1. Updated Resource Submission Rules: All model & skin resource submissions must now include an in-game screenshot. This is to help speed up the moderation process and to show how the model and/or texture looks like from the in-game camera.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. DID YOU KNOW - That you can unlock new rank icons by posting on the forums or winning contests? Click here to customize your rank or read our User Rank Policy to see a list of ranks that you can unlock. Have you won a contest and still haven't received your rank award? Then please contact the administration.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Ride into the sunset with the 32nd Modeling Contest. The contest is optionally paired. Best of luck, people!
    Dismiss Notice
  4. This adventure has come to an end. Congratulate our heroes in the 16th Mini Mapping Contest Results.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. From the gates of hell, the 5th Special Effect Contest Results have emerged.
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Race against the odds and Reforge, Don't Refund. The 14th Techtree Contest has begun!
    Dismiss Notice
  7. Check out the Staff job openings thread.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
60,000 passwords have been reset on July 8, 2019. If you cannot login, read this.

Piracy

Discussion in 'Medivh's Tower' started by Nudl9, Oct 17, 2012.

  1. Hakeem

    Hakeem

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    2,503
    Resources:
    2
    Maps:
    2
    Resources:
    2
    Before the technological age, you had monopoly on that by being the author, generally speaking. After the development of analog technology, obviously things changed from being able to be copied and played back so readily. Then the digital age arrived and that dynamic exploded.

    I posit that your statement is not merely an opinion, but necessarily true with regard to reality as it is presently configured.
    I'd have liked to have seen this discussed more in this thread.
    1. There is a problem here.
    2. There are solutions to said problem.
    But no everybody just wants to argue if it's right or wrong.

    I argue that copyright law is immoral, unethical, and ultimately, often downright evil.
    I think you missed the point of the comic entirely. I don't see anything in that comic that screams, "The music industry is evil because it screws over artists!" The most I see of that there is the one little bubble where the artist asks about the few cents they didn't get. This is hardly a statement about how immoral the publishing industry is; to do that you'd need to first start getting into the raw fact of the matter that the artist agreed to these terms.

    The main point of the comic as I read it is that the way forward is to cut out the middleman that is the obsolete publishing industry. It's neither useful nor wise nor practical to keep it around. Is it evil? Hardly a relevant question.
    This is so false it is ridiculous. The problem isn't that the internet is not profitable, it's that the old method of business is run by people who suck at adapting. That copyright still exists, let alone is relied upon, is a severe oversight on the part of any professional in the publishing industry.
    Yes, but why did you do so?
    But that was history. Clearly we live in an age where the future is so vastly different from the past that we can't base any decision we make on what has happened before, even though people, logic, and physics still work the same exact way.
    I don't think there are any companies that actually say this. I think idiots with opinions say this. In all my time seeing this subject discussed, not once have I even seen someone point to a sales spread that showed a decline in sales that was assumed or implied or even hinted at having been caused or influenced in any way by piracy.

    Which makes me have to question: If it's not about sales, why are companies doing DRM?
    This should be overlooked, clearly, so that we can continue wasting time, resources, and physical effort on things that drive civilization in no way whatsoever.
    As opposed to...?

    I see this fallacy way too often. "Your system would be bad because of <X aspect>!" Well, yes, that sure is a bad aspect that is present in your system as well. (And often times said flaw is present in all such systems, inherently.)
    Everyone knows this on a basic level, I think. But let's suppose that actually happened. What happens after the entire industry collapses entirely, because literally everyone pirated?
    I think balance increases when you cut out needless middlemen.
    Wouldn't that be entirely up to the one managing the funds for each individual movie, and not you, specifically, of all people?
    I can see a way to make it work. You're probably going to argue there's no reason to make it work. I'd then assume you'd put no effort into assessing the possibility. I'd then wonder how you brought yourself to make the assertion to begin with. Did you perhaps post it without first thinking if it was even slightly true or not? Naturally, you must simply see no other alternative.

    This is because you see things in black and white. How am I to explain a working system here when you are blind to the grey area where it exists?

    Yes, I am making the argument that explaining my stance to you is, in fact, pointless.
    The problem is that I know the opposite.
    You are literally saying that not buying something actively harms the seller.

    I suppose you could argue that was the case, but then I'd like to discuss the actual economics of the matter, how businesses actually make money with SEVEN BILLION people failing to purchase their product, the value of advertising, and in general getting the business off the ground, before we magically assume all businesses work exactly the same way and are completely successful and don't have to worry about anything other than piracy, whose effect I argue isn't sales impact.

    Again, clearly, I disagree entirely. I could disagree all the way to a functioning society devoid of any kind of trade, but that would involve arguing several critical assumptions you hold and going on incredibly wild tangents. Not that I don't want to do just that, I'm simply pointing out that you're not explaining your stance in a way that is easy to discuss. You simply assert things work a certain way and explain the logic based on that assumption. It's not that I necessarily disagree a business will go under if they don't have money to run their business with, it's the unexplained premise of how, exactly, the mere act of not doing business with a company directly causes them damage.
    Yes, if you're Julia Roberts. If, on the other hand, you are not, in fact, Julia Roberts, then the theft is merely petty; the price of a movie ticket or rental or hard copy. Yes, if we assume that failure to purchase is akin to theft, and it is wrong on that basis, then the small crimes add up into one big crime. Now if you're the guy spreading the bootleg content...

    You're probably actually aware there's a difference between buying stolen goods and pirating them in the first place, but let's not get caught up on the fact that the people we're calling pirates are anything but the ones doing the actual piracy.
    Yes, yes I do feel entitled to my money that is mine to spend as is my right as a trading agent in an economic engine. I think what you want to ask is if I feel entitled to illegally acquired content. The answer, again, is yes, of course. Mostly because legality means nothing to me but the potential for corruption, and if I need to preform illegal acts to keep myself alive, then those acts are justified on a human level, if not a legal one. I consider theft to be a moral act in certain situations because I care more about human life than shitty movies. I feel that the right to life, liberty, and happiness, totally trumps any concept of ownership, intellectual or otherwise. I'd rather be robbed than let someone die because I "owned" something. It is really that simple to me; human life is that infinitely white part of the spectrum that trumps any material blackness. Supposing I didn't value human life, theft is universally wrong. But no, I value human life most of all.

    Now.

    Do I feel entitled to consume content that I have not purchased? Yes, yes I absolutely do. Especially when I didn't ask for said content to walk up to me and start performing. On the street. Like some kind of "street artist," in this hypothetical world where such a thing could occur. Do I feel entitled to a good seat in a theater where a show is being presented whose cost has already been payed for by all those who are occupying a seat? Yes, yes I do, if it happens to be the case that a seat has made itself available, either from a remorseful buyer storming out, failure to attend due to illness or death, or, and especially in the case that: My friend bought the ticket and decided at the last minute he did not want to attend, instructing that I should go instead, even though I have no ticket, but merely the knowledge of a seat number which will be unoccupied. I have no qualms with doing this, because the seat, the thing being sold, in this case, has already been paid for. I steal nothing by watching the show, except in the exact case that I remove someone from their seat and sit in it in their stead.

    The seller, of course, has the right to decide what, exactly, they are selling, of the resources at their disposal. Now let's invent cinematography into the picture here. What is being sold when you sell a reel of film? You now have unlimited playback to the performance that you'd otherwise have to have bought a seat for, or stood on the sidelines to attend, provided the show had sold out. Obviously what is being sold is the performance itself. But wait! You can turn that item over to anyone with a projector! Now they, too, can watch it in an unlimited fashion! And what's this? There are now devices on the market that can produce a /copy/ without all our fancy machinery?! What are we selling??? It's not a seat, and it's not the item, and it's not the ability to share the item, no, no, God no, it can't be that. We'll never sell more than one copy ever again!

    Then we get into licensing and your black or white becomes black on white, language and interpretation comes into the picture, and the realm of contract is entered.

    Do I feel entitled to be bound by a contract I haven't entered in to?

    You damn well bet I don't.

    Watching a film she acts in does not in any way entitle an actress to my property. Really, at the point of it being a contract, this is no longer any of your business; moral, legal, or otherwise.

    You know what? This thread is now about copyright; intellectual property, which is the real issue underlying so-called digital "piracy." All this right and wrong and moral and illegal stuff are third party commentary on contracts that we have nothing to do with.
    Staying informed is kind of critical to knowing where to direct your cash so you help the world with the most efficiency. This means creating a rapidly moving network of information where things can be copied and spread at ease. This has the unfortunate side-effect of causing content to be unbound from physical reality, freeing it to a much wider audience than could have been imagined so few years ago. It's almost like you don't appreciate the internet as a raw driving force of modern civilization instead of a mere convenience for lazy people to deprive others of things that they possess.
    Last I checked, not being paid for your work was slavery. "Theft" has this sort of material connotation, at least in my mind.
    I ENJOYED MYSELF WITHOUT PAYING OTHERS FOR THEIR HARD WORK. I AM THE WORST PERSON EVER.
    Right, but see, this simple economic principle is known to every "pirate." This is why games are still bought. Even by "pirates." Go figure. It's almost like "pirates" aren't less intelligent than yourself.
    But not only is someone else literally picking up the tab, thousands and millions of people are literally picking up the tab, and my money doesn't make a single bit of difference.
    Why? I'm not hurting anyone. So what if I'm a leech? They get paid enough to stay afloat and keep producing content. What is the big deal? They aren't getting exactly as much money as they'd like? Is that supposed to bother me? Heck, a leech actually takes blood. I'm not taking anything. I'm just standing by and watching the play. The play that has already been paid for, in full. To charge me to stand there is to try to make profit over loitering. I'm just gonna leave if they try to be strict about it. No, if you want to push the issue, I'll just stop using it. Screw paying.

    The only difference here, physical, literal, legal, societal, emotional, architectural, whatever epistemological level of reality you want to discuss here, is that I am entertained without the content provider directly profiting. It's not my being entertained that's what everyone is arguing here, so literally the only issue is that the content provider isn't making more profit than you think they could be making.

    ...

    Explain to me what I'm supposed to care about here?
    Depends. Do they steal it fast enough that I end up not being able to spend my money however I want? Because if I never get burned from a lack of cash; that is, if I have enough to do everything I was going to do with my money, then no, I really, really, really, really, don't care.

    Near as I can figure, you are literally complaining that a number on a screen, the shape of a series of ink blots on a piece of paper, the value of a number representing an imaginary resource that belongs to someone else, someone you have nothing to do with, is not as high as you think it ought to be.
    Yes, I think I'm seeing how you can see it that way. You see two methods of making money:
    1. Making a much money as you possibly can.
    2. Failing to make enough and going out of business.
    Black and white for sure. Personally, I can't help but see this massive span or grey where you're making more than enough to get by, and the decision about what to do with the other couple million is which CEO to hand it to this quarter.
    And piracy is piracy. And not being compensated for your work is slavery. And money isn't a real thing, even if we make objects that we say are worth so and so much monetary units and insist that trading them for food is the way to do things when food literally grows on trees but money doesn't.

    And harmless copying is harmless copying.
    I honestly do not believe that for even a second. I expect to be ripped off in the name of profit and not paid as much as I could easily be paid while maintaining the business and economy as a whole. Come to think of it, I never believed this, let alone expected it.
    Let's take it proportionally. People on the internet are stealing, lets says, 5% of my annual income, total. (Note: 5% is exceedingly generous here, given the total lack of evidence or even blank assertion that sales drop at all when piracy is introduced into a system.)

    Now let's say I make 100$ a year. Yeah. 5$. Those bastards. 100000$? 5000 withheld, coming to a grand total of... 95000$

    Yeah, I'm not seeing the issue here. You make it sound like all your hard earned money is being stolen. Like it is even possible that it would get to that point. Like you are literally the only person that doesn't pirate every piece of media you own and you won't be able to keep the record industry from collapsing on your personal income.

    I'd like to take this moment to factor in production quality, and how it is affected by the magnitude of the money pool available to produce the content in question.
    Then the consequences show themselves and people have to deal with them.

    Somehow, I don't see anyone having to deal with the consequences of a digital world that is "too open" other than publishers and other middlemen that no longer serve any purpose.
    Yes, yes it is. I pay an internet bill. This gives me the right/privilege to use the internet.
    Then set up a censored internet service provider that makes copyright violation impossible. Pro tip: We aren't obliged to use your service. I'm saying this because you seem to be under the illusion that all businesses are successful.
    The danger isn't about getting caught doing something illegal, it's about the government being given the right to do illegal things and not answer to anyone for their crimes. If that wasn't obvious, I'm not sure how dumb you think everyone is, but the degree to which you act like your opinion is absolutely right makes me think that you're underestimating the reasoning abilities of, well, pretty much everyone you interact with.
    I cannot stress how unfathomably false this is when you understand programming and networking and the sheer simplicity of the copy operation/circuit. It is near physically impossible, if not fully, literally, and logically impossible, to police the digital realm. There is no amount of money you can invest in the issue that will carry even the slightest hint of effectiveness in doing what it states it intends to accomplish. Every single cent of taxpayer money is wasted for as much as it contributes to internet censorship.
    I'm going to be accused of taking things out of context, but I really don't think I am. I think you are literally stating that the mere act of not buying something, regardless of whether you "use" said thing or not, is theft. I think that this is literally the reasoning you are working with.
    No, no there is not. When I buy something and watch it on my TV, I am paying my own electricity. I can watch it as many times as I want, and the only cost is to me, not the producer of the content. You are literally, factually, physically wrong about the cost of merely viewing something. I don't know how to make this any more clear. I highly resent blank assertions that one or another party is simply wrong, but I don't see how you can be saying what you are saying. For once, I don't feel like I really understand where you are coming from.
    Yes, yes you in fact are. It is called haggling and it happens all over the world. In many places it is a must. You will not be able to get by unless you haggle down the price of everything you buy. It's sure not common in America though.
    No. No that is not why there are so many legal methods of obtaining media. The reason there are so many legal methods is because THEY HAVE NO REASON TO BE ILLEGAL.

    It's like you think business should be, by default, illegal in any way.
    Are you seriously placing the education of the next generation of people that will grow up to run the world and continue society beneath acknowledging authorship of media monetarily?

    Is making as much money as possible more important than the continuation of society?
    What if the owner signed a contract and does not endorse everything the publisher does, but it contractually allowed to do anyway?
    You're not in Kansas anymore. You're on the internet. A digital computer network that spans nations.

    Mostly countries have their own TLD and can legislate whatever they want within it.
    Yes, yes you literally do. That is what your computer monitor is. A window into a world that is strictly not physical. Is it physically possible to view a play performed on the other side of the world, in near-real time? Is it actually possible to transmit the photons that distance and retain the same perspective as someone right there at the performance? Is this a property of light/physics that has eluded my knowledge this entire time? Or is it something we are only able to do through the digital world?

    Same argument applies to duplicating physical objects.
    Say WHAT?
    Other avenues have been created and there is nothing you can do to stop them from being used freely and openly. I see your tough bananas and raise you an inevitable future.
    Source? And don't tell me this is obvious, because reality has a way of making people eat their words. Especially when those words gloss over trillion variable systems like biology, ecology, psychology, or sociology.
    A criminal is someone who gets caught. If nobody presses charges, nobody is a criminal.
    And so we find the world crawling with fools.
    Yes, yes people are making big fusses over this. If you aren't seeing it, you're not looking very hard.

    Note that the fools mentioned above aren't making a fuss because they don't know what is going on.
    Oh?

    OH???
    Is that how you really feel?
     
  2. Ender

    Ender

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    208
    Resources:
    2
    Spells:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    2
    Tell that to any Artist, Scientist, Programmer, Jane, or Joe who invent a new thing.
    With that sort of view you will never be able to amount into anything in a scientific community who frown upon plagiarism(ie stealing intellectual property) you have the mistaken opinion that material substance is more valuable then intellectual, with your chain of reasoning, what is wrong with claiming someones else's work was yours? whats wrong with saying you invented, cold fusion when someone else did? things like that are considered intellectual property.(I do realize that your reply is going to be nothing)

    By you sitting in that seat you cause wear and tear, by you you walking on their floor you weardown their floor, by you sitting in the air-conditioned building, you warm up the air and increase their AC bill, its not that much probably ends up costing them less then a nickel, but the biggest thing is, Are you willing to be Dishonest for the price of a Movie Ticket?


    your money probably won't make a difference, but what the next guy, and that other guy? Do you have any moral convictions?

    you sound like welfare recipients in my country that costing my country lots of money to support.
     
  3. Hakeem

    Hakeem

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    2,503
    Resources:
    2
    Maps:
    2
    Resources:
    2
    I posted it publicly online. I believe I've effectively just told that to every such person.
    See, but I didn't say that.

    When you plagiarize, that is, pretend that you are the originator of an idea or work, instead of doing the monumentally common practice of citing the true author, you are taking something from another and claiming it as your own.

    When you download a song for your personal consumption you are doing no such thing.

    I, personally, would abhor a world where I cannot find the true source of any given idea or work of art.
    No, those belong to the theater. The performers are the ones we're concerned with. Or that was the entire premise of my argument—on the mere observation of the fact—at least.
    Define dishonest, because I have strong opinions about what is and is not dishonest.
    Still not making a difference. You need to get into magnitude orders of people before you start seeing a difference.
    Maybe your country should manage money better.

    (Welfare is about physical resource allocation, basic human needs, not harmless observation of media.)
    Right, except that, as a human, I have this amazing capacity to learn how to become a surgeon and literally stop death. You're not really arguing at all here, you're just showing that you resent my perspective.
    Yes, that is in fact what I said. It has been paid for. In full. By other people. Who paid. In full. So the show could go on. Because the people running it got as much money as they aimed to get. By selling a finite amount of seats. That were all paid for. In full. By other people. Who aren't me. Who got the bills paid. In full.

    You're missing the point of my argument because you don't like the attitude it was conveyed with.
    Yes. Do you know why it is illegal?
    No, he said numerous times that the issue is black and white to him. I am reciting his statements about himself.
    Accusation accepted.

    Now show me black exists, because I'm not seeing it explained so far.
    No, the people arguing here aren't the producers of media. This entire discussion has been conducted by clueless consumers such as myself.
    I don't believe you. I can as easily tell you to go ask them how they feel about having their work reach a larger audience. Such people have not come to testify in this discussion as of yet.
    No, they'll tell you that's how crops and orchards grow.

    I didn't say farming was effortless, I said that our basic human needs literally occur naturally. This is a physical reality.
    No, the entire premise of that line was that it was my money. I was assessing my own reflections on how I would feel about having 95,000$ instead of 100,000$. Yes, I claim that I don't care one way or the other. This is because it doesn't make a difference to me. As long as I'm making enough to get by, no, I do not care the exact amount.
    It's a game, a war. It's about intelligence. But there's another aspect to look at here. That aspect is the very fact of publishing something while, at the same time, trying to keep it private.

    This isn't about encryption or not, this is about the sheer trivial fact of the ability to copy data and seed it around the globe in milliseconds.
    That wasn't the point I was making. The point is that hard-set prices are not a universal trade constant, and far from being such a thing.

    But since this is the digital realm, remember, I can eat those three barrels of apples without removing the merchant's three barrels of apples because what I consume is a copy of those three barrels of apples and not the three barrels of apples that the merchant still and always did own.
    I bet I have twice a better grasp on how easy it is than you do.

    You didn't actually misread me as claiming it was hard in any way, did you?
    Yes, and?
    Why? You're supporting my argument.
    Did I publish my post to the internet?

    (Seriously, feel free.)
    If the act isn't justified on a human level then it is not justified on a human level. Obviously if I'm breaking the law and doing inhuman acts, then it will be both illegal and depraved.
     
  4. Statharas

    Statharas

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Messages:
    2,332
    Resources:
    14
    Tools:
    1
    StarCraft II Resources:
    5
    Tutorials:
    8
    Resources:
    14
    I pirate for two reasons. One, not having a job to buy stuff, two, even if I had money, I'd still need more of it. I download Anime.
     
  5. Nudl9

    Nudl9

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,254
    Resources:
    28
    Icons:
    11
    Skins:
    1
    Maps:
    16
    Resources:
    28
    Anime isn't exactly widely available in the first place.
     
  6. Squiggy

    Squiggy

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    2,627
    Resources:
    18
    Maps:
    2
    Spells:
    15
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    18
    Well well, let me input my point of view here.

    First contact I've made with warez was in 2000 with KaZaA (remember that?), then advanced to emule, torrent, ftp/fxp, dht and DDL and whatnot protocol used.

    I've never really cared about moral standards concerning illegal downloading and I still don't give a damn about them.
    Even the mere thought of linking morals to piracy and copyright infringement is wrong because people who actually want to show morals and support to the media they (want to) posess don't download warez.
    It's not a question about morals and ethics but about weighing how much value a certain item holds for an individual.

    To give an example: This BD pack costs no less than 500$ which is a rough 100$ for one BD containing five episodes per disc which again winds down to 20 bucks per episode.
    Compared to the R1BDs which are sold for ~70$, the quality is way higher on the R2 and it comes with THREE audio streams.
    Now how do you expect me to spend 500$ on this series given the condition that I earn a rough 500eur a month (roughly 650$) and still need to pay rent, internet, phone bills and actually food?
    It would take me half a year to be able to buy those (and that's just season 1 of 2) and I can't even play them because I don't have a BD drive.
    Should I go back to a mediocre dvd at 480p?
    Is my lack of money the cause I pirate?
    Partly.
    For one, I do it because I have excessive storage, because of the opportunity to store classics like that in beautiful Bluray quality with three audio streams in lossless FLAC 5.1 channels (or LPCM if I want) instead of DTS audio combined with crf20'd, bitrate starved video material provided by scene groups.
    It makes me able to modify video material as much as I want until I achieve the quality standards I aim for instead of getting what the respective company provides me (read: shit).

    For two, I don't think that 'supporting by buying' is a huge gain to the actual creators/artists but to the media companies which distribute the media.
    Some time ago, I read an article that about 0.89 euro cent went to the artist him/herself if you were to buy a CD audio priced at 18eur.
    Obviously it accumulates proporionally to the amount of CDs sold but the majority is going into the company's purse.
    The same companies that put up lawsuits like that one (click) are swallowing the money consumers spend on CDs to support the artists they like.
    Now one may say 'downloading is even less supporting' - I'm not denying that and I fully understand people want to relieve their consciousnesses by buying actual CDs instead of downloading them in FLAC (which is piss-easy) and burning them on a CD (not only because they then possess a real, authentic CD/cover/booklet).

    Third, I like being a person who crushes rules imposed by capitalistic companies such as the MPAA, RIAA, Sony to name a few.
    I love to fuck them up by grabbing, uploading and spreading media as I please.
    I love being able to share media I ripped from various sources to others who are unable to grab them themselves for whatever reason.
    And I like the appreciation I get from other leechers who download my releases after I upload them.
    For example, I have the whole TV series 'Scrubs' ripped from DVDISOs in pretty okay quality - which easily outdoes any existing release there is simply because they're not encoded in shitty xvid which is an obsolete codec and should only be used for compatibility reasons.
    And I shared it to people; stats showed 300+ downloads.

    I do understand that I'm considered to be a 'bad person' by doing this and I'm not implying I do the work of a good samaritian here, don't get me wrong.
    I just want to state my view upon the topic.

    My view is:
    Fuck the media, I do whatever I like.
    I serve a rough terabyte of anime available via xdcc to others, released by fansub groups I'm in and the respective terabytes of seeding during the torrent release (standard) and I actually pay for the server I'm using to provide the aforementioned data.
    I have about 8TB of space filled with movies, ten thousands of songs, anime and games accumulating to a theoretical worth of maybe 200.000eur if I were to buy everything.
    200.000eur is more than I ever earned in my lifetime so I wouldn't even be able to pay for all the data I got (let it only be Photoshop and all the OSes I have).

    Next up: Your theoretical argument against my position.
    You consider me an idiot and ignorant person for not paying for media I watch/listen to/play.
    You think I should get the fuck out because I rather buy weed instead of an album (which is true).
    You want me to understand that it's wrong to go on like this and you think I should go to jail.

    Let me preemptively answer your theoretical arguments now.
    I don't care so save your time discussing with me, I won't change my point of view and I will be continuing to spread stuff as I please so save yourself the hassle of writing a hugeass wall of text.

    Regards~
     
  7. Statharas

    Statharas

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Messages:
    2,332
    Resources:
    14
    Tools:
    1
    StarCraft II Resources:
    5
    Tutorials:
    8
    Resources:
    14
    The Squig of the seven seas.
     
  8. RED BARON

    RED BARON

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    Messages:
    5,187
    Resources:
    43
    Models:
    37
    Icons:
    3
    Packs:
    1
    Skins:
    1
    Maps:
    1
    Resources:
    43
    And who makes an excellent point. Piracy is here to stay and is the results of strategies by companies in attempts to earn more money aswell as new ways of doing things that they (companies, distributors) have not yet come to understand, yet will be forced to acknowledge and adapt to. Piracy won't kill game, music or anything - just like how they said back when the tape recorder came out that it would kill music, which clearly it didn't. :wink:
     
  9. Hakeem

    Hakeem

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    2,503
    Resources:
    2
    Maps:
    2
    Resources:
    2
    Not gonna lie, I love this world of rampant piracy. And I barely download anything. I think I've heard more songs on Pandora than I've downloaded through questionably legal means. I'm not going to say it was illegal on my part because I'm not sure it is.
     
  10. Nuclear

    Nuclear

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2009
    Messages:
    407
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    I promise in the name of Allah, when I finish my studies and get a stable job, I'll never pirate again (unless I can make up an excuse).
     
  11. Edhel-dur

    Edhel-dur

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    991
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Oh you Assassin you.