Toribash
The problem isn't the people downloading, it's the unchanging and outdated remuneration system accorded the creative people.
We're at the stage instant communication of everything all over the world is normal, it's a necessary advance, it makes access to free culture possible. And culture should be free : being educated and cultivated are the only viable weapons one can have in society, and on a large scale, it's the only wall against totalitarian drifts.

I'm a musician, I'll soon finish my first EP and hope to be heard by a maximum of people. It's as much a passion as it is politic, I make music for myself and for others, not for money. If I wanted to be rich and live in a big house I would do something else with my life. I think any creative peep would.
Pirating is the problem of big money suckers, dictating producers and sharky publishing corporations that remunerate their artists like shits.

And it goes the same for videogames, big companies sell shitty games at 70$ hopping their advertisement will be suffiscient to make profit. Indie studios sell game from 5$ to 15$, asking people to freely give money if they want to support, and some of them end up creating hits played by millions of players.

Pirating is the problem of the industries, not the creatives. "Pirating" is a transitionnal state, it's a conflict between old industrial era and greedy fucks, and people wanting to cut loose with the bullcrap.
Last edited by deprav; Aug 13, 2013 at 04:06 PM.
Originally Posted by deprav View Post
And it goes the same for videogames, big companies sell shitty games at 70$ hopping their advertisement will be suffiscient to make profit. Indie studios sell game from 5$ to 15$, asking people to freely give money if they want to support, and some of them end up creating hits played by millions of players.

This. I pay for games not because I own them or because I have the game now, I pay because I want to support the developers who made them and encourage them to do it more. I support small developers who manage to churn out incredible games. Magicka, Hammerfight, Hotline Miami, ...

In response to BoredPayne: I don't want to spend €60 on a game that I'll play for 20 hours. It's a waste of money. That's why I pirate such games, they'll give me a few hours of fun but then I'll put them down because they're just another game of that genre with little to no innovative new content to it. All the big titles I've ever bought were a huge letdown. I still buy titles (just preordered Rome Total War II), just not at the rate I used to.
f=m*a syens
For those unsure about how idiotic the regulations are and the extent that corporations think they have ownership of their ideas, look at this wonderful piece:

http://www.joystiq.com/2013/07/10/mo...lf-mogul-putt/

Vague regulations and over-entitled jackasses make for an awful combination.
Ancient [Evil]
Originally Posted by Beast View Post
For those unsure about how idiotic the regulations are and the extent that corporations think they have ownership of their ideas, look at this wonderful piece:

http://www.joystiq.com/2013/07/10/mo...lf-mogul-putt/

Vague regulations and over-entitled jackasses make for an awful combination.

This is pretty meaningless.
A cease and desist letter doesn't actually legally command anyone to do anything. It's a threat of lawsuit, and had you actually read the link you posted, it appears to be the result of a misunderstanding.

Companies are obligated to do everything they can to protect their copyright, otherwise the judicial system becomes slanted against them.
Buy TC for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=240345
Buy VIP and Toriprime for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=237249


Hey look more than two lines.
Originally Posted by Boredpayne View Post
This is pretty meaningless.
A cease and desist letter doesn't actually legally command anyone to do anything. It's a threat of lawsuit, and had you actually read the link you posted, it appears to be the result of a misunderstanding.

Companies are obligated to do everything they can to protect their copyright, otherwise the judicial system becomes slanted against them.

Except for the fact that most of the time companies threaten to sue for stuff that is not legally covered by their copyrights/patents and scare people with their armies of lawyers. That was an example. If you had bothered to read my other posts, you would have known this and wouldn't have posted such an ignorant thing.
Ancient [Evil]
Originally Posted by Beast View Post
Except for the fact that most of the time companies threaten to sue for stuff that is not legally covered by their copyrights/patents and scare people with their armies of lawyers. That was an example. If you had bothered to read my other posts, you would have known this and wouldn't have posted such an ignorant thing.

Provide example that allegedly supports your point.
Have example shown to not reinforce your point.
Make passive-aggressive insults towards the opinions of others.

Welcome to discussion, you'll fit in perfectly!

To expand on what I'm trying to teach you and what you are so vigorously refusing to learn is that the burden of enforcing trademark ownership is entirely upon the owning entity. This means that they must act on every infringement they observe, however marginal or superficial. The reason this is so is that if they do not, they will lose ground in future cases where the infringing party can claim that the owning entity has given tacit permission by not pursuing other infringements.

On a rather interesting aside, you seem to be misled, describing this as a copyright or patent case. It is neither.

Certainly, companies can act outside the bounds of reason, and it is then the responsibility of the judicial system to act in the fairness of both parties. But to argue that this is the fault of "idiotic regulations" and "the extent that corporations think they have ownership of their ideas"is fundamentally misinformed. It is a necessary byproduct of a system designed to afford content creators the greatest protection.
Buy TC for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=240345
Buy VIP and Toriprime for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=237249


Hey look more than two lines.
Originally Posted by Boredpayne View Post
Provide example that allegedly supports your point.
Have example shown to not reinforce your point.
Make passive-aggressive insults towards the opinions of others.

Welcome to discussion, you'll fit in perfectly!

To expand on what I'm trying to teach you and what you are so vigorously refusing to learn is that the burden of enforcing trademark ownership is entirely upon the owning entity. This means that they must act on every infringement they observe, however marginal or superficial. The reason this is so is that if they do not, they will lose ground in future cases where the infringing party can claim that the owning entity has given tacit permission by not pursuing other infringements.

On a rather interesting aside, you seem to be misled, describing this as a copyright or patent case. It is neither.

Certainly, companies can act outside the bounds of reason, and it is then the responsibility of the judicial system to act in the fairness of both parties. But to argue that this is the fault of "idiotic regulations" and "the extent that corporations think they have ownership of their ideas"is fundamentally misinformed. It is a necessary byproduct of a system designed to afford content creators the greatest protection.

With that logic, I am obligated to accuse you of assault with a deadly weapon for flicking me, as if I do not, I will lose ground in a future potential case. Very few companies actually have the ability to go after every single person infringing their copyright/trademark/patent(which are all very different in terms of regulations), and as such, the main reason behind them which is to encourage innovation by protecting the rights of everyone who innovates is void. You cannot accuse and threaten to sue people for anything you please without facing consequences for it, and this is precisely what companies like Monsanto do on a daily basis. The laws themselves are broken and vague, allowing for such things. You have not posted one ounce of proof to support your claims; I have. You sarcastically attack me in your first post then whine about me returning the favor. You do not attempt to disprove any of my previous points, instead, you ignore them entirely and focus on a tiny, insignificant example that is legitimate despite your attempt to justify Putt-Putt's actions. If you continue to troll, I will report you.
Ancient [Evil]
Originally Posted by Beast
With that logic, I am obligated to accuse you of assault with a deadly weapon for flicking me, as if I do not, I will lose ground in a future potential case.

Except the burden of enforcing criminal law is not on the injured party, it is on the police. You are not giving tacit permission to commit crimes to anyone, ever, for incredibly apparent reasons.

For the record, flicking is assault and battery, not just assault. Also for the record, the human body is not considered a deadly weapon under the legal definition of "deadly weapon." I think you knew both of these, and are deliberately exaggerating to inflate the worth of your argument.

To toss on another bit of information, criminal process does not hinge on an accusation. if you refuse to accuse or testify, the crime will still be prosecuted to the best of the state's ability, except in cases where the prosecution rests largely or entirely on the testimony of victims, in which case the charges are dropped. This is in contrast to civil law where any party can initiate a lawsuit for any reason.
Originally Posted by Beast
You cannot accuse and threaten to sue people for anything you please without facing consequences for it, and this is precisely what companies like Monsanto do on a daily basis.

Actually...you can.
Originally Posted by Beast
You sarcastically attack me

Help, you are being attacked!
Lmfao please report me
Last edited by Boredpayne; Aug 14, 2013 at 07:43 AM. Reason: Lots of additions formatting blah blah
Buy TC for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=240345
Buy VIP and Toriprime for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=237249


Hey look more than two lines.
Ofc, like every other human being, I want free stuff, but you're still taking someone ELSE's work without THEIR consent, and they aren't getting what they originally planned to get when they made the product. Keep in mind that most people (pretty much everyone) wouldn't make games/music if there was no income involved.

Let's say were in the future, and corporations are now able to clone people from a single strand of DNA. Let's also say that your DNA is extremely fit for this time period/environment. These corporations (or people) are able to download your DNA to start cloning people made from YOUR DNA without paying you a dime. What would you think? Do you own your DNA or is it out for grabs?
inq.
People will always take the easy way, if legal acquisition is easier, legal methods will be used.
Developing services is superior to selling a product. Steam works because it is a service, so do the many movie/music services out there. If they just let you download and use the game/movie/music then there would be little reason to use them instead of pirating.

Originally Posted by Boredpayne View Post
This means that they must act on every infringement they observe, however marginal or superficial. The reason this is so is that if they do not, they will lose ground in future cases where the infringing party can claim that the owning entity has given tacit permission by not pursuing other infringements.

I'm skeptical of this.

I don't think lack of prosecution is precedence for an unfavourable judgement. I don't think disproportionate action in order to deter others is a good idea in any legal system.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...ating_24_songs

Here's a good example of why I don't like that stance. $62k per song is ridiculous no matter how you think of it. Yes, the copyright holder obviously thought "we need to deter others" and "we need to set a precedence" but the punishment is way too disproportionate.