I guess that says it all. You'll have an argument and demand proof off those who disagree with you (I'm not trawling through 25+ pages looking for the multiple times you say this) but when someone does provide verifiable, independent research you're quite happy to ignore it. Quite hypocritical. Also, I'm not claiming anything, I'm citing. claim [kleym] Show IPA –verb (used with object) to assert or maintain as a fact: She claimed that he was telling the truth. cite [sahyt] Show IPA –verb (used with object), cit·ed, cit·ing. to mention in support, proof, or confirmation; refer to as an example: He cited many instances of abuse of power.
So photography is compatible to video games but music and film is not? Or is it only relevant when it suits you?
Seeing as Johnny is a photographer, and he was talking about his take on the subject of piracy, how could what he said be taken as irrelevent? Or the questions that led from his opinions? Come on Cabe, if you want to turn in into StuartPB vs Cabe, try harder
So in that case it would be OK for me to plagarise while studying at uni. After all, I am only reproducing someone else's intellectual property, aren't I? Regardless of the intended outcome, the act is the same. How about me deciding to copy all my DVDs and music CDs, and setting up a market stall, then selling them? Different intended outcome, same act. Then we get to downloading the latest game etc. Different intended outcome, but again the same act. One which is illegal and immoral, in my view at least anyways.
Oooh, I see how it is. It's ok for you to dismiss other peoples points but not the other way around. Pot. Kettle. Black. As you've said yourself "You can't have your cake and eat it". Either you respond the other peoples points how you would like to be responded to or you don't demand people prove themselves to you. If you go back and read the thread you must be able to see the hypocrisy in the statements your currently making. As an aside, I'm not trying to turn this into any "StuartPB vs Cabe" debate. It's not personal and I am quite capable of leaving any disagreements inside this thread. I have read your posts around bit in my daily perusing and assume you are quite capable of this two. I do not see this as a "me vs you" thing but rather "my viewpoint vs your viewpoint" and I'd like to leave it that way.
Plagarising at uni would be an attempt to mislead those who assess you academically. Copying and selling DVDs would involve you making money from others' work. If you gave them away for free that would be ok (morally speaking - it would of course be completely illegal) There is this assumption that the creator of a work of art (game, film, music, whatever) should have complete ownership of that work. I disagree with this. And it's worth noting that copyright was not originally intended to assert the ownership of the creator - it was merely a way to ensure that creators have some financial incentive for creating, in order to be of benefit to society as a whole. Now the financial rewards have got out hand, and it seems the only reason most people create is to make money. This would explain the (mostly) dire state of the film, game and music industries. If these rewards were to be reduced, then maybe there would be less games etc, but what was there would be made be people who just want to create and (I believe) would be all the better for it.
Cabe, I don't think I can bring anything new to the table that hasn't already been discussed. I did make that clear several times in this thread and have been very honest about that. As I said, I could produce evidence that is against software piracy, but it is still inconclusive. In the case of Elledan, she has no commercial data of her own to show one way or the other what is right or wrong for her company, regards DRM, seeing as she is not actively trading yet (at least as far as I know). She is using the analysis of other companies to decide upon her own business model, something that can and often does result in failure. I have seen and heard it done too many times by startups, and witnessed it ending in tears. She may well find that turning a blind eye to piracy may turn out to be profitable, but as I said, it could turn out to be her downfall too. Until she has been trading for some time, no-one will know for sure.
You're right. Except that it has been done by a small, independent studio and shown to a better alternative than DRM. So I guess that makes you wrong. We do know. That's the great thing about proof, it lets you know things for sure. I've shown that this is the case. If you disagree, find a reputable source and show me otherwise. Else I'll take it that this part of the discussion has been concluded.
We must have vastly different moral standards then. In fairness, I did have a personal change of heart on piracy, going from being a pirate consumer, to a legitimate one. I think my views on the morality of pirating changed, and this could be part of the reason why I decided to change my habits. I know having more disposable income in the latter Amiga days was the main driving force though. When copyright was created, digital media did not exist. We need an overhaul of the system, to ensure that those who create digital media are afforded ther protection they deserve, and also to ensure that the consumer is also afforded some protection too (ie. legitimate copies for backups). I think we need to stop placing digital media on some sort of plateau, it is no different from any other commercial product, in that it exists to generate income for the author. How can it be morally wrong to nip into Tescos and help myself to a can of special brew, but morally right to unlawfully obtain a piece of digital media that has commercial value placed upon it? I just don't get it, and no-one here has convinced me that this is the right way to think. That's naive to be honest and sounds a bit Marxist too. Again, we are placing digital media on a plateau and trying to seperate it from any other commercial products. We are not entitled to play the latest games, watch the latest films or to listen to the latest tunes. It's not a god given right. If the owner of digital media wants to release it into the public domain, and not place commercial value on his or her work, then that is their choice. If the owner wants to restrict access to those who are willing to pay for the privilege, then this is also their choice.
You seem to be thinking that the success of one company, in it's strategy regarding not using DRM provides a business model that all others should follow. That's a dangerous, and to put it bluntly, stupid suggestion. I sell PC's. Now do I look at the likes of Dell or IBM when forming my strategies? Or do I focus on my own research, and my own experience? Which will give me the better results for my company?
and also the reason why copyright exists just because something is digital, doesn't mean it doesn't have the same protection under copyright
You seem to be thinking that the experience of one company (yours) is the be all and end all and a business model that all others should follow. That's a dangerous, and to put it bluntly, stupid suggestion.
No I don't and I would like to know how I could be accused of this, especially as I don't create digital media. Come on Cabe, keep up I gave my opinion that viewing piracy as a promotional opportunity could be dangerous, and I still stand by that.
The difference between a physical product (like a can of special brew) and digital media is that it costs nothing to create an additional copy of digital media. I'm not sure what you mean by 'Marxist' - if you mean that it describes a scenario whereby society operates for the benefit of all - then I guess maybe you're right. Although, unless you are familiar with Marx's work, I probably wouldn't go applying the label to my ill-formed ramblings! (If 'Marxist' was meant as some kind of insult, then I'm not offended. I have in the past studied Marx's work, and seem to remember finding much that made sense).
But they are still commercial products. Again trying to seperate digital media from other commercial products. I used the term correctly thank you. Those who pirate or advocate piracy seem to be under the illusion that digital media serves to enhance society, and therefore no commercial value should be placed on such an item. So the publishers of said media should be doing so in the search for enlightenment and progress, and not for their own benefit. Naive and idealistic. As I said digital media is no different from any other commercial product.
Considering you've based all your claims about how piracy effects small companies on your own evidence and ledgers I think it's a fair point. I never advocated using it as a promotional opportunity, it's not even what we are discussing. No need to be condescending. Was I wrong when I said you were capable of not making this personal? Stuart, to put it bluntly, it seems that in this thread you have stuck by your views from the get go but you've demanded others prove to you their points whilst not lifting a finger to substantiate any of your own. You've flat out insulted other members because of their opinions when it was clear you didn't really understand the point You've poked fun at the wording people have used and ignored the point they made when the meaning of the sentence was obvious When anyone provides valid, reliable sources contradicting you, you dismiss them. But if someone provides even the flakiest of sources that seems to back you up you are all over it (even if it's only a forum post regarding an unrelated industry). And now have an air of "lol, look at everyone else being wrong while I'm right"-ness going on. It's obvious that you are simply unwilling to participate in a discussion, rather you're quite happy to preach your own thoughts and stick your fingers in your ears and ignore anyone else. I'm sorry, but grow up man. Until I see that you are willing to participate in an open minded discussion where the possibility of you being wrong exists I wont be involved in this. As far as I am concerned the burden of proof is on you now. Either you substantiate your argument or your just another guy on the internet who has no idea what he's on about. I suspect you'll just ignore this anyway and post some silly comment about it as you have done the last few pages. I assume it's because you have no counter argument. Why not take your own advice
If people choose not to pay me, then I agree, it sucks to be me. And my logic isn't confused, I just have a different view point. The fact is people DO want to pay me. but there is a growing notion, like the one that you have, that simply because it's digital, there are no costs or losses associated with an additional copy. This is false. You aren't paying for the digital image, you are paying for the right to use it. It's like renting a car, you pay to use it. Then the next guys pays to use it. Avis gets a lot of money out of one car. The same concept applies to music, film and images. The price reflects how it will be used and how often. No, it doesn't. You are getting something. I'm not. Not paying for it, I get no revenue, but you also don't get to use my image. When you use it, you get something, so should I. The part where I get nothing for you getting something…that's the stealing part. That's the part where I get to use the law to recoup the losses that your infringement incurred. If you hadn't used the image, I wouldn't be able to do that. Bad analogy. That is like saying the first rental should cover the cost of the car, and that everyone else should be able to use Avis' cars for free. Or the first magazine should cover the costs and after that, everyone should be able to use them. That simply makes no sense. It is a moral issue, but I think that the ideas you have about content is one that is fueling the infringement. It's becoming more common and accepted to think about a digital copy as free, when it's not. Funny coming from someone that suggests it's ok to use people's work and not pay them what it's worth.
A digital copy is free. I might have copied one of your photographs 50 times during the course of this disussion. If I had, would you really feel that you had lost some money? What if I'd copied it 50 million times, how much would you feel you had lost then?
