Piracy is not theft

[rambo919]

What illogical magic tomfoolerly is this. Clearly you have ZERO idea how economics work in game development.
A game needs to move a certain amount of copies to break even before it actually becomes profitable. You still get studio's that develop the games and a publisher, however often these days the studio can publish their own game without the middle man.

But often the publisher will be the owner of the studio or have part ownership, general agreements with regards to developing a game it is fronted all or some development costs of the project. With the studio taking all the risk, so generally the publisher will sell at full market related pricing until development costs goals have been reached and profit goals have been met it is only after the publisher has made their profit that a studio will start earning royalties. Royalties work on a inclining block. 5% for the first 20000 units 10% for 100000 units ect.

It does not matter, replace "publisher" with any term you want the logic stays the same.

It is only after the game has made back it's development costs and profit goals have been reached that games are reduced in price not because of the goodness of their heart but because profit and development costs have been reached and sales eventually tapper off.

That is why you get specials on games, the studio and publisher aren't loosing money when they do this, they have already made their profit and development costs back. That said it may take weeks or months before a game have reached profitable goals and targets.

So no your argument is stupid, a publisher doesn't just randomly place a game on special without certain criteria not having been met. Whether down from 700 to 400 rand it is pure profit by the time it goes on special, neither the studio or publisher loses any money. Buying at a cheaper price is common sense if you are willing to wait not sticking it to the man, which you are implying.

This does not help you. You still have not demonstrated how me paying less than whoever wants me to actually takes profit away from them.

It isn't your ability to pay it is what the market will bare. Common law disagrees with you, as it states the seller can put any value on what it wants to sell as long as it has tangible value, the only provision is that what is being sold has to be some thing that exist or will exist. You can't conclude a sales transaction by selling nothing and giving nothing.There has to be physical exchange of some thing.

In other words it isn't up to the buyer to decide the value and while the seller/ buyer can negotiate on the price it is still the seller right to have a reserve price, with the buyer either accepting the value or rejecting it.By rejecting it gives you no right to whatever was sold.

The common law is pretty clear on this matter. Argue all you want.
In fact here is the common law of sales

South African law of sale - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You are trying to complicate the simple and construct an elaborate strawman.

The market will bare whatever the customer is willing to pay..... laws don't matter. If the customer limits his willingness to his ability that is his business..... you cannot legislate willingness it's stupid to even try.

In other words it is illegal to take some thing that is not yours whether by stealing it or by means of piracy. There is no grey area.

It's only taking if you take it away.

You seem to use piracy laws and the associated fair use laws as the right to infringe on copyrights, but you need to read up on fair use laws as you don't fall into that category. While it was true piracy under South African law especially with regards to illegally downloading content being a civil matter and requiring the copyright holder to sue you for damages not exceeding the value of the copyright, downloading/uploading and sharing of a copyright with others is a criminal offense.

Laws are only used to regulate fair use.... fair use is separate from the laws that regulate it. Fair use is an unwritten social contract.

It is the intention of law makers is to criminalize the downloading and infringing of copyright as well and rightfully so.

First copyright laws date back to 1790 and the first known copyright dates back to 1710, while copyrights applied only to copying of books initially it was expanded over the years. Copyrights is well established and not some thing new and will continually evolve it is just how a modern society works.Laws can't stagnate as they eventually become out of date and do more harm then good. Should they criminalize and protect copyright infringements yes.

That's because copying was almost a completely commercial industry..... quite different to today. Those laws do not make sense with the digital, were primarily for protecting commercial rights..... and to facilitate censorship.

All of copyright law needs a complete replacement.... though the replacement will be the same as the original:
Protection of commercial rights
Facilitation of censorship

Being poor or disadvantage is no excuse, there is literally 100's of digital copyrights that offer versions of extended trials or for educational purposes there is no excuse to piracy.

A band-aid for a gaping hole, in implementation that never actually does anything other than irritate. You often end up doing the opposite of learning because the software has a mind of it's own and you get the most wonderfully useless errors not replicable in the real world. Edu licensed software is utterly useless.... and does not extend to textbooks.

 

[rambo919]

And if you are wondering @rambo919

Sign In

steamcommunity.com

View attachment 1088489

I was't realy.... but have you purchased a copy of every song, movie, book, etc as well? Just for consistency sake.

 

[wizardofid]

It does not matter, replace "publisher" with any term you want the logic stays the same.


This does not help you. You still have not demonstrated how me paying less than whoever wants me to actually takes profit away from them.


You are trying to complicate the simple and construct an elaborate strawman.

The market will bare whatever the customer is willing to pay..... laws don't matter. If the customer limits his willingness to his ability that is his business..... you cannot legislate willingness it's stupid to even try.


It's only taking if you take it away.


Laws are only used to regulate fair use.... fair use is separate from the laws that regulate it. Fair use is an unwritten social contract.


That's because copying was almost a completely commercial industry..... quite different to today. Those laws do not make sense with the digital, were primarily for protecting commercial rights..... and to facilitate censorship.

All of copyright law needs a complete replacement.... though the replacement will be the same as the original:
Protection of commercial rights
Facilitation of censorship


A band-aid for a gaping hole, in implementation that never actually does anything other than irritate. You often end up doing the opposite of learning because the software has a mind of it's own and you get the most wonderfully useless errors not replicable in the real world. Edu licensed software is utterly useless.... and does not extend to textbooks.

You are a moron, you know that, fair use falls under the copyright laws you know that it isn't a law unto it self.




South Africa internet users must be entitled to fair use rights such as making and distributing copies from electronic sources in reasonable numbers for educational and research purposes and using reasonable excerpts in commentary and criticism.”

Copyright law of South Africa - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[rambo919]

You are a moron, you know that, fair use falls under the copyright laws you know that it isn't a law unto it self.

South Africa internet users must be entitled to fair use rights such as making and distributing copies from electronic sources in reasonable numbers for educational and research purposes and using reasonable excerpts in commentary and criticism.”

Copyright law of South Africa - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don't think you understand the nature of law as well as you think you do.....

EDIT:
The law did not create fair use.... it already existed.
In the same way does law not create murder.

EDIT2:
Abortion is murder.... but not in SA law.
No law can change what fair use is.... only the way in which it is regulated.

 

[wizardofid]

I was't realy.... but have you purchased a copy of every song, movie, book, etc as well? Just for consistency sake.

I have a youtube, netflix, DSTV/DSTV now, Crunchyroll, Funimation subscriptions, as well a subscription to two different district libraries and I pay my TV License, you are welcome to have my a look at my tv license account

So no......Take your righteous attitude and stick it where the sun don't shine.....

 

[wizardofid]

I don't think you understand the nature of law as well as you think you do.....

EDIT:
The law did not create fair use.... it already existed.
In the same way does law not create murder.

EDIT2:
Abortion is murder.... but not in SA law.
No law can change what fair use is.... only the way in which it is regulated.

In others word you only follow the laws you see fit and disregard the others you don't. F me.....entitled much.

On ignore you go.

 

[rambo919]

I have a youtube, netflix, DSTV/DSTV now, Crunchyroll, Funimation subscriptions, as well a subscription to two different district libraries and I pay my TV License, you are welcome to have my a look at my tv license account

So no......Take your righteous attitude and stick it where the sun don't shine.....View attachment 1088495

So in other words no you did not literally purchace a copy of everything consumed in the past and only try to cover current consumption with subscriptions.

 

[rambo919]

In others word you only follow the laws you see fit and disregard the others you don't. F me.....entitled much.

On ignore you go.

You do that..... in your entitled way.

 

[wizardofid]

So in other words no you did not literally purchace a copy of everything consumed in the past and only try to cover current consumption with subscriptions.

Said no saint ever, somewhere some how even the pope or the queen fell south of the law.There is a difference between intentionally breaking the law and not giving a f like you, and there are those of us who intentionally try not to break the law but still fall south of it any ways.

It is about the choice and it is some thing you can't handle. I want borderlands 3 as well as the new tomb raider game perhaps there are a few movies I would like to see as well, I am more then able to bide my time to get what I eventually want to consume.Having a YouTube prem subscription I can do all the music I want as well as the ability to have them offline when ever I need it.With regards to whatever is consumed Iam happy to wait for whatever, can't access it here honestly don't care.There is always the option to get it legally by ordering a boxset or by any other means then piracy, it is a piss poor excuse.

Iam ignoring not because I don't like you, Iam ignoring you because I think you are thick and not worth my limited time on earth to explain common concepts to.

 

[Swa]

The 'someone who downloads it illegal never intended to buy it so no money is lost' strawman.

If you are downloading it, you clearly want it, otherwise why download it?
If there was no other means of getting it, yes, you absolutely would have paid for it, but you can get it for free, so why pay?

The creator loses nothing? Really?
They also have rent to pay, families to feed and bills that pile up. They put their time into creating it and then you take that time for nothing.

Maybe your boss should just not pay you for a few hours a week that you are there, because, why not?
It's just your time you are putting in.

And no
You have no right to something that is region locked. The creator gave rights to a certain company to broadcast or stream their product and if they have region locks, that is their right, because they paid for that right.
You paid for nothing and are therefore entitled to jack ****.

You're resorting to the straw man. Not everyone can afford to pay for everything they download. So no, not every pirate copy is a lost sale.

Your last argument is also up for debate. You don't automatically have a right to restrict something because you paid for it. That actually goes against copyright intent but I see you don't want to broach that subject.

It is a crime.
Copyright law states so.
A law you agree with when you accept the EULA.

It does not. It's a civil matter.

Everything?
No.

A lot, yes.

But I am not afraid to admit that I stole and that I left creators out of pocket.

So you would have otherwise paid for everything you pirated?

But you said hypothetically private use, you and I know that isnt how the world works, there is going to be indirect and direct losses regardless.If there is a person that uses it for private use there is equally someone using it for profit.So your hypothetical question is BS there is always losses at some point or another.

Your not intentionally doing it, but your posts come across as piracy never hurts anyone, if you are implying it, then shyte dude South Africa is the safest place in the world.

You're conflating the two. You can't say one is the cause of the other because they exist separately for different reasons. And yes, in some cases piracy doesn't hurt anyone. There's an incorrect assumption that everyone who pirates would have otherwise paid. Piracy can also be free advertising in getting people to pay for something good that they otherwise would have thought was crap.

What illogical magic tomfoolerly is this. Clearly you have ZERO idea how economics work in game development.
A game needs to move a certain amount of copies to break even before it actually becomes profitable. You still get studio's that develop the games and a publisher, however often these days the studio can publish their own game without the middle man.

But often the publisher will be the owner of the studio or have part ownership, general agreements with regards to developing a game it is fronted all or some development costs of the project. With the studio taking all the risk, so generally the publisher will sell at full market related pricing until development costs goals have been reached and profit goals have been met it is only after the publisher has made their profit that a studio will start earning royalties. Royalties work on a inclining block. 5% for the first 20000 units 10% for 100000 units ect.

It is only after the game has made back it's development costs and profit goals have been reached that games are reduced in price not because of the goodness of their heart but because profit and development costs have been reached and sales eventually tapper off.

That is why you get specials on games, the studio and publisher aren't loosing money when they do this, they have already made their profit and development costs back. That said it may take weeks or months before a game have reached profitable goals and targets.

So no your argument is stupid, a publisher doesn't just randomly place a game on special without certain criteria not having been met. Whether down from 700 to 400 rand it is pure profit by the time it goes on special, neither the studio or publisher loses any money. Buying at a cheaper price is common sense if you are willing to wait not sticking it to the man, which you are implying.

That is wrong. You can't force people to pay what you think something is worth no matter if you "need" to recoup your investment or not. People will only pay the price they think something is worth.

Doom 2016 is a good example of this. In the end so few people wanted to buy it that they gave it away for free and in only a few months got discounts of +50%. That usually doesn't happen. In that case they didn't make what they wanted to and was forced to bow to what the market wanted to pay.

You also can't blame piracy as it had one of the best systems to enforce usage rights but at the expense of the user experience.

 

[rambo919]

Said no saint ever, somewhere some how even the pope or the queen fell south of the law.There is a difference between intentionally breaking the law and not giving a f like you, and there are those of us who intentionally try not to break the law but still fall south of it any ways.

It is about the choice and it is some thing you can't handle. I want borderlands 3 as well as the new tomb raider game perhaps there are a few movies I would like to see as well, I am more then able to bide my time to get what I eventually want to consume.Having a YouTube prem subscription I can do all the music I want as well as the ability to have them offline when ever I need it.With regards to whatever is consumed Iam happy to wait for whatever, can't access it here honestly don't care.There is always the option to get it legally by ordering a boxset or by any other means then piracy, it is a piss poor excuse.

Iam ignoring not because I don't like you, Iam ignoring you because I think you are thick and not worth my limited time on earth to explain common concepts to.

I don't think you understand how this ignoring thing works.....

 

[rambo919]

@wizardofid

I get that you are upset because I won't stop shooting your sacred cow..... and for my part I apologize for starting to rib you a bit at the end...... you made it so easy I could not resist.

However.... it's simply not a sacred cow for me too and you just plain have to accept that rather that trying to guilt me into agreeing with you.

 

[rrh]

For them what torrent: be careful out there

Newly discovered Vigilante malware outs software pirates and blocks them

 

[Nanfeishen]

For them what torrent: be careful out there

Newly discovered Vigilante malware outs software pirates and blocks them

WTF

When viewed through a hex editor, the executables also contain a racial epithet that’s repeated more than 1,000 times followed by a large, randomly sized block of alphabetical characters.


“Padding out the archive with purposeless files of random length may simply be done to modify the archive’s hash value,” Brandt wrote. “Padding it out with racist slurs told me all I needed to know about its creator.”