XBoxers cut off..

[papa_smurf]

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikimcbee
Do you know what xbox needs? Starforce

YES!!! ID Love to ruin it for them... (Yes, I do hate te Xbox...)

Or how about really restrictive DRM like on Spore?

[ETR3(SS)]

Originally Posted by Task Force

YES!!! ID Love to ruin it for them... (Yes, I do hate te Xbox...)

I have a Xbox.

[mookiemookie]

Remind me again why console players have a reputation as whiny immature brats?

[Skybird]

A junk mind at work.

While it can be argued, from a moral point of view, that if vitally needed drugs like AIDS drugs are too expensive for people in the third world, governments may have a moral right somewhat to disrespect existing legal contracts with producers and produce these drugs themselves in violation of patent laws, it always escaped me why somebody could claim the right to steal goods of luxury just because he says he cannot or does not want to pay for them.

And I do not understand why BBC is giving this sucker even a platform to voice is pathetic BS.

You don't pay for that game, then you don't play it. You steal it nevertheless, your box gets nuked. End of debate, period.

In Berlin they have a problem more serious with this. There, self-declared citizen patrols (Kiez-Polizei) belonging to the left and anarchistic part of the political spectrum claim the right to set cars ablaze and damage buildings and houses and throw in windows and smear paroles on walls because they want people and investorsm who have raised flats for the more wealthy peoplem, to leave. The police is helpless, but every night 1-4 cars goes up in flames - since months. Vandalism against newly build houses is growing. It is going like this since a long time, but just days ago the first two suspects ever had been sentenced. there are no others, and tonight one or more cars will burn again. And gione are the days when it were only Porsches and Mercedes set ablaze. Now middle class cars are burning too, assuming that their owners represent polticial opinbions different to that of this illegal self-declared Kiez-police. Spokesmen of this initiave are defending the deeds in front of cameras (defending crimes, that is), and can do so without getting arrested immediately. And parts of the politicians try to solve the problem by appeasing them and saying that one should consider the demands of these criminals as legal and part of the democratic opinion forming process.

Applaud the enobling and appeaseing of the new rag proletariat.

I call the events in Berlin not legal forms of opinion-voicing - I call it "severe coercion" and "severe damage to property".

And that xbox owner I call as what he is, too: a confessing thief who should be prosecuted and sentenced.

[Weiss Pinguin]

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS)

I have a Xbox.

Same here... By no means do I think this guy is remotely intelligent, but after an empty patrol or several hours of mathematician-stuff I kind of like a good round of shoot'em up fun, personally.

[Onkel Neal]

CNN reporting a million now.

[VipertheSniper]

You know, sometimes, I really wish online gaming on the PC would be as closely monitored as on Xbox Live, there are so much people around ruining the experience for a whole server, I think with consequences like a wholesale ban from every online multiplayer game, those dbags would think twice.

[ETR3(SS)]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Remind me again why console players have a reputation as whiny immature brats?

It extends far beyond the consoles I'm afraid. Hence I no longer play any game online. If I wanted to hear a bunch of crying babies, I'd go to the maternity ward.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS)

It extends far beyond the consoles I'm afraid. Hence I no longer play any game online. If I wanted to hear a bunch of crying babies, I'd go to the maternity ward.

I'm with you on that. After my Unreal Tournament and Counter Strike days in college, I quit playing online. Couldn't deal with the jerks. Plus, in my older age, I'm not very good at the shooter type of game anymore.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Skybird

A junk mind at work.
While it can be argued, from a moral point of view, that if vitally needed drugs like AIDS drugs are too expensive for people in the third world, governments may have a moral right somewhat to disrespect existing legal contracts with producers and produce these drugs themselves in violation of patent laws, it always escaped me why somebody could claim the right to steal goods of luxury just because he says he cannot or does not want to pay for them.

Because it is an extension of the life vs patents argument, for lower stakes all around.

The fundamental axiom to be determined is the sanctity of intellectual property. Is it an unviolable deontological principle, or something to be judged on the altar of utilitarianism?

If it is the former, then violating it is impermissible even in defense of life (and this would apply even if you said Life is also an unviolable deontological principle, for inviolable means just that). The position is defensible enough to form our pro forma law today.

However, I'm a utilitarian myself, and believe that ultimately there is NOTHING that is inviolable beyond the axiom of aiming for the maximum good, So let's examine the other position.

The legitimacy of upholding intellectual property rights (like all other rights) in utilitarianism is weighed on a gain-loss balance. The main utilitarian justification for intellectual property rights is to ensure adequate profits to monetarily entice / enable the continued creation of new intellectual works. The main justification in the other direction is the greater proliferation of existing works - after all, it does not do much good to society if the greatest, most socially beneficial intellectual work is so highly priced that only 10 people would ever receive its benefits.

While determing the balance between these two forces is difficult, a case where it becomes easy is in most cases of piracy. the guy is unwilling, or even unable, to pay the required price. Often, this would be true even if there was no pirated version - he'll simply deem the item too expensive to play with. That makes the theoretical gain in favor of intellectual property unachievable.

The only gain that's potentially achievable in the scenario is the gain from the spread of intellectual works. Given the choice of pirating or not enjoying the work, In "tactical" utilitarian morality, therefore, mandates that the guy pirate, so at lesat he (who, though tiny and perhaps selfish, IS part of society) gains.

One would argue this is not fair to those who did buy the work. Fair, however, is one of those concepts that can be referenced off countless levels. For example, the progressive tax meets one definition of fair, a flat tax a second, and a proportional tax a third! Further, again, as a utilitarian, we are looking for the maximum good here, and IMO it is a defensible argument that the benefits of a wider proliferation of intellectual works is worth some loss of "fairness".

Another argument would appeal to the strategic aggregate loss. However, the strategic effects of piracy are far more complex than a simplistic loss relationship for our intellectual works creators. As previously mentioned, most people going down the pirated route WOULDN'T have bought the legal version with its high price even if it had been the only option, and the greater proliferation brings our Creators advantages, including monetary (for example, by introducing more to your products, and some of the pirates impressed enough to buy the next one).

The effect is strong enough that some studies have already suggested the negative effect of our piracy (at present at least) is that the claimed losses are exaggerated, or even flattened by the plusses. To the extent this is true, it weakens the practical utilitarian argument of intellectual property.

From a utilitarian perspective, IF System A leads to profits of $100 mil for our intellectual property and results in proliferation to 1 million people, and System B leads to the same 100 mil but prolfieration of 100 million people (because the other 99 million pirated their copies), in terms of utilitarian gain to society, System B is arguably superior. In fact, the benefits of greater proliferation may even be worth a limited cut in quantity of produced creative work.

And that xbox owner I call as what he is, too: a confessing thief who should be prosecuted and sentenced.

1) The copying of intellectual property does not deprive anyone of anything more than the rather iffy possibility that the pirater would have bought the game if only he did not pirate.

2) It has continuously eluded me how right of intellectual property should morally be greater than the right to physical freedom.

[Aramike]

I disagree, Kazuaki. Your conclusions seem based solely upon the assumed principle that the proliferation of intellectual works is "good". I subscribe to neither strict deontology nor utilitarianism - perhaps a little of both, but highly regulated by applied realism versus the mental exercise of attempting to fit every scenario within the realms of defined ethics.

The spread of amusement is not a benefit upon itself!

One could just as easily suggest that its acceptable for someone to steal the very XBOX they're playing the game on, as it is to steal the game. One could just as easily state that, because of the implied injustice of piracy, certain enriching intellectual properties are not fully developed, thusly depriving the paying masses of access to other forms of brilliance.

Ultimately, depriving someone of their rights to create a property within their control is unjust. Furthermore, as has been stated previously, granting the permission for others to steal such property merely for the reason that they WANT it and don't want to/can't pay for it, is quite trite.

But just examine your argument further - explore the ethics of Microsoft banning the accounts of known pirates. It would seem that deontologically they are correct in doing so. Furthermore, granting free access to items of entertainment, when one HAS THE ABILITY TO RESTRICT SUCH ACCESS, would seem to fly in the face of utilitarianism.

[Respenus]

@Kazuaki

I use the same argumentation when talking about farmers dumping food on the motorway or "water" their fields with milk. It is true that there is a problem of over production and that things could be quite more effective. From a utilitarian point of view, people who could not afford the farmer's goods, would be much better off with those good give to them, ensuring a more diverse and healthy diet, this saving state money and the same time, farmer's won't lose anything more than by just letting things go to waste. The fact the there is 1B people starving and European farmers are dumping food, should be more than reason enough for governments to block any and all additional payment to the farmers until they get their act together. The problem is, they represent a strong lobby.

About XBox and other pirates. While stealing is generaly wrong and intellectual property is to be protected, I have to agree again with Kazuaki that more good can come out from "piracy", than by preventing people access. Do you really think that every flash gamer paid thousands of dollars in order to get the latest flash version? Or that they paid for 3DMax, as almost every moded game needs 3D models sooner or later. There are open source activities, yet that causes compatibility issues.

While Microsoft was well within their rights to stop people playing online with pirated games as was Blizzard in the past, this does open the still raging debate about modern property rights and economic gains made from the fight against piracy. As someone mentioned, pirates are more likely to buy things after they try then out, than people who do not have the same chance, meaning that the software company receives neither money, nor is there an increase in intellectual potential. Only teenagers play games just for the games themselves, yet I know I no longer do. Anyone playing SH knows its more than just a simple game of torpedoing enemy ships.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

Because it is an extension of the life vs patents argument, for lower stakes all around.

The fundamental axiom to be determined is the sanctity of intellectual property. Is it an unviolable deontological principle, or something to be judged on the altar of utilitarianism?

If it is the former, then violating it is impermissible even in defense of life (and this would apply even if you said Life is also an unviolable deontological principle, for inviolable means just that). The position is defensible enough to form our pro forma law today.

However, I'm a utilitarian myself, and believe that ultimately there is NOTHING that is inviolable beyond the axiom of aiming for the maximum good, So let's examine the other position.

The legitimacy of upholding intellectual property rights (like all other rights) in utilitarianism is weighed on a gain-loss balance. The main utilitarian justification for intellectual property rights is to ensure adequate profits to monetarily entice / enable the continued creation of new intellectual works. The main justification in the other direction is the greater proliferation of existing works - after all, it does not do much good to society if the greatest, most socially beneficial intellectual work is so highly priced that only 10 people would ever receive its benefits.

While determing the balance between these two forces is difficult, a case where it becomes easy is in most cases of piracy. the guy is unwilling, or even unable, to pay the required price. Often, this would be true even if there was no pirated version - he'll simply deem the item too expensive to play with. That makes the theoretical gain in favor of intellectual property unachievable.

The only gain that's potentially achievable in the scenario is the gain from the spread of intellectual works. Given the choice of pirating or not enjoying the work, In "tactical" utilitarian morality, therefore, mandates that the guy pirate, so at lesat he (who, though tiny and perhaps selfish, IS part of society) gains.

One would argue this is not fair to those who did buy the work. Fair, however, is one of those concepts that can be referenced off countless levels. For example, the progressive tax meets one definition of fair, a flat tax a second, and a proportional tax a third! Further, again, as a utilitarian, we are looking for the maximum good here, and IMO it is a defensible argument that the benefits of a wider proliferation of intellectual works is worth some loss of "fairness".

Another argument would appeal to the strategic aggregate loss. However, the strategic effects of piracy are far more complex than a simplistic loss relationship for our intellectual works creators. As previously mentioned, most people going down the pirated route WOULDN'T have bought the legal version with its high price even if it had been the only option, and the greater proliferation brings our Creators advantages, including monetary (for example, by introducing more to your products, and some of the pirates impressed enough to buy the next one).

The effect is strong enough that some studies have already suggested the negative effect of our piracy (at present at least) is that the claimed losses are exaggerated, or even flattened by the plusses. To the extent this is true, it weakens the practical utilitarian argument of intellectual property.

From a utilitarian perspective, IF System A leads to profits of $100 mil for our intellectual property and results in proliferation to 1 million people, and System B leads to the same 100 mil but prolfieration of 100 million people (because the other 99 million pirated their copies), in terms of utilitarian gain to society, System B is arguably superior. In fact, the benefits of greater proliferation may even be worth a limited cut in quantity of produced creative work.



1) The copying of intellectual property does not deprive anyone of anything more than the rather iffy possibility that the pirater would have bought the game if only he did not pirate.

2) It has continuously eluded me how right of intellectual property should morally be greater than the right to physical freedom.

How about if a game developer makes a game and sells it, then you have to pay him to play it. Don't pay, don't play. Simple concept.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

How about if a game developer makes a game and sells it, then you have to pay him to play it. Don't pay, don't play. Simple concept.

As I said, IF you believe that intellectual property rights are inviolable, then this would be correct (though simplistic, for it ignores a few models of legal alternatives that also wind up putting no money in the developer's pockets, such as reselling). However, IMO that does not necessarily meet utilitarian ethics.

[onelifecrisis]

First and foremost, I'd point out that games are being developed in their hundreds and thousands and that the companies that develop/produce them are making a considerable amount of profit. This is a simple fact and proves beyond any doubt that piracy is not killing anything in the games industry. I'm not saying that piracy is not a threat to it, I'm simply pointing out that the games industry is (so far) managing to combat that threat just fine.

But since the subject of what would be 'best' has been raised, can I throw in the old idea of just selling games cheaper? There's some evidence (not to mention some plain common sense) supporting the idea that if games were sold at cheaper prices then they'd sell in far greater numbers. I do wonder why more games companies haven't tried this tactic, given that the cost of the physical goods is negligible next to the other costs of production. Anyone got thoughts/info/links on that?

P.S. I've never pirated a game, but on several occasions I've not bought a game because it didn't seem worth the price.