«

[plix]

Originally posted by Playbahnosh@Mar 18 2006, 04:23 PM
Uh-Uh! the opposite! they actually like playing games, that's why the hobby:D If they don't give a damn about playing, why would they crack them? ;) Oh they do like games a lot, actually they buy their own copy :ok:

The two are generally pretty independent of each other. They don't defeat the copyright protections to play the game, they do it for the sake of doing it (as we agreed on before). That's not to say that they don't enjoy a particular game, just that the two activities aren't that strongly related. Personally, I couldn't care much less about cracking software but I do often have to reverse engineer protocols and a file format every so often (which are similar endeavors) and it's actually quite enjoyable.

[Playbahnosh]

Reverse engineering can be quite entertaining I admit that k: I can't feel it fully, but braking a simple serial protection was a 2 weeks bloddy hard job, but yeah, it was quite fun Cracking games and playing them can be each fun on their own and together also, but assuming crackers don't give a damn about playing games is a bit hasty remark don't you think? Many .NFO files contain that they actually doing the cracking because they love games and yeah, there could be some bastards exist that don't like to play games

Originally posted by kajjj
Somehow I find the game more interesting when I have to pay for it. The games that you download are just not that good anymore... They come too easy.

Because you HAVE the option to buy any game you want. As troop18546 stated it, some of us don't have the option to buy games, simply because we don't have shops around that sells them. Okay this is no real excuse because you can order it online. Yeah sure, but according to our standards, that costs too much. Maybe for you guys buying a 40-50$ game is pocket-money, but 50$ is 1/5 of the hungarian minimum-salary... so we are just not that rich. according to our living standards here, games and programs cost far more than we could afford, just think about Photoshop with it's 640$...

[troop18546]

Originally posted by Playbahnosh+Mar 19 2006, 01:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Playbahnosh @ Mar 19 2006, 01:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-kajjj
Somehow I find the game more interesting when I have to pay for it. The games that you download are just not that good anymore... They come too easy.

Because you HAVE the option to buy any game you want. As troop18546 stated it, some of us don't have the option to buy games, simply because we don't have shops around that sells them. Okay this is no real excuse because you can order it online. [/b][/quote]
Owning an original copy is a real joy - that's why I have bought so many games. And no, playbahnosh - ordering online isn't an excuse. I mean - who'd send it to a place they never heard of? Packages we get from abroad are often broken, stolen and messed up (you often order one thing - you get another). F*ck the fact of buying online.
The one's I can buy in a shop are either too pricy, lame, outdated or in foreign languages (i.e. russian, cause we are near the place.). The licenced russian remakes are often made more buggier than the original or screwed up in hieroglyphs, so you are gonna download a copy anyway over inet. But that's why we get them cheaper.
For me downloading games that aren't and won't be in stores isn't piracy - someone just give's you his copy.

[Chuck the plant]

@ plix: Please, don't try to give me this "It's because those people are not used to capitalism"-BS.
Even in communism, the basical principle remains the same: You contribute to society by what you can do and offer, and society gives you what you need in exchange. Stealing in any way - including stealing intelectual property - is not contributing. It's in fact the opposite. And it's nothing which communist systems would approve of, either.

BTW: a computer game is the product of the designers' imagination, efforts etc. There's really no need to discuss this simple matter. And exactly for which reasons should "art" be free, anyway? Many artists have to rely on making money through their art. If not, they would hardly find the time to still be creative, because they would actually have to WORK to make a living, which would in turns mean that there wouldn't be much "art" around anymore... I somehow doubt that this is what you'd want to happen. And no, I see no real reason why "art" of any kind should become "free for all" after any given time. It's the artists' work, it's their property and no one has the right to demand them to "give it free" if they don't want to. Just like nobody should be allowed to force you to open the house you built for the public after any given time.

[Tulac]

Originally posted by Chuck the plant@Mar 19 2006, 08:52 PM
@ plix: Please, don't try to give me this "It's because those people are not used to capitalism"-BS.
Even in communism, the basical principle remains the same: You contribute to society by what you can do and offer, and society gives you what you need in exchange. Stealing in any way - including stealing intelectual property - is not contributing. It's in fact the opposite. And it's nothing which communist systems would approve of, either.

LOL

Communist system didn't aprove of copyright at all, it was all "people's" property...

[plix]

Originally posted by Chuck the plant@Mar 19 2006, 01:52 PM
You contribute to society by what you can do and offer, and society gives you what you need in exchange. Stealing in any way - including stealing intelectual property - is not contributing. It's in fact the opposite. And it's nothing which communist systems would approve of, either.

[Emphasis mine]

You said it right there. "Contribute to society" doesn't equate to "maximize profit."

Originally posted by Chuck the plant
Many artists have to rely on making money through their art. If not, they would hardly find the time to still be creative, because they would actually have to WORK to make a living, which would in turns mean that there wouldn't be much "art" around anymore... I somehow doubt that this is what you'd want to happen.

That's the idea behind copyright, an idea I don't disagree with. However, explain to me how Mickey Mouse remaining under copyright to this day has allowed Walt Disney (the person, not the company) to continue to make his art. Last I knew he had passed on. Current copyright law is a perversion of the original intent.

What I take issue with is that copyright no longer primarily benefits the artist, it benefits the interests of big business. Commander Keen (the characters, story, etc) was primarily the idea of Tom Hall, for example, but the copyright on the game doesn't protect him and has prevented him from developing new Keen games (something he to this day wishes he could do).

Originally posted by Chuck the plant
And no, I see no real reason why "art" of any kind should become "free for all" after any given time. It's the artists' work, it's their property and no one has the right to demand them to "give it free" if they don't want to. Just like nobody should be allowed to force you to open the house you built for the public after any given time.

Art is a part of culture; it is intended to benefit all equally. It's public property because it's a part of us all. Art is not intended to be a means of profit and copyright isn't the right to profit. Rather, copyright is intended to promote the arts and encourage artists to continue to contribute to society. I can see -- though I disagree with -- the argument for copyright lasting the lifetime of the creator. How, though, can you defend current copyright terms which last far beyond the creator's lifetime and benefit people who had no hand in creating the original work?

Your analogy to a house is a false one in the same way that calling copyright infringement "theft" is. Copyright would ensure that following the construction of your house that no one be allowed to exactly duplicate the design for a set amount of time (so that you, the builder, could sell it to fund the development of more houses). That in no way changes your right to the original house ("the work"). To put it in more concrete terms, the Mona Lisa is private property belonging to someone (the Louvre I believe) and copyright would have ensured no one the right to duplicate the work for some amount of time. The rationale behind limiting that amount of time is that the public has an inherent right to benefit from that work and allowing a single entity to restrict viewing is unjust -- hence why we are all able to enjoy photographs of it. Shakespeare is another prime example of this.

[troop18546]

What he said.

[plix]

Originally posted by Playbahnosh@Mar 19 2006, 06:38 AM
...but assuming crackers don't give a damn about playing games is a bit hasty remark don't you think? Many .NFO files contain that they actually doing the cracking because they love games ;) and yeah, there could be some bastards exist that don't like to play games :D

[I know this is getting slightly OT, but forgive me as I find it too interesting a line of discussion.]

I do agree that I misworded that original comment. What I've been trying to say is that the act of cracking the game is independent of the interest/enjoyment of said game. I agree that crackers probably enjoy games as much as the next person, but I look at it this way: there is nearly no way possible that a reasonably talented cracker could play (beyond rudamentary testing) each and every game they crack. I've just been trying to distinguish the two activities as primarily independent in motivation, not that crackers hate games :)

[Playbahnosh]

Originally posted by plix@Mar 20 2006, 12:54 AM
I do agree that I misworded that original comment. What I've been trying to say is that the act of cracking the game is independent of the interest/enjoyment of said game.

oh I know what you meant very well, that's why I didn't dissed that comment just made my own remark. Aye, those two activities are not the same, and crackers are just casual gamers like us, they only play games they like. but they have the fun of cracking every other game they get even before playing them(or not) that makes playing the game even more enjoyabe knowing that YOU were the one that made it work and made it avalible for others to play So they are having fun with a game even without actually playing them Isn't that just cool? I agree, some crackers are just in fro the cracking part, some are in for the games, some are both, everyone for its own fun

@Chuck

You are getting more and more tiring dude Look, you are making hasty remarks about out-there things like society, goverment forms and so on... your analogys have gaping holes in it...

READ THIS!

This should give you a good idea what's copyright, fair use and stuff like that k: let's see what do you thing after that

[Chuck the plant]

Originally posted by Playbahnosh@Mar 20 2006, 01:21 AM
@Chuck

You are getting more and more tiring dude* Look, you are making hasty remarks about out-there things like society, goverment forms and so on... your analogys have gaping holes in it...

Excuse me? Was I the one who used the former political system as an excuse? Was I the one that started to use the social surroundings of some people as an excuse? I don't think so.

READ THIS!

This should give you a good idea what's copyright, fair use and stuff like that k: let's see what do you thing after that

Very unbiased source that is... :whistle:
That "fair use"-comment is golden, btw... especially when coming from someone who basically doesn't mind stealing and benefitting without contributing... k:
And I really don't care wether you argue that "games are art and should be treated that way"... WHO is imposing views here exactly after just accusing me of the very same thing here? Because just because any law says so, it does by no means mean that it is an universal truth. Both of you should know that, since you were so eagerly debating the arbitrariness of both "normality" and "morals"...

BTW, as far as I'm concerned I was never discussing the "rightfulness" of copyright laws. It was about warez and why their not ok, in a "moral" way or otherwise. Warez have nothing do with the problem of long-time copyrights etc. Warez are infringing RECENT copyrights, and even trying to discuss that this is NOT wrong is proof of a very parasitic take on things. A game is a product. Like a car. Like a computer. Using a product without paying for it is stealing. Period. I really don't care if it "feels like stealing" to you or not, and neither would any judge.

EDIT: I never said communism cared about copyright. I just said, that the basical principle was the same as in capitalism: You have to contribute to society to get something back in exchange. Using Warez is getting something without contributing. No need to argue about that.
On that very topic: Since there weren't any copyright laws, it really makes one wonder about the HUGE ammount of great and well known art from communist countries, does it not? LOL