Intellectual property is an incorrect blanket term that describes nothing. Are you referring to copyrighted works? What about patented works? They are totally different and to put them under one umbrella term shows a lack of understanding of the actual laws.
Source:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html
Anyways, there needs to be a limit to the extent of which people are allowed to own their ideas. Look at Monsanto. Monsanto basically holds a total monopoly over the corn market and farming, and they have an army of lawyers vast enough to deter anyone from challenging them on the matter. Is it right? Not a chance in hell. Will it change anytime soon? Not a chance in hell. As long as there's money to be made, politicians will protect the interests of the ones who supply them with money.
Originally Posted by Arglax
Maybe to big titles. To indie game developers they can be lethal.
That's cool. Totally understandable. But think about it this way... Do indie game developers have the resources to pursue a lawsuit vs. people who are violating their copyrights? Do indie game developers have the resources to pursue every single person who violates their copyrights? No, they do not, and with this current incarnation of copyright laws, only big companies receive the benefits. The indie game market still exists however, and some may even suggest that it is thriving, so we can assume that the effects of piracy are not nearly detrimental enough to warrant stricter regulations on the market.
Originally Posted by
Arglax
There is a difference: your friend already paid for that game. If you pirate something, nobody pays for anything.
Ah, but here's the thing. The same law applies to both, and they are both illegal according to the law.
Last edited by Beast; Aug 12, 2013 at 11:33 PM.