You were sold the right the play the game, you weren't sold the game or a distributor license for the game (which costs quite a lot more than what you paid). So I agree that trying to prohibit you from giving away your game to someone else is stupid, but making a copy and also keeping the original for yourself might be pushing it.
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.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
You were sold the right the play the game, you weren't sold the game or a distributor license for the game (which costs quite a lot more than what you paid). So I agree that trying to prohibit you from giving away your game to someone else is stupid, but making a copy and also keeping the original for yourself might be pushing it.
A book publisher tried to pull this crap with books back in the early 20th century in the USA: it tried to claim that you were buying a limited, non-transferable license to the book, not the book itself, and thus were not allowed to resell the book later. Got overturned by the courts pretty quickly in this case.
This also gets into the issue of EULAs and the fact that you have to agree to something that limits your rights, after you've paid money for the product and opened it (thus rendering it non-returnable in most stores).
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
nevermind that I bought the disc and can do whatever I want with it.
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.
Should I also prohibit myself from playing while my friend does?
If you transfer the license to use the program to someone else, your right to use the program ends there.
That would be hilarious… but that's what your statement implies.
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?
I still own the right to play the game because I paid money for it
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.
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!
I don't even understand what you are talking about.
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.
Again, depends on the country. Here being able to make backups is a basic right. (But being able to make backups doesn't mean you have the right to give those backups to someone else, or keep using the backups after your rights to use the program ends, eg. because of giving it to someone else.)
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.
Exactly how does it help the artist that you copy the work to someone else?
What about pay per view services? Most ridiculous shit ever.
You are saying that, for example, movie theaters or video rentals are the most ridiculous shit ever?
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.
That.
Sorry, I still don't get it. Under what logic does the concept of "I bought it, I should be entitled to copy it freely to anyone I want" fall under?
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?
"Would you please leave my room now? I want to listen to this CD I've bought, but you haven't bought the right to listen to it, so... Really sorry, but I don't want to get into trouble with the law!"
And how the hell is multiplayer even legal? You buy only one copy of the game and suddenly the whole world could play it with you for free? Yeah, right. Now if that isn't ridiculous I don't know what is.
I also think we should make this site a pay-site and send the money to those companies we're hurting with our movies. People can watch entire games being played through here for free without ever having owned copies of those respective games. That's obviously not legal either. We make members buy licenses to watch the movies and licenses to TAS games and thereby make this world a better place. :D
"Would you please leave my room now? I want to listen to this CD I've bought, but you haven't bought the right to listen to it, so... Really sorry, but I don't want to get into trouble with the law!"
That's a perfect example of a straw man argument. There's a big difference between two people listening to the same record and copying the record to other people. The latter is distribution, and it's a completely different thing.
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.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
"Would you please leave my room now? I want to listen to this CD I've bought, but you haven't bought the right to listen to it, so... Really sorry, but I don't want to get into trouble with the law!"
That's a perfect example of a straw man argument.
No it isn't, you simply interpreted as an argument. In fact I've never intended it to be one, it's only food for thought.
There's a big difference between two people listening to the same record and copying the record to other people. The latter is distribution, and it's a completely different thing.
Whether the difference is small or big is subjective.
There is a difference. But if the idea is that people buy licenses to use the product (or listen to it) rather than the product itself, then it's a small crime to let your friends listen to it. Like it is a crime letting your friend use a program they haven't obtained the right to use.
Except if it is "sold" and not rented, I'm supposed to be buying and not renting.
What you are being "sold" is a license, and licenses have their restrictions, even under your country's law. For example, licenses can be terminated.
I'm not legally allowed to give a DVD I bought to my friend?
I don't know about your country, but here you can. Your rights to use the program end when you give it to someone else, though.
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.
In what particular way I'm "transferring the license", say, when I'm lending something?
Read your country's law. I'm not a lawyer.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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?
Sorry, you are not making any sense. You are just inventing excuses, and bad ones at that. Even I can think of better excuses for piracy.
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?
Under the logic that the authors of the software have given me express permission to use their software for free, with a legally binding usage license. They own the rights to the software, and they are giving express permission.
People have spent just as much effort on them, so they should be rewarded, right? Ideally, yes.
If they wanted the money and prohibited their software to be distributed for free, then that would be their legal prerogative. But they are giving it for free. That's their decision.
(But even then, I'm actually not allowed to do anything I want with their software either. For example, I cannot take parts of their source code and embed it in a closed-source proprietary program. Their license forbids me from doing that, and it's legally binding.)
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?
Is that really the best argument you could come up with?
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.
As a matter of practice, games are sold. Everyone except for the lawyers who make the EULAs for the games interpret the act of going to a store and handing over money for a box containing a DVD and some paper as a purchase. Signs say "Buy Now". They don't say "License Now". People expect, and reasonably so, that they will have all the same rights they have with the games they purchased as with any other item they buy. As it happens, legally they're in the wrong because of those lawyers; morally the matter is far less clear.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
As a matter of practice, games are sold. Everyone except for the lawyers who make the EULAs for the games interpret the act of going to a store and handing over money for a box containing a DVD and some paper as a purchase. Signs say "Buy Now". They don't say "License Now". People expect, and reasonably so, that they will have all the same rights they have with the games they purchased as with any other item they buy. As it happens, legally they're in the wrong because of those lawyers; morally the matter is far less clear.
Using simpler terminology is indeed a practical matter. However, for example the Finnish law on computer programs is rather (and unusually) clear and unambiguous about that subject. It clearly states which rights the customer has on using the software, and under which circumstances those rights end.
Of course this is heavily dependent on each country's laws. Some countries might not have any laws regarding computer software at all, making the whole thing a lot fuzzier.
Joined: 5/1/2004
Posts: 4096
Location: Rio, Brazil
@moozooh:
Now, now, I see some laws here that don't always make sense like the "it's a license instead of ownership" thing, but come on, when you say that you can give away pirate copies to anyone, I'm sorry but that makes no much sense either.
If you could buy a "blank car" for 100 dollars, buy a ferrari for a million, and then keep your ferrari and copy it to your blank car and give it to a friend, would that be fair? Do you know how much work went into designing the ferrari? DVDs with content aren't the same as blank DVDs. What's at stake here isn't the physical disk, but the data in it. You can do whatever you want to your BLANK DVD, but you can't give away a copy of the data you've purchased and still use that same data.
I can see where you're going if you're honestly "trying it out", which is still an illegal act, but it can help the artist/author/company. But when you just copy, enjoy all of it and move on to the next game/movie/album, there you're hurting the industry.
So what do you want? The right to let your friends try out the things you like? I think you should do that by lending the copy you've purchased instead of distributing copies.
Now, back to the Ferrari analogy. What if your friend is poor and he can't afford a Ferrari. He would still have a pirated Ferrari for 100 dollars. Perfect world? Well, I don't know! One thing is for sure, he wouldn't be getting the cheaper cars. So in this world there would only be big elite manufacturers and mass blank cars manufacturers.
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.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
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 copying.
So, as said, you are deliberately distorting the issue. You were talking about giving. You used that very word.
To give a piece of software you own to someone else is legally a completely different thing than to copy it to someone else. Don't try to confuse the two things.
The original issue was that "giving something to someone else being illegal is stupid", and this was used to justify illicit copying, which is a completely different thing. It's deliberately confusing two distinct acts.
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.
I don't even understand what you are saying here. You are not making any sense. What does "enjoyment" have to do with anything?
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.
You don't have to be a lawyer to know how your country's law says. I know what Finnish law says about computer software. I don't know what your country does, if you are not living in Finland.
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
Are you claiming that every single time you have illegally copied something, it has helped the author, and that justifies your illegal activity? Are you saying that because in a few cases copying having led to purchase justify all the other instances as well, even though it may have been against the will and legal rights of the author?
Besides, what gives you the moral right to do something against the wishes of the owner, regardless of whether it might have benefited him or not? Or are you simply using this as an excuse for your illegal copying? (That was a rhetorical question.)
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.
And exactly what does that change? Are you seriously claiming that because the author sold his rights to someone else, now you are, by some twisted logic, morally allowed to copy his work for free?
And exactly how do you know what kind of saying the original author has over his work and how much money he gets from the sales? Have you made that research with every single piece of intellectual property you have copied?
Or are you, once again, using that argument as an umbrella excuse for all of your copying?
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".
Wait, by using the wording "but you likely won't care" you are insinuating that you are actually doing some good by copying the intellectual property which is not owned by the original author but someone else?
Oh, great good samaritan who goes to great lengths to help those poor authors who get robbed by big multimedia companies, please explain me your logic because I can't understand it. Exactly how does your illicit copying help the authors, who you seemingly so much care about?
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?
Don't pull those straw men. The argument was:
"The concept of pay-per-view is idiotic."
"So you are saying that movie theaters and video rentals are idiotic?"
"No, movie theaters offer an experience not available at home and video rentals offer movies at low prices for longer periods of time."
"And what is it that you are trying to say with that? That as long as it's a movie theater or a video rental, it's ok and logical to pay, but anything else is idiotic and should be freely distributable?"
The point is: I don't see much difference between pay-per-view and eg. a movie theater. If you don't want to pay for it, then don't watch it, but it's not nonsensical and doesn't change absolutely anything about whether it's ok to copy something for free or not.
Warp wrote:
Even I can think of better excuses for piracy.
You should also realize that you and I have different definitions of piracy.
Let me guess, to you piracy is selling illegally copied intellectual property for profit, but distributing it for free isn't?
"Pirated" is generally used for all usage of illegally copied intellectual property. Money doesn't have to be involved. I know that people use some stricter meaning of "piracy" as an excuse that they are not really doing anything wrong.
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).
So some people are able to make a profit with free software? And exactly what does this have to do with illegal copying of software?
Even if your point is "it's foolishness to restrict the distribution of music/software" that doesn't change anything. That still doesn't give you any moral, ethical or legal right to copy that music or software against the owner's will. You may question their business strategies but that doesn't change your rights and restrictions, not legally nor even morally.
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.
So according to you it's morally right to freely copy intellectual property if the original author has sold his work to someone else.
Sorry, that doesn't compute.
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.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
What's the difference between an excuse and a reason? Point of view?
Does the consumer have the right to know what they're buying before they buy it? For games and music it's often hard to know without pirating anything first. This is my excuse, lol.
I know there's no law that says I have the right to try those things out first, but I think there should be. Else, I'd have to buy 10 products to get 1 that I really like. Advertisments and reviews are seldom enough for me. The law isn't God given and if I think there's something wrong with it, I'm not going to obey blindly, but only to avoid being punished.
I'm listening to music that isn't advertised anywhere through the media. At some point I used the internet to illegally get it. I can't buy 1000 CDs to find out if I like them and had no other way to get a glimpse at them. Whereas with other artists, I get free samples on the radio because they were more lucky to get signed by more powerful companies (which in return very often have negative influences on artistic freedom).
If downloading those mp3s was totally prohibited (in a way that you get instantly imprisoned if you did it), what would the result be? That the media has nearly total control over what products are being sold. I don't like that idea.
I've given away "best of" compilations to friends. Why isn't this considered advertisment? Because the companies didn't agree on it? I don't think they should be able to decide on it because they aren't neutral parties in that case. In my country such a case would be taken to a court of lay assessors (Schöffengericht) "jury court" (Geschworenengericht). It means a number of randomly selected (more or less, there are restrictions) ordinary people would vote on if what I did was unjust. The judge has no vote, but has an influence on the height of the penalty. I like that idea much better.
Edit: Also, I don't know what they're called, but there are some shops which let the consumers decide on the prices of the products they're buying there. And they almost always seem to do fine. So maybe you don't have to force people that hard to pay to make profit.
Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil
The problem is that piracy works better than normal merchandise.
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil
Screw those nasty google ads (everyone blocks them) or stupid fake forum accounts. You want to make your game/software popular? Annonimously share it on warez communities... If it's any good people will eventually recognize your hard work and pay for the real thing.
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil
Well, I don't think it's exactly for free... but it's a much better investiment.
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil
You're giving away the product of your work... that's why it's not free. This alternative works way better than open source, since illegal things are always much more appealing.
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
