

Originally Posted by Kealdrea

(Aren't you underage and playing 18+ video games? o.o; That's illegal, too.)

You want him to leave his friends, his family, his country, and his life, all so he can play some visual novels? ._.; Jeez, I can see his ancestors researching their lineage now: "My great grandpa came to America so he could play porn games. :D" (Pardon the terminology.)

...where they would never be able to buy the game, then downloading it isn't really going to hurt the industry. Technically no one loses money or can't play the game, because it wasn't an actual copy of the game that was stolen.

@1. Aha, truth is that I haven't played an 18+ yet, only some of the free ones on here WAAAY back when.

@2. No, I don't want him to prioritize games over family, I'm saying he has the option and I don't really want to tell him, "You should be more concerned about family and living", because I have it 'so much better' and it would make me 'ignorant', and then I get flamed for 'acting high and mighty', and being 'unfair'.

Truth be told, it's still criminal activity, and looking for little loop-holes around the law shows that you know it's wrong. And another truth, I can't exactly tell if he's trying to point out, "Hey it's not theft so it's fine", or, "Hey you're confusing it but I know it's still wrong. So I assumed (yes assumtion) the former because he mentioned he's poor to defend himself.

@3. See, the thing about information is that it can be distributed faster than almost anything in the universe, and it never runs out. And people say, "Well, it's not really THAT bad, they have so much right?". But that isn't the point, the point is that the person who made the product wants to get compensation for his time and effort, and when you just take it, it's the same thing as stealing from him. There is no technicallity or loop-hole, that's just finding an excuse. You're taking a person's creation when they want money for it, so what if it's infinately distributable, that just means all the people in the world can pay for a copy if they want it.

Sorry guys, but I really hate it when people start comparing "real world" with the "digital world" and assume that if something is _not_ ok in the real world then it is also not ok in the digital world.

How can someone who downloaded a digital copy of a product that s/he a) never had money to buy b) never intended to buy c) even if he wanted to buy it they will never ship it to him. Be equal to someone sneaking into a theater or a train and occupying "physical space" that could have been sold to someone else?

If we go back to the milk bottle example. (let us assume that when you buy the milk bottle you get it in prober packaging but when you duplicate it you get the milk intact but now you have to carry it in a plastic bag)

If you walk into a store while having no money and happened to see a milk bottle and magically re-produce the bottle and left the store, then no sale was lost there. And there is a chance that the person will not like the milk and move on with his/her life.

If you do the same thing but this time with the intension of duplicating that very bottle, again no lose of sale, but again, the store keep can say that you have no right to the milk if you don't have money.

Now if you do have money, and just happened to see the milk bottle and decided "ah what the heck, I don't know if this milk thing is good or not" and just duplicated it for the "sake of it". Some might say that this is lose of sale, but again, what are the chances that this person would have been interested in this "milk thingy" and actually pay for it? If anything, this person might like the milk and decide to buy it or buy "similar" milk in the future (assuming that the duplicating process does consume a lot of time and does come with the risk of getting spoiled milk).

On the other hand, if the person a) do have money b) know what the milk is c) have the means of getting the milk. But still go ahead of duplicate the milk, then "yes" this is an out right lose of sale and the store owner should feel bad about the existence of the duplicating machine.

The problem comes is when everyone who do have money start to duplicate the milk bottle instead of buying it. That is when the store can go under. But the real question is, how can the store owner tell what is the real reason for his/her lose of sale?
a) is it because everyone who had money kept duplicating his/her milk?
b) is it that people were not happy with his/her milk and started to get milk from someone else?

Seeing how thing in the real world are working, then in my opinion, the shop keeper will assume the first option "my milk is perfect, everyone is only using my milk, since the sale didn't meet my expectation then it is because everyone is duplicating it". The thought that honest buyer will buy the milk if they did like it will never cross his/her mind. (reminder, the store owner can never tell the number of people who did duplicate the milk, and 2nd he won't be able to tell which group of people those duplicators belong to. Also another group exist, those who do pay for a product then download it while waiting for the physical copy to arrive, I've done this myself).

How can the music and film industry say that they are making profit while at the same time suffer from piracy is beyond my understanding.