Warp, see, the problem is that we won't ever agree on this issue because you're arguing from the standpoint of law defined by somebody else, and I'm arguing from the standpoint of making sense, defined by myself. You won't find my arguments logical and "excuses" good enough because you are proceeding from the assumption that said law is the basis for logic. (Damn, good thing we aren't discussing sexual consent laws here, because that would definitely get out of hand quickly.)
Thus I reserve the right to not agree with the law, and that is my excuse for committing acts considered illegal by it, whether they do or don't benefit the author in some way.
As for my definition of piracy, it is an act of forcefully taking a unique item from its owner without giving anything in return; where adequacy of the reward can be disputed, and uniqueness is defined by inability to make an equivalent copy. By copying the item it remains at the owner, so they aren't losing anything, rather than not receiving purely hypothetical benefits that I decide to disregard.
Now that you see where I'm coming from as clearly as I can make it to you, I propose that we agree to disagree, because this isn't going anywhere.
Warp wrote:
So, as said, you are deliberately distorting the issue. You were talking about giving. You used that very word.
Actually, that was just me having made a typo. I edited my post while you were typing yours.
Besides, why are you talking about giving? I am talking about copying. A completely different thing. If you equal those two things, you are deliberately distorting the issue.
…And I'm talking about giving. But there is really no difference because the person in question didn't pay money for it and thus legally didn't have the right to enjoy it. Even if he didn't enjoy it in the first place. Which he wouldn't know without trying it.
Warp wrote:
Read your country's law. I'm not a lawyer.
But you're a lawyer enough to tell me about licenses, huh. Oh well.
Warp wrote:
That's not up to you to decide. You don't own the music; it's not your property. If the proper owner of the music allows it to be distributed for free, that's his prerogative, not yours. You don't have the right to make decisions on his behalf. Why would you? If the owner doesn't want his music to be distributed, then you don't have the right to go over his rights and do it anyways. You don't own the music.
Allow me to quote your question: "Exactly how does it help the artist that you copy the work to someone else?" So, instead of admitting that it effectively did help the artist (which it did), you are playing devil's advocate here yet again, telling me how wrong my methods of helping them were. Like I care about those. :P
Warp wrote:
You may argue that an artist not allowing his music to be copied is fool, but that doesn't change anything. Again, it's not up to you to decide what to do with his property.
No, I'm not going to argue that. What I'm going to argue, however, is that in the real world it's not the artist that is now the "proper" owner, and it's not up to them to decide what to do with their music. Up to the point that they can be persecuted for distributing the music they've written. Which is just wrong from any possible standpoint, but you likely won't care because they'd be subjected to the same argument of "it's not up to them for decide".
Warp wrote:
So you are saying that anything that is not presented in a movie theater or rented in a movie rental should be freely distributable? By which logic?
Uh… You're asking me for logic but aren't being logical at the same time. Let me illustrate what you're doing here:
me: Apple is a fruit.
You: So what is not an apple isn't a fruit?
Warp wrote:
Even I can think of better excuses for piracy.
You should also realize that you and I have different definitions of piracy.
Warp wrote:
Is that really the best argument you could come up with?
I have given you an example when people wouldn't make money off a product itself but still be commercially successful through different but directly related means (that is, they receive reward for that same effort).
Warp wrote:
The authors have full moral, ethical and legal rights to either distribute their property for free, or demand payment for it. I'm not doing anything morally, ethically or legally wrong by using their software in accordance to how the authors want.
See above. It's not about the authors, it's about the intermediaries now. Most of the time the people you're suggesting to be the authors don't get a sliver of the earnings the intermediaries get. Arguing about morals and ethics with that in mind just feels repulsive to me.
That's actually not true. You don't buy the program. You buy a license to use the program. The disc comes implicitly with the license. Just because you bought a license to use the program doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with the program.
It's like renting a car: Just because you are entitled to use the car doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it.
Except if it is "sold" and not rented, I'm supposed to be buying and not renting. It is a legal shortcut companies are using to get the purchase-worthy sum of money for what is effectively renting. I don't see how it's supposed to be right even if it is commonplace.
Warp wrote:
If you transfer the license to use the program to someone else, your right to use the program ends there.
[…]
And exactly why would that be hilarious? Are you seriously telling me that buying one copy of the program should entitle you to distribute copies of it to whoever you want, and that anything else is "hilarious"? Why?
Because it makes perfect sense from the license world, but makes near to none from the actual world with actual usage scenarios. I'm not legally allowed to give a DVD I bought to my friend? Yeah, seriously, fuck that.
Warp wrote:
If you transfer the license to use the program to someone else, your right to use the program ends there.
[…]
Depends on the specific law of your country, but here if you transfer the license to someone else, you can not use the program legally anymore.
In what particular way I'm "transferring the license", say, when I'm lending something?
Warp wrote:
Exactly how does it help the artist that you copy the work to someone else?
Easily. An example from my life: I've gotten ahold of an artist's recording for free (illegally in this case), I became a fan, I'm now rewarding the artist by buying CDs and visiting their live events. If I hadn't obtained the content for free I wouldn't have bought it, wouldn't have become a fan, and thus wouldn't have paid the money to the artist. As a result, I paid money the artist wouldn't get otherwise, anyway.
It's so simple I don't even know why I'm required to spell it out for you. Many independent artists are in fact employing this exact scheme to gain popularity and then cash in on live events and hard copies of their work. There are also many respected people who are advocates of this approach, like Cory Doctorow.
Warp wrote:
You are saying that, for example, movie theaters or video rentals are the most ridiculous shit ever?
Movie theaters offer a unique experience that can't be reproduced at home, and that is worth money. Rentals never charge per view (and in most cases the rates are lower anyway).
Warp wrote:
Does that mean that it should be ok if the company sells exactly one copy of their product, and then that one single purchased product is copied for everybody else to use for free? And exactly how does that make any sense?
Hey, you're a Linux user, right? Under what logic are you using the open source products without paying for them? People have spent just as much effort on them, so they should be rewarded, right? Ideally, yes.
You're basically playing the devil's advocate by suggesting me to pay some people for their effort, but not the other, based exclusively on the licenses they are "selling" with their products. Doesn't it feel unjust?
Well, there are still answers to that conundrum, like services. For instance, I obtain a copy of Windows for free by lending it from somebody else — a common situation here — but for that I consider it fair to be exempt from Microsoft's employees' efforts that are unique and can't be copied, barring special exceptions such as a non-employee doing their job without charging me (also known as "would you help me fix my computer" that you've likely heard in college or whatever). Likewise with B2B offers, although price rates on that aren't always fair. Ideally they should be relative, not absolute.
I could also touch the issue of publishers justifying ridiculous prices with big budgets spent on making these games, while said budgets don't necessarily make them more appealing, lasting, or otherwise good.
In fact, my own personal opinion is that unique, otherwise irreproducible experiences (like live events), and tangible things (CDs/DVDs with content, etc.) need to be paid for, and creators who make things for free should be rewarded in some way, anyway, but I don't particularly want to pay the intermediaries, especially since they take most of the overall income, nor want to feed companies who are purposefully milking the customers by selling products inferior by design, riding on the popularity of earlier ones.
An equivalent would be if you buy a game disc and then give it to someone else, so that you can't play it yourself anymore. That's quite different from copying the game.
See my response to FODA above.
Assume I've bought a game disc. I'm now going to give it to my friend for him to play. Common situation, right? But in certain European countries I would be transgressing the law — nevermind that I bought the disc and can do whatever I want with it.
Should I also prohibit myself from playing while my friend does? That would be hilarious… but that's what your statement implies. I still own the right to play the game because I paid money for it, otherwise I could safely claim that every piece of your property I can lay my hand upon is mine because I now "physically own" it. But I would still be a criminal in either case!
Back when analog media was popular, it was common sense to make copies of CC and VHS tapes. We can't legally do that now with digital media. Why? Because now that right-holders (the labels, not the artists) can interfere they are going to interfere — just because they can get more money off of it. Did it help the artists any? Yeah, right.
What about pay per view services? Most ridiculous shit ever. Yet that limited installation DRM scheme mentioned in the first few posts is largely the same thing, and that kind of "protection" is going to be made more and more popular if publishers get their way with it.
Johannes wrote:
When I buy a product, I demand the freedom to do what I want with it. If copying a legally obtained game for my neighbor to enjoy is against the law, I have no sympathy for this industry.
Sorry to disappoint you, but…
<moozooh> Upth: i don't remember, have i asked you about elma compatibility yet?
<Upthorn> moozooh: elma is not compatible.
<moozooh> aww!!!!
I wanted to try it myself. :\
I would rather not complicate things that much. A "TAS OS" would require writing drivers for hardware devices, which is something bad enough that people don't want to do this for popular operating systems.
That tool would have to be called an emulator, as otherwise it's impossible to tell the exact places where the inputs would desync.
[EDIT]
Sigh, beat by Nach.
I was mostly talking about turning sideways and back all the time so it's impossible to tell the exact direction you're going. (I believe the published Duke Nukem 64 TAS is similar in this regard.) I found scandashes pretty disorienting in unassisted speedruns, but in a TAS they're just going to be faster and more numerous so I guess there's no escaping it.
Which is why I'm likely going to agree with Kitsune that at least the 100% should be made on the Wii version to avoid excessive brain damage.
Say no to -2. An increase in a few hundred kilobyte isn't going to be noticeable, but quality decrease is. Vorbis mutilates high frequency noise at such low bitrates.
Either way the whole idea of sharing that was paramount to group survival and such has been corrupted by capitalistic approach of concentrating material goods as opposed to distributing them. No wonder people generally grow more selfish in countries where it happens to be the dominant line of behavior.
Exactly why should you be able to copy a commercial product for your neighbor without the proper payment? How does the fact that you obtained the game legally affect this in any way? I don't understand. Is your logic that if you buy something legally you should be able to distribute it for free for others? I don't follow.
Yeah, see, when you're a kid and you're given some candy or whatever, you're told that sharing is good and you should give some to your friends, while hogging it up all for yourself is seen as social offense.
When you grow up you're told sharing is bad, and in fact is a criminal offense.
Follow this one.
I would mean splitting apart for viewer digest. If I want to watch one or two modes, I don't want to sit around and wait for a torrent to download. That's what I'm getting at.
Doesn't matter, make 9 links to a single YT video with timecodes at the start of each mode. I really don't see how 9 submissions are going to be better.
I don't get the "better for the viewer" idea. For me the best version is really like dumping them on YouTube; choose what you want to watch, and start watching it immediately.
You download a chapter'ified MKV, choose whatever mode you need and skip whatever you don't. You vote once, you rate once, you download once and you don't watch things you've already seen. No disadvantages as far as I can see, at least not compared to 9 separate submissions.
Realistically, this is going to actually get out of hand only in case 1.51 still has desync issues 1.43 doesn't. Otherwise people have been provided with options that will let them not lose their work already done on 1.43.
The problem is that we will only be able to test it during the creation of a TAS, which might mean a loss of work…
Another vote for no X-ray, though an optimized demonstration of all beneficial points, preferably before the actual progress has been made, would make the decision more informed.
Making a 9-in-1 Tetris DS submission has more merits for the viewer, while submitting the modes separately has more merits for the TASer… We should probably go with the former but make it possible to accept partially improved movies (where one or several modes are improved, but not all) if it's possible to freely hexedit them in.
