Planetfurry BBS

[Aslaug]

[Latrans]

My apologies if I seemed argumentative. This honestly wasn't what I had intended. I found the discussion to be quite enlightening particularly since we're at opposite ends of the spectrum. Well, okay, not quite opposite, I'm with you in your disdain for people as you've described.

I stated what you quoted for a good reason. Yes, it's illegal, but is it wrong? There was a time here in the US that it was illegal for women to vote. Was it wrong for them to do so?

To be sure, this is more a rhetorical question than a serious one. I don't expect an answer as we've pretty much covered any relevant topics. It's mostly there as a moral question to ponder over.

In closing, there are two things I must thank you for.

First, thank you for reminding me to go out and pick up a CD. I had a spot of spare cash this month so it's about time I did so. Only question is: Alestorm, Abney Park, or Absinthe Junk?

Second, and much more importantly, thank you very much for this conversation. I admit I got rather verbose, but it is these conversations that help form my opinions. Believe it or not, I used to be one of those idiots you've described and if it were not for people (such as yourself) willing to engage me in debates like this, I might not have changed.

[Aslaug]

I'm sorry to have to go back to you on this one ...

But how can you even -conceive- of comparing the right to vote to stealing?

This is precisely the kind of high-minded but utterly baseless argument that I find so utterly, utterly tiresome from certain parties. Listen, I like this debate too, don't get me wrong but how can you MAKE that comparison with a straight face? Taking something or using something that belongs to someone else, without paying for it, when there is a pricetag attached to it, has been considered theft since as far back as laws have been written down (in a very literal sense since theft, as I recall, is covered by "Hammurabi's laws").

You are back to the issue of "it is my right to have access to this" by circumspect means. If you do not pay for it, it is NOT your right. It really -is- that simple.

So yes ... it is wrong. Not because women got the right to vote, because apples and oranges frankly spring to mind.

It is -absolutely- wrong to steal. To take something that does not belong to you, even if it is only a copy of it, when copies are exactly what is being sold at a fixed price.

The right to vote is a basic human right in any enlightened society. The right to free entertainment, I'm afraid, is -not-.

[Latrans]

I suppose I should have been more clear. No, I wasn't intending it to be a direct comparison. You're right in that voting and information piracy are two wildly different things. What I meant to point out is that just because a specific activity is deemed illegal by law does not automatically render that activity morally wrong.

I don't pirate things to avoid paying for them. I pirate them so I know what my money is best spent on or because there's simply no other alternative to obtain it. To be perfectly honest, in a number of cases, I've ended up spending money on things I wouldn't have other wise. I do realize that creators make a living from their creations, and some form of compensation is required to support that. I *do* actively give back to these creators when possible and I use piracy as a tool to help me in that endeavor.

I can't stand the "it's my right to pirate" any more than you can, but I don't think the "cram copyright law down everyone's throat" approach is correct either. There has to be some middle ground that doesn't demonize this freedom to share information but still encourages people to compensate creators for their work.

In the end, I'm a pirate not because I want to, but because there is no other realistic alternative. Yes, I could stop, but the end result would be that I'd actually spend less money on these works for the sole reason that I'd have received less exposure to them. It's illegal, but is it wrong?

[Frazikar]

Hmmm, there are ways to deny entry without additional actions (registration and/or paying) to sites, if the onwer (or whoever) doesn't, isn't he in effect saying 'do what you will with this?'

So at what point is it illegal - and to whom...

[Latrans]

After a bit of thought (and re-reading my last post) I figured I better add this: I hadn't meant that as a 'I'm going to get the final word' but as a clarification of my position.

Ultimately I don't particularly expect anyone to agree with it, but I do hope I can at least get someone to understand it.

Frazikar: it becomes illegal when you are providing information that is not yours to provide.

[Wolfshead]

Lets examine a different angle of copyright law. Currently under US law, the copyright on works is 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation whichever is shorter. Many countries range from 50-70 years with assorted variations.

I have a few issues with this length of time. I play several role-playing games, one of them being D&D. The company producing it has moved to a fourth edition and is already looking at making a fifth edition. I and most of my friends prefer to stick with the third edition of the games for a variety of reasons. The company has of course stopped printing any material for the third edition and has no plans to print anything else for these rules. If I want copies of these books I can attempt to find them second-hand (with mixed success) or do without. If I download copies of them, I become a criminal by the definition of the law. I am not "stealing money" from the company because there is no way for me to buy it from them. My opinion is that there should be a requirement that the copyright expires after a shorter length of time (5-10 years) if the item is not made available in a reasonable fashion.

[Aslaug]

I would not be averse to looking at copyright laws changing, although 5-10 years would be too short. Say one lifetime, which is usually defined as 25 years (don't ask me why) would be fine, unless renewed. I would not be against that sort of change, if there was a renewal clause involved.

Thing is, with the game you play, go for Pathfinder instead. I did. I refuse to put more money into the pockets of Wizards of the Coast after the pile of steaming poo they made of 4.0 but they DID have the decency to make version 3 open source and available to others. Pathfinder is a great system in my opinion. I'd heartily recommend it and it is fully integratable with ANY sourcebook from version 3.

[Wolfshead]

Our group has anywhere from 4-8 "active" games going and probably another 6 "on hiatus" games. Right now, at least 1/3 are Pathfinder or some mix of the two. We tend to explore some of the "non-standard" rules either for role-playing or munchkin reasons.

My idea for the copyright would be an automatic reset. If for whatever reason, the work is not available, simply making it available again would reset the timer, up to the "normal" copyright. Sort of a "use it or lose it" clause.

[Aslaug]

legally and financially unfeasible, since it makes intellectual property a moot point, and the development of newer editions ... which makes up a very significant amount of the income of the gaming industry ... would become totally superfluous. It would lead to fewer games, of much lower quality and far fewer books.

In short, it would be such a bad deal for those who develop the books that they might as well not bother. Create one version of the game and /never/ develop a new, better and improved version. When D&D 3rd edition came out, people were bitching up a TORNADO about how unfair it was, now that they had spent oodles of money on version 2 (otherwise known as AD&D). Well, my point to them even at the time was that no one prevented them from using the books they had for version 2 anyway, but that games that never evolve get stagnant and boring. The rules problems that you growl and grumble about never get solved, and you never get to try anything new.

The first game I played for any significant length of time, was GURPS. This was because our GM refused to play anything else. The players were practically begging him to try something else after a while. It wasn't that we didn't like GURPS, we simply wanted to expand our repetoire and try some other systems that we all had heard of or even tried at conventions. But no ... he simply refused, because he spent his money on that -one- game system, and flatly rejected any notion to ever play anything else. In the end, the game group fell apart and he was left with literally one single player ... and that was the end of his RP days, as far as I know. He had spent in the vicinity of a thousand dollars in in the early-to-mid nineties, and he was sixteen or seventeen by the time we called it quits. Why? Because he wasn't willing to move with the times and try something different.

I know what you mean, to a certain extent. I love Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying in its second edition and I'm ticked off that it was taken off the market in favor of the abomination they call third edition, which is a boardgame with no story involved. I would like to still be able to buy books for 2nd edition but part of the trick has now become the hunt for these books then. And if one day I can't get what I am looking for, I'll either move to some other game, or make do without.

In the end ... in my opinion ... there simply isn't a valid excuse for taking what belongs to someone else without paying for it. If something isn't available anymore, it is regretable, but that's the way it is.

As CM Punk pipe-bombed last year ... he wanted WWE Icecreams to make a return. Why? Allegedly because he liked them and he couldn't get them anymore.

Same deal as with rulebooks you can't get anymore, really.

[Latrans]

Just poking my nose in here to say you haven't lost me, I've just not had much to say until now. This post is not intended to be either for or against piracy for any reason, so if it shows bias, I apologize. I intend it to advocate industry adaptation and reform.

This discussion of previous and out-of-print versions of games illustrates one of the dilemmas faced by corporations in the information age. Previously, when a book went out of print, it became unavailable. The general public didn't have a say or realistic recourse if they still wanted copies of the work. In this new age, all it takes is one person to scan their book and distribute it. The general public has a very easy recourse to something going out-of-print (any legalities aside). Companies are now forced to deal with the fact that any one with a computer and internet connection has the equivalent of a printing press. It's nigh impossible for works to go unpublished any more. Companies can no longer force you to consume only their current product. This is the side pirates love to espouse: availability of information despite all attempts to stop it.

Here's the down side pirates tend to overlook: these companies exist to make money. There is a LOT of money sunk into developing these games, and like it or not, these games do have a retail lifespan. After a while the current version doesn't sell as well as the company would like, so they sink money into developing a new one. This money has to come from somewhere. This is why old versions go out of print. It forces you to spend money buying the new one. If people don't spend enough money, the product is not viable for the company to produce and they'll stop.

Sorry for being long winded, but I've finally reached my conclusion. Technology marches on. It doesn't care about laws, or regulations. It doesn't care about pirates or copyright. Once technology is here, it's not going away. No amount of legislation will do that. The old models no longer work. Because of new technology, practices that were once useful for helping a company make money are now pushing customers away. The solution is two-fold. First, companies must understand that change is inevitable, and must adapt or die. They must realize that restricting information will no longer work. Companies must find new ways to offer goods and services that not only makes use of but possibly even depends on new technology. The efforts of pirates clearly demonstrates a desire for information consumption and learning to turn that desire into profits is key in this new age. Second, consumers (pirates in particular) must help them make this change. This includes spending money even if you don't have to!. Spend money on the things you want. Spend money on the things you think are worth it. Make liberal use of practices that will make you want to spend even more money while leaving others to whither. Show companies how they can best serve you, and in so doing, serve the companies.

Holy crap that turned out longer than I intended.

[Latrans]

Switching gears completely... Abuse.

I'm sorry it's taken me so long to speak up on the subject, especially since a notable point on the subject at hand is silence. One of the major issues, I think, is that the vast majority of people either don't care (it's someone else's problem) or they simply don't know how to help. This problem is compounded by the fact that the victim themselves are often unwilling to help themselves.

On the subject of people not caring, this is largely because of a phenomenon called Dunbar's Number (a.k.a. The Monkeysphere). Long story short, there is only so much energy people can put into caring about so many things, so things that only impact them indirectly are often at the bottom of that list they put energy into. This is where things like Project: Unbreakable focus. They help bring the subject up that list of things people care about. Unfortunately, it's an uphill battle and easily slips back down the list against the myriad of other topics fighting for attention. They are at least partially successful, however, otherwise people wouldn't put effort into doing them.

So now we've got people who care. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people who care about these causes don't know how to help. They want to, but they don't know where or how to do so. Many people volunteer at local events (soup kitchens, animal shelters, etc.) but obviously can't be for everyone or we'd run into a case of too many helpers and not enough work. That is assuming, of course, that there's some place the concerned individual is capable of helping at (many require special training and skills). This is why fund drives work so well. It's a simple, direct action people can take that is also very convenient. There is, however, a very nasty downside and it scares away a LOT of people. Are you paying to put that abused kid in a good home, or are you paying for the $5000 suit the guy telling you about her is wearing? The vast majority of charities are notorious for misappropriated funds and finding those few 'good' ones can be very difficult.

So now we've got people who care and are trying to help. So far so good. Now comes the biggest hurdle: getting the victim to want help. I can not count the number of people I've either known, talked to, or heard about that were in abusive relationships and they won't leave. This is easily the most frustrating problem faced by things like Project: Unbreakable. If the victim won't take steps to help themselves, there is nothing anybody can (legally) do to get them out of that situation. Many victims not only won't help themselves, but actively resist. We've all heard the excuses. "I love him/her." "S/He loves me." "It's my fault." "I'm scared of what they'd do to me." You can talk to these people until you're blue in the face, but nothing will change until they break that bond.

In conclusion, I'm solidly in the 'don't know what to do' camp. Do I care? Yes. I hate the fact that abuse exists, but due to the complexity of the situation I get lost in the cracks. I could give what little money I occasionally have to some cause, but first that's entirely too 'hands off' for my tastes and second, I squarely don't trust that it would be properly spent. I then run into the fact that I have neither the training, time, nor resources to be hands-on. Personally I've nothing against busting the abuser's kneecaps with a pipe wrench and shipping the abused to the other side of the country for a year or two, but that's not exactly legal (assault and kidnapping). Most often I'll see these displays raising awareness and say to myself "That's a good cause, but how do I fit in?"[/url]

[The BioCobra]

Oh, good grief... Sorry, filly, but I just know I'm going to get short-tempered about this one...

Look, I knew that you were going to approve of that ending, despite all the bleating that I and so many others made about it. I also think that a lot of the ones crying out for a super-perfect happy ending is asking a bit much of a game that is MEANT to be very dark. But I'm still not happy with it, and specifically not about how sad or grim the ending is.

*Spoilers!* Okay, so Shepard is killed. That's fine, considering its the end of his/her story. Okay, so every single Mass Relay is completely destoyed (somehow NOT wiping out all life in the galaxy like *more spoilers!* the destruction of the relay in ME2 Arrival did). Even if they have decided to throw the entire galaxy into a technological Dark Age with every species trapped on Earth with limited resources and space, I find that a bold and certainly commendable move.

What gets to me, though, is a simple feeling of... rush in how it's done.

Logical paradoxes from the Catalyst (we are synthetics and wipe out most organics to stop synthetics from destroying ALL organics, because organics and synthetics can never get along... Rannoch, just... Rannoch), A violent shift in genre from space opera sci-fi to your dystopian sci-fi, a sudden unimportance of your character in the grand scheme when the ENTIRE series had been about you and the relationships you have with your team and everyone else in the galaxy. Suddenly, this Star Child is the main character in the last ten minutes, and Shepard is merely the conduit of it's choices. *Spoilers end.*

Also, it just leaves so many questions for the player, a lot of which people did want closure on, sorrowful or not. The ending lacks a certain degree of cohesion that the rest of the story brings. Again, it's that sudden shift away from Mass Effect's staple style into something... else. Add to that the fact that it seems the story is NOT over (continue the legend in downloadable content...), and it makes me wonder just what money making scheme they've got cooked to go alongside the game itself (£42.00), Multiplayer packs (between 62p and £1.25) current available DLC (£6.29) iOS games, special editions, and now the promise of more DLC on the way.

Overall, while I don't mind the sadness of the ending, the unprecedented change in the genre of the ending... it just doesn't feel like it fits. *Spoilers!* It makes almost every choice you've made for your squad and the galaxy seem completely pointless, as they are now all trapped either on Earth, on any of the other planets where life still exists, and on the planet you and your crew crash on, despite the fact that there's no reason why Joker would leave or how your squad who you took with you in the London assault. *Spoilers end.*

It just appears rushed, and not a little confusing with just enough plot holes to spoil the sense of cohesion Mass Effect managed to achieve with its brand of science fiction.

Of course, you'll probably disagree with a lot of this, and that's all fine. We know each other well enough not to let something as ultimately trivial as our different opinions on a game disrupt our friendship. Even so, I am quite adamant about the reasons for which I don't like Mass Effect's overall ending.

I, like a lot of fans, didn't want a sugarplum happy ending: We wanted a cohesive ending that stuck to its genre. In regards to the grimness of the ending, if they want to turn Mass Effect on its head and make it a dystopian sci-fi, fine, but its going to take time for fans of space-opera sci-fi and roleplaying to recover from the shock of such a sudden change of tack.

[Aslaug]

Massive spoilers in this post, be warned.

[Frazikar]

Hmmmm kay, now what was the question again??

Movie endings, well that's part of 'what will get more people to spend their money to see this' type deal. For some reason, more folks will spend money for a great dessert even if the meal before is is only (slightly better than) average (and endings are the dessert of most movies)...

It's a bit rare for a movie to have a great middle and so-so ending that makes money since the sense of disappointment weakens the word of mouth afterwards (except for 'war' movies)...

Ah well, to each their own...