19% (9)
25% (12)
34% (16)
4% (2)
14% (7)
2% (1)[EDIT: The full question ends "...and that you didn't purchase."]
Today I have been troubled by an issue I've never given a lot of thought before. I think perhaps I have moved to a more moral, if expensive, stance. Let's see what you think.
ID:27117
 Feb 9 2007, 11:32 am
|
|||||||||||||
Poll: When is it right to make a copy of a work that is under copyright and that you d
Only members of can vote.
| |||||||||||||
|
Feb 9 2007, 11:34 am
|
|
Crashed
 |
Fix your poll!
|
When it's something that I typically would not buy ("When it costs too much" falls under that).
| |
I pirate everything.
Anarcy, screw the gov, etc, etc | |
Although I've never (successfully) pirated anything, if it's too expensive, I assume I would not buy it in the first place. Now, since this is data that can be easily copied and distributed (with what little cost they take going to the file host, not the creator,) no "harm" directly befalls the creator. Although not exactly fair, as it means those who have money have to pay for something those without get for free, it's not a terrible crime. Who is the victim?
| |
Who is the victim? Perhaps the pirate's soul is the victim! | |
I've always been of the stance of "Never" or "When it's no longer available", depending on the product in question. Games and other things which were before my time fall under the "no longer available" category. Anything else falls under the "never" category.
From what I hear, my policy is actually quite rare -- many people, for instance, eagerly wait five years from the release of a game and then download it proclaiming it as "abandonware", even if it's still showing sales at various outlets, or even if it has limited quantities in the distributor's warehouse! That bothers me on a fundamental level. | |
I don't download anything copyrighted except for old games, and then only if I can't get them in some legitimate manner.
I don't know for sure where I stand on the whole DRM thing, but I do believe that creators/publishers deserve to be compensated if they made their works available for a price. I've had responsible adults say to me that if they buy a song it's their right to broadcast it to the Internet or whatever in any fashion they please, and I have a hard time accepting that. | |
DarkCampainger wrote:
Who is the victim? The creator. You have deprived them of the opportunity to make a sale. You have also deprived them of their right to determine how their intellectual property may be distributed, if at all. Those are not physical goods, but they can be just as valuable, if not more. The only moral answer is "Never" or possibly "Dying child" (but only if the kid is destined to cure cancer or something). | |
When the author is a communist, for sure. I mean, we would have never gotten the great Tetris if it was not for piracy of the original Tetris created by a communist scientist(That is actually true).
| |
Ninjas never pirate.
| |
The only moral answer is "Never"
When it comes to a 15+ year old game where the creating company doesn't even exist anymore and there's no formal way to purchase the game, I have a hard time saying, "I shouldn't play this game." Which also touches on a thorny issue related to copyright...Google was lambasted when they said they would start digitizing books unless authors contacted them to opt out, but they actually had a point. It's frequently impossible to determine who "owns" a work, especially an older work, and therefore some works simply die out because no one can republish them since no one is sure who owns them. In some cases, it can take years of research just to figure out who has the rights. This ties into our messed up "public domain" system...meaning, we no longer really have a concept of public domain, even though it's a very important concept for society. People should be able to reuse characters and sounds and the like after sufficient time has passed for the author to be rewarded for their work, but (at least in the US), we have stopped letting things go into the public domain in order to keep Disney from losing Mickey. It's all very thorny and complex. | |
Mike H wrote:
DarkCampaigner wrote: But if it so overpriced that you would be more likely to forget about it before you had the money to buy it, then they don't get a sale anyway. They lost their opportunity to make a sale when they inflated the price of their product--a product which takes under a cent to reproduce electronically. For a non-professional user who just wants something to do, maybe learn a thing or two along the way, prices such as $700 are way out of our price range. You have also deprived them of their right to determine how their intellectual property may be distributed, if at all. Ok, I can't argue with that. However, consider the fact that since most of these "price inflators" of which I'm referring to are not some poor, "I need to pay the rent!" developer. The one's making the money probably don't even know how to program. They are huge, faceless companies who practically rule the market. They deny me the right to learn a trade and expand my imaginative horizons. Even so, I still pay for them :( | |
Fifteen years? Everyone else gets 50+ years to profit from their creations, why should George Gnome be freely available to the public after only another 12 years? I'll be still alive (given the hypothetical situation where I ever make money off of G.Gnome) porting my older games to new systems while people are declaring them 'abandoned' and 'free'.
| |
I have downloaded many books of MERP. Tolkien Estate, the family of J.R.R., is fine with it. Iron Crown Enterprises, the role playing company, is fine with it because they don't make or sell the books anymore. However, Tolkien Enterprises is not fine with it. They revoked ICE's license years ago and now have the nerve to get upset when the old books are distributed by fans.
| |
'll be still alive (given the hypothetical situation where I ever make money off of G.Gnome) porting my older games to new systems while people are declaring them 'abandoned' and 'free'.
But if you are actively porting and supporting the games, they clearly they are not abandoned. Would you say that a 15 year old game that hasn't been on sale for 12 years, has no existing company or publisher behind it, and has no way to legally buy it, really shouldn't be played by people? Who is not playing it serving, exactly? | |
DarkCampainger wrote:
Mike H wrote: Wrong. You deprived them of the opportunity to mark it down to get the sale. As long as the right (and ability) to copy is in their sole possession, they always retain the opportunity to change the terms of sale. When you copy something because it was "too expensive" and you wouldn't have paid for it at that price, you suddenly removed any possibility of negotiating a price that you might have been willing to pay. --a product which takes under a cent to reproduce electronically. The cost to reproduce has nothing to do with the cost to create. However, consider the fact that since most of these "price inflators" of which I'm referring to are not some poor, "I need to pay the rent!" developer. The one's making the money probably don't even know how to program. They are huge, faceless companies who practically rule the market. The relative wealth of the creator or licensed distributor does not change the morality of theft or infringement. They deny me the right to learn a trade and expand my imaginative horizons. You don't have an inherent right to any content created by another person. You can choose to obtain that content under a mutual agreement with the creator, if such an agreement can be reached. Even so, I still pay for them :( Good, that's better than most, I'd guess. :) | |
Deadron wrote:
Who is not playing it serving, exactly? Justice, that's who. (I'm just kidding, I'm with Jt on this. =P To me it's wrong unless I investigate and it's no longer possible. There's only one exception for me and that's a few Playstation games which I've brought dozens of times only to lose, get scratched or 'lend' to someone I'll never see again. I've brought so many legit copies of Final Fantasy VII and Metal Gear Solid I think even Squaresoft and Konami would be cool with me downloading them now (both of which are relatively expensive due to their popularity and rarity)). | |
When it is the only thing that can cure a dying child (3)
I'm glad there are more of me. | |
Airjoe: Ninjas never pirate. That made me "lol". Back on topic, though.... I never pirate myself mainly because I've known somebody who was sued by 20th century fox, and I also want to support the creators. Some crap is just freaking ridiculous, though. I am a student and I want to learn how to use software BEFORE I fork out 600-3,000 ****ing dollars for it. Companies like Macromedia and Adobe have hit products that are staples in the world of information technology, making god-awful amounts of money either way, so what do they do? They charge insane prices so nobody interested can even afford, but companies are forced to spend a ton because the product is so important. It's just a ripoff. I still wouldn't pirate it but I feel no remorse for these companies. | |