TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Your views on emulation.

Go To

Cidolfas Since: Jan, 2001
#101: Nov 16th 2010 at 2:23:41 PM

Not saying that the world is perfect. Merely saying that railing against the system by stealing from others is not going to change anything except the following: that those already in the system - namely, the people who created the content you're stealing, and who have higher morals than you and hence aren't going to steal from anyone else - are worse off because of your actions. Hence, complaining about it is indeed totally meaningless. Capitalism isn't going away, and pretending it should to justify your own actions is merely cowardice.

No, the limitations for libraries are not technological. They are about money and fairness. The libraries are not designed the way they are because nobody thought of any other way. Certainly, a technological library where books are deleted after three weeks would work exactly the same and would work fine - but a library where all books are available permanently for free would soon mean the demise of the publishing industry, because why on earth would anybody be an author if they don't get anything out of it and everybody could access all books instantly and without paying?

"And surprisingly enough, many Libraries carry Computer games for 'borrow', as you put it. But whether you return the disc or not, you contain the data on your computer from typical usage. You 'keep' the game as soon a you run it in it's typical function. "

The result of which, if every library did this and did not demand that the game be uninstalled, would be that whoever made the game would have their profits cut down to a fraction, and would go out of business and be unable to make any further games. Hope that's what you're aiming for.

"And the only difference between borrowing and 'having' is the time in interval."

No. "Having" something means you own it. It is yours. Forever, or until you decide to give or sell it away. Borrowing something means it is not yours, even if it is in your house. It does not belong to you and hence you have no rights over it. You might as well say that hiring someone for a day is exactly the same as keeping them as an indentured slave for their lives.

"If you download an .Iso from a game you have never owned physically tghe "original item". But you have it's data contents without taking anything."

You have its contents, yes, and you never physically took something with your hand. But the end result is that you have something functionally identical to the original item without paying for it, whereas if you would have pursued legal means you would have paid for it. Hence, stealing.

"And the only contrast you are able to make is effort, copying a disc with the aide of computer is easy, while re-typing an entire book is hard. But either way, it is a copy of something you yourself did not create."

As I think on your example of typing up a book, I'm no longer sure it's quite as ethical as I figured. In fact, you do end up with a copy of the contents you never paid for, and you are enjoying the contents without paying the creator for making it. I retract my opinion on that; it's also unethical. You don't have the original book, but what you have is close as makes no difference.

I believe the majority of your large paragraphs attacking me are now moot.

"What if someone, instead of put Harry Potter on the internet, has a poor friend in college, who cannot afford the books for classes this Semester."

What does that matter? Are you saying that being poor or really, really *needing* something suddenly makes it legal or ethical to steal something? Absolutely not.

Now, I'm not saying that just because something is stealing, that means it's wrong 100% of the time. Stealing medicine for your sick mother may be justified - but it's still stealing. I'd probably do it myself, but I would weigh the moral justifications of one versus the other. Emulation is in that weird limbo where one could arguably say that since the original company has no interest in making the game available to users, one is justified in emulating it. In this case, because you actually can't purchase it through legal means - or at least without paying exorbitent amounts, far more than it's worth - the moral implications are lessened.

SilentReverence adopting kitteh from 3 tiles right 1 tile up Since: Jan, 2010
adopting kitteh
#102: Nov 16th 2010 at 4:37:45 PM

I'd like to ask what are you expecting from people in order to access the contents that the distributors distribute, Cidolfas. I mean, hometaping is stealing? And even more, inmoral? Seriously?

Digital media puts distributors and clients in a situation difficult to define anyway. In the case of digital media, direct stealing in no case occurs — you are not depriving the owner from the property of the disc's item when you copy it. You can not even complain that copying a disc means you steal "potential sales", because that requires you to prove that, among other things, the copier's intention at every step is to actually buy the product. That, and unless they have a natural monopoly, no one is entitled to potential sales — it's part of the very definition. At least the people I know pirate items because a) they want to have it (like, in "collector" sense) or b) they trade it for something. Yeah, I know, not the best cases, but better than the alternative.

What does occur, however, is the grossly unlawful access to a distribution, which is more kinda like unlawful trespassing than theft. From the perspective of licensors it can be argued that there is theft if the content is activation-locked, since that means that once the pirated copy is activated, the lawful client has been deprived of lawful use of it..

Reading Cidolfas, I think a great part of the problem is that the distributors are still living with the 80's mentality of business ("durr hurr hometaping is INMORAL"), but at the same time they expect their clients to carry out with a 2k's model of consumption. If they don't implement more adequate technologies and modernize, it is kind of natural that any kind of access that (potential) clients make to their product is going to be misconsidered as Technology Marches On, thus easily classifiable as a crime in their backdated view of the business. The obvious case is hometaping and any kind of backup of media that you have bought. (Of course, if you didn't buy the game the situation is more serious, but there have to be some practical considerations — I don't see for example why would it be "stealing" or "inmoral" to make a backup of a game that your cousin/mama/friend bought but you didn't.)

What does that matter? Are you saying that being poor or really, really *needing* something suddenly makes it legal or ethical to steal something? Absolutely not
In the exposed case I'd argue that it absolutely matters. If the educational system expects you to get your intel from a set of respected sources that are published only by certain privileged companies that can cash in from it, I'd expect back, since I am already paying the collegiature, that either the college puts with the payment (it is course material, after all), or that access to the material is freed, or at least condoned, given its purpose. Otherwise you are artificially lowering the quality of your people's education, from the perspective of the educator it would be inmoral (if I am reading "inmoral" in the way Cidolfas seems to use it) and from the perfpective of the government it would be a terrible economical gamble. From the perspective of the student it would be a tainted contract.

Note that this case is not "I am poor and I really need it" but "I am really poor and I am being punished with more artificial needs for the contract that I already manage to fulfill".

Then again, as I have exposed above, it is all mostly the fact that distributors don't keep up with the systems they have pushed in.

Still, wondering how does all that turn back to the view of emulation, because if you are saying that hometaping is inmoral, then I'd have to assume that you think recording a cam video of you playing a game is, as well, and cutting headlines from yesterday's newspaper and pasting hem in your life journal is, too. I mean, really...?

Fanfic Recs orwellianretcon'd: cutlocked for committee or for Google?
IYellalot READY! from The Flower Kingdom Since: Jul, 2010
READY!
#103: Nov 16th 2010 at 4:41:18 PM

I emulate only SNES games unlikely to see release on the Wii's Virtual Console and Game Boy Color games. I can't wait until I can pay for Game Boy and Game Boy Color games legally on the 3DS's Virtual Console.

Discover the rest as the game progresses.
JackMackerel from SOME OBSCURE MEDIA Since: Jul, 2010
#104: Nov 16th 2010 at 4:49:01 PM

I only emulate GBA/GB and N64/PS 1 games - not because "lol conscience", just that emulated DS games aren't as fun as the real thing.

Half-Life: Dual Nature, a crossover story of reasonably sized proportions.
Marioguy128 Geomancer from various galaxies Since: Jan, 2010
Geomancer
#105: Nov 16th 2010 at 5:05:52 PM

[up][up][up]Hometaping is stealing. (Yeah I didn't know it was illegal too)

You got some dirt on you. Here's some more!
Barrylocke Reaching the Future, the hard way from Thracia Since: Aug, 2009
Reaching the Future, the hard way
#106: Nov 16th 2010 at 5:14:15 PM

I do think it's interesting pointing out other countries though. Even in middle class countries outside of america, I've heard that buying games with import charges and stuff can be ridiculously expensive, and I can see myself doing more pirating if I lived in such a place. So I guess I don't see it as a horribly bad thing to do, it's just not something I do as a personal decision. At the same time though, I do find myself laying down my personal thoughts on others, so if someone who's in a similar situation as me financially and works with the same prices is pirating, I'm more likely to be more critical (although not preachy, its more like if a friend does it I playfully chastise them)

Taking a break from FE1, for the FE8 draft instead
SilentReverence adopting kitteh from 3 tiles right 1 tile up Since: Jan, 2010
adopting kitteh
#107: Nov 16th 2010 at 9:23:44 PM

[up][up]You sure about the illegal part? What kind of coutry do you live in, the USA? I got the reading that it was actually permitted by law thanks to an amendment or something back in 1992, and that it was the only good thing that amendment gave the people since it would later originate DMCA.

Of course I also have to ask, you sure about the stealing part? I try to look at it from social, utilitarian, technical and economical perspectives and I can't see how it would be stealing. That or I am grossly misinterpreting something in the concept of hometaping (the one I have is Exactly What It Says on the Tin). I'm assuming that you are of the opinion that if you buy an apple and you plant the seed in your garden, 1.- you are stealing and 2.- that's illegal.

edited 16th Nov '10 9:25:02 PM by SilentReverence

Fanfic Recs orwellianretcon'd: cutlocked for committee or for Google?
Ukonkivi Over 10,000 dead.:< Since: Aug, 2009
Over 10,000 dead.:<
#108: Nov 17th 2010 at 4:04:32 AM

Merely saying that railing against the system by stealing I love you seem to love propaganda the ridiculous notion . But for each and every time you say that, I can just come back stating the obvious, "copyright infringement isn't stealing". It really doesn't argue or prove anything. It's just an assertion. I suppose you just want the words "stolen" used to define Copyright infringement to be said out on the internet as many times as possible. It may be offensive to those you disagree with, if that's the purpose. But it's not very convincing and not very argumentative.

The people who are not able to watch something and choose not to, due to some moral idea, are not being deprived by others who are watching something. They are not being deprived by people who watch shows anymore than people who are having sex are depriving virgins. They are depriving themselves. They are choosing to abstain. And the morality behind anti-"piracy" and anti-sexuality, are both kind of silly.

And using more incendiary tactics of calling Copyright Infringers names like cowardly, is the cowardly. I think that supporting Capitalism is mere Cowardice. I suppose someone out there thinks that Race Mixing is mere cowadice. In fact, I've heard that argument that race mixing is immoral and cowardly, as well. Really, your and mine opinions of what is cowardly aren't any better.

Justify? I don't think that witholding information can be justified. I'm not even sure Copyrights themselves are just. "You're just trying to justify [this]. You're just trying to justify [that]." I'm so sick of this argument. It's not an argument or logical at all, it's just an attack on the person. It's just like calling them a coward or an idiot. And it reeks of pushing one's own subjective morality onto others. Nothing needs "justifying", morals are relative. We haven't even specified a moral system here. "Justify" is such a meaningless, trite, putrid term.

I am a simply, plain Left Libertarian, strong Mutualist and possible supporter of Left Communism. My political position does not support merely one means of my belief in Copyleft and Intellectual Property reform. I suppose you could say something about homosexual rights and political siding being justifying and cowardly, too. Capitalism will go away, or at least be reduced, if I have anything to say about it. I am an Info-Anarchist, but not just an Info-Anarchist. But also a Libertarian Socialist and several other kinds of Anarchist and Leftist. And there's nothing wrong with supporting a problematic system merely because of one problem. Really, I don't care if someone only supports Libertarianism for the reason of removing drug laws, so long as they are for reducing the state. It's honestly not a bad reason and being against drug laws is perfectly "justified". They are welcome to have an interest in doing drugs themselves and there is nothing abhorrent about taking an activism against drug laws just because they want to do them.

And it's not the people who created the content you're stealing. It's not stealing. Artistic creators are harmed more by the Capitalist Industry themselves more . Just look at what many artists such as John Fogerty have gone through. How many public domain works are sold. And how successful it is to release your works for free without disgusting Copyright baggage. They're not hurt by downloaders and libraries and used buyers and home tapers and people sharing with each other. They're hurt by the big companies who exploit them as much as the media enjoyers.

Firefox is the most successful Internet Browser available. That I'm using, and also likely you. Not just in terms of user usage, but also economically.

No, the limitations for libraries are not technological. They are about money and fairness. Upsettingly ridiculous. No, they have never been about money and fairness. They have always been about archiving and providing means of information to the public.

No. "Having" something means you own it. It is yours. Forever, or until you decide to give or sell it away. Borrowing something means it is not yours, even if it is in your house. It does not belong to you and hence you have no rights over it. You might as well say that hiring someone for a day is exactly the same as keeping them as an indentured slave for their lives. I've never liked this mentality toward "ownership". Me and my friends share several things and take up the mentality that none of us "own" it, but it's something we all share as friends. What is "owned" and what is "shared". A lot of people thankfully go against the "own" mentality and choose to share and not claim to themselves and keep resources from others. Sharing is caring~.

Owning is a seriously nebulous concept that one could go into the rights of for days. I don't much like the idea of "owning" data. Or even land. It's something that people should have the rights to, but not the rights to keep from others. I think that people, all humans, have the right to their own comfortable home, among other humans they so mutually desire to be around. I'm not sure I believe that land is something that should be bought and sold, and essentially "owned", and preserved from people who deserve it. Similarly, the idea of owning data kind of irks me. There isn't a piece of data I have created in my lifetime that I would want to be considered "owned" and kept from other people.

There is not a single thing in the world I want to "own", only things I want to have the rights to. And honestly keeping resources to yourself instead of sharing is highly inefficient. I've always desired to live in a Commune since I was 13 or so, where everyone in the Community does own a single thing individually.

I like Libraries because it's not something I own, but have rights or access to. Limited, but rights and access. Limited, but a lot more comfortable than a store. I would much rather give money to people sharing and holding a media as a public with rights to all. Than support the selective ownership of my several pieces of media that I bought. I own several video games, but the idea that I "own" them, in the Capitalist-Copyright sense, kind of grosses me out.

But the end result is that you have something functionally identical to the original item without paying for it You have even more blatantly defined your error and contradition with your constrast of typing out a book onto notepad that you have checked out from the library yourself. The end result is that you have something functionally indentical to the original item without paying for it. Regardless of if it took more "effort". The only thing you have defended is inefficiency, wasted time, and obsolescence. You're saying that the flat earth theory is just and round earth theory is sinful, in a time of the obvious round earth. That as long as someone does something as archiac and pointlessly as possible, you'll sympathize with them. You're holding back technology. You're promoting the outdated. Honestly, for someone on the internet, it sounds downright Luddite.

Edit: Interesting to see you retract that statement now. And moot? Quite an assertion. And so much just an assertion I can just say "no". If you're not addressing the text, you haven't rendered anything moot.

Hence, stealing. That is stretching the term "stealing" far beyond it's reasonable usage. You're trivializing the concept of of theft. I honestly don't think that data is something that can be stolen. A physical CD from the store can, but a song, cannot.

Let's make a comparison in terms of food. Say you go to someone's garden and vineyard, and take one of their apples without permission, and run away. This person is now missing an apple unless they catch up with you and take it back. However, if you ask a person if you can borrow an apple, and they say yes, and you have a ultra-advanced, strangely efficient cloning machine, and clone the person's apple, are those cloned apples stolen, and does the grower have a right to them because they are a functionally the same copy of that apple? No, the Vineyard owner does not even have rights to your copied apple.

Let's even take a copyrighted food. If you copy M&Ms, or a Mc Donald's Happy Meal of a friend you have borrowed and returned, you have not stolen that friend's or Mc Donald's food. Unfortunately, we don't have that kind of technology yet. But we do have it with data. And somehow I worry that there would still be starving people in the world even if we did.

Are you saying that being poor or really, really *needing* something suddenly makes it legal or ethical to steal something? Absolutely not. It's not stealing. And no matter how many times in a post you say it, it won't make it any more true. And I'll come back in every single instance to state the truth that it's not stealing. And anything that a person needs, I believe they have the right to. I believe that education is a fundamental right. Needing something makes it unethical to be unable to be provided. If anything, keeping education from people who are poor is exploiting them and stealing their human rights away.

Did a person born into a poor family and a poor country earn starvation? Did a person born into a rich family earn their luxury? Does a person like Paris Hilton deserve the best education while others hardly at all, because of her birth? Is it stealing to expect other citizens to be entitled to the same education opportunities as her?

You're trivializing theft. I don't think that things such as copying materials qualifies as theft. As you are not taking the original, you are increasing the amount of copy. And there are economic ways to supporting data and creators of data limiting circulation and circulation rights.

Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]
Cidolfas Since: Jan, 2001
#109: Nov 17th 2010 at 6:51:01 AM

I think perhaps using the terms "immoral", "illegal" and "unethical" is a bit of a whirlygig here. On the one hand, home taping is immoral because you can buy the same thing on the shelves; you've gotten it without paying for it. On the other, the access to the show was paid for, and the tape is cut with commercials etc. and hence not quite the original item. So it's more of a gray area.

And I certainly agree that distributors need to be a little more mindful of the current mentality - which is why online distribution of music and movies is skyrocketing, and legal alternatives to downloading are increasingly becoming available at a fraction of the price of traditional methods. This is a good thing, and further implicates those who don't take advantage of it.

Ukonkivi: Where on earth do you get off putting words into my mouth about race, homosexuality, and politics? None of those ever had anything to do with this discussion. That is a personal attack, completely made-up, and severely diminishes your point of view.

And yes, certainly artists are hurt by big companies, which is why I support better, cheaper models of online distribution. But if everyone was able to view and play everything they made for free, the artists would be hurt by everybody. They would make absolutely zero profit and all creators would simply cease making anything.

Firefox is a non sequitur. Open source programming has always been done by people in their spare time, or by companies who believe that attaching their names to software like this raises their brand and hence invest in it. Works like games and books are made by individuals, as their primary job, and they need to be paid for their work or you risk the work not happening any more.

Blockbuster movies have budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Can you imagine if every single person got to see the movie for free - how would such movies be made any more?

And it's great that you like communism and the idea that nobody can "own" something. (Obviously communism has done so amazingly well in countries like Russia, China and Cuba so far.) The problem is that you live in a society where that isn't true. And because people can "own" something, by you taking ownership without payment, you are depriving others - those who play by capitalist rules, i.e. nearly the entire population - from their own livelihood.

"Let's make a comparison in terms of food. Say you go to someone's garden and vineyard, and take one of their apples without permission, and run away. This person is now missing an apple unless they catch up with you and take it back. However, if you ask a person if you can borrow an apple, and they say yes, and you have a ultra-advanced, strangely efficient cloning machine, and clone the person's apple, are those cloned apples stolen, and does the grower have a right to them because they are a functionally the same copy of that apple? No, the Vineyard owner does not even have rights to your copied apple. "

However, if everyone took an apple this way and gave it back to the owner - assuming the owner was trying to make a livelihood by selling apples - the owner would go bankrupt and lose his house and his tree, because nobody would ever pay him for his apples.

"And anything that a person needs, I believe they have the right to. "

Needs? NEEDS? We are talking about video games. Video games are not a right, they are not a privilege, they are a farking luxury. Please get back to reality here.

And I still fail to see how your argument works, at all. Poor people deserve all the things rich people have - that argument would justify "real" stealing, then. Why aren't you going around to rich people's houses and taking their cars and laptops - after all, they don't "deserve" them? Is it only a fear of getting caught?

"And there are economic ways to supporting data and creators of data limiting circulation and circulation rights."

Piracy is not one of them. Perhaps piracy is not "stealing" in the original, physical sense - but the end result is exactly the same as if you had stolen it, because you are still depriving the creator of livelihood as surely as if you had. You are getting caught up in technicalities and totally ignoring the results of your actions.

Ukonkivi Over 10,000 dead.:< Since: Aug, 2009
Over 10,000 dead.:<
#110: Nov 17th 2010 at 7:20:00 AM

Making comparison's is not the same as putting words in other people's mouths.

And nowhere did I say that video gaming was a need.

I'll be coming back in a little while to add more. I'm a bit tired of this activity right now. And I have other things to do right now.

Okay, you're really avoiding the meat of a comparising and using it to attack the user with a strawman. We were making comparisons to when having a copy of something is stealing. Honestly a bit of it was rambling, but was nonetheless not easily construable as what you're taking it as, unless you trying to find a cheap shot at the user. While food is a need and Video Games are a luxury, the comparison is that a copy is a copy. And some things people deserve.

And while not all information is a need, it is just information. Considering information something that can be bought or stolen just by being multiplied or not is a bit silly.

Any comparison to the subject matter has to do with the discussion. And assuming it is directed at you when in cases that it very plainly is not, severly diminishes your point of view. The most anything that was directed at you, is that your words clearly reflected Social Darwinism. If you disagree, make a point for that, not make an argument out of misunderstanding and ignorance.

But if everyone was able to view and play everything they made for free, the artists would be hurt by everybody. Why would this assertion be correct? People buy media whether they are free or not.

And Open Source programming is not something to be contrasted to people who have such as a so called "full time job". A lot of people in this industry do so out of values. There's a reason people frequently joke about Linux users being "dirty Communists". You're clearly ignorant about people invovled in open source and the ethic common within them. This isn't some cheap hobby to be taken lightly and most people in Open Source would take high to this. It's an economic model. One that many of them want to see succeed above the alternative. Your words highly degrade their culture. And Open Source is just that, a Lifestyle, a Culture, and an Economic model.

Blockbuster movies have budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Can you imagine if every single person got to see the movie for free - how would such movies be made any more? Sometimes that money is frivolous or expanded to something that can easily be done elsewise. But people still buy things that are free, and there would be no real detriment. Movies such as Avatar would still be easily and frequently made. Because they would still be rich people who have made loads of their money. Because free availability cannot stop that industry. These budgets will not, and have not been largely harmed by Copyright infringement. As insane as they are.

'However, if everyone took an apple this way and gave it back to the owner - assuming the owner was trying to make a livelihood by selling apples - the owner would go bankrupt and lose his house and his tree, because nobody would ever pay him for his apples. ' And that possibility makes it unethical for more food to be available? The benefits for both parties and society far outweight him keeping a bit of food from everyone at a price. Society progresses. If oil becomes obsolete, the oil companies may go bankrupt unless they adapt. There is always something for the Apple grower to do and in overall life s/he and other members of society would benefit more from more freely available food. The Apple grower doesn't live impoverished, the entire industry simply changes.

Limit of data distribution is not necessicary for the data industry to survive, or even thrive.

And poor people deserving to have the same things rich people have is not stealing. You'd might as well call taxes theft with that logic. Voting, Public Education, Welfare, Libraries, and other Public services, all give poor some of the things rich people have.

You're really grabbing for a disgusting strawman and comparison no matter how much I shut it down. So I'm going to have to keep rending this twisted logic of yours and selective misquoting and mis-exampling moot, that the two aren't comparible. I don't have an exact established viewpoint on "redistribution of wealth", and my opinions range from Mutualism to Left Communism. But I will say that when people withold billions of dollars from people and lives are manipulated by money for than any "government", that is the stealing. That is the stealing of the whole world. And "taking back the resources" and enabling the poor to all have the things they deserve, is not some person going up to some rich person's house and taking their things. It's the uniting of the workers and the poor and re-taking control of society. This means a complete change in economy and culture, not some quick petty taking of one item by another. Communism is working toward the flattening of economy, things such as taking a Yacht would be pointless in that. And in fact, the revolution would essentially take away the concentrated wealth in a way much more meaningful than taking someone's Yatch or TV. The proletariat all rise in power, and the bourgeois would fall to their level. That Yatch and plot of land would become worthless.

By the same logic that Communism wouldn't work, Nazism or other forms of government that were attempted or overthrown wouldn't work. Nazism was eventually overthrown, so I suppose that doesn't work? Or what about all of the imperialized societies overthrown by others? I suppose their just "didn't work", because they were conquered and their government overthrown anyway? Communism lost in a political turmoil to statists. The countries were too rash, and things would have turned out just fine if the Anarchists and Left Communists succeeded. Whether Democracy or whatever government works or not, it is still aways good to work against the tyranny of the bourgeois, whether they be Hitler, Bush, Mao, Stalin, Kim Jong, or otherwise.

I would say that some groups such as the Chinese Red Guard actually had some good, if only they refined their cause for Left Communism instead of Mao's fascism against "counterrevolutionaries".

But the end result is exactly the same as if you had stolen it, because you are still depriving the creator of livelihood as surely as if you had. No it's not. Playing a Video Game isn't anywhere near close to depriving someone of money. You didn't take anything. You copied something. No resource has been taken, and a person can still do anything from buy a shiny tin copy of the game or send the maker money in the mail.

You're conflating things that do not belong together, and of course have ignored points and been selective, so you can assert the same things over and over.

Perhaps a bad review is taking sales of something. After all, less people want to buy a game that's badly rated. So maybe reviews are immoral and theft. Whether someone 'can' lose sales over something, is not relevant to whether something is theft.

The end result is not exactly the same, anymore than writing a scathing review is exactly the same. I suppose I should start comparing cruel and unfair reviews to theft. And perhaps buying used games as well. Because I mean, who needs to buy a new game when they can buy a used game that works just as well? Or borrow one from a good friend? I'm sure that moving in with a rich friend with lots of video games is a potential lost sale as well. True, piracy doesn't support them other than getting their works and name out. But it doesn't deprive them.

And for many artists, being in the spotlight is the greatest maker of money. Notoriety is a lot more powerful for most people than literal record sales. Given, that doesn't make piracy more productive to them than getting sales of their data. But Portraits of Past would not have re-released their cds and started touring again if it weren't for heavy piracy of their products. Piracy brought the band back in business. And while it doesn't help being name bands like it does underground bands like that one, it's not equal to stealing from those bigger bands. It is not detrimental to them, and being in a state of exposure means being in a state of making money. Piracy simple doesn't do much of anything for them because they're too big for it to dent them one way or the other.

However, smaller groups. Those who generally make better music. Benefit highly from piracy.

And whether they do or not, that does not make piracy harmful or unethical. One of the first posts I have made in this thread is being evoked here. If not buying is what's unethical, then piracy is not unethical. Because piracy is not equal to not buying. And one should attack not buying and supporting the creator, not exposure of any sort. Copyright infringement is not a lack of buying, it's imply a lack of using.

If you download and read the Bible online, the creators may not still be alive, but you are "stealing" a sale from Bible printer who make their livelihood on selling "God's Holy word". And yet, Bibles sell significantly. Even with all the stealing. Because it's not really theft, it's the propagation. It's reading and enjoyment of such works free, and they still sell. And it's not a lost sale if someone reads a Bible online instead of reads it. And people are still happily buying their apples.

I don't pretend that piracy is some great support of the industry, greater than buying. It has occasional benefits to the creators at most. But it doesn't need to.

edited 17th Nov '10 8:35:56 AM by Ukonkivi

Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]
Roxor Only Sane Fox from Land Down Under Since: Jan, 2001
Only Sane Fox
#111: Nov 17th 2010 at 9:35:07 AM

Piracy is bad.

Piracy is good.

Piracy is stealing.

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

No.

Yes.

No!

Yes!

Duck Season!

Wabbit Season!

BLAM!

Shut Up!

If I were a mod, your posts would be reading "This post was thumped by the stick of off-topic thumping".

Get back on topic. This thread is about Emulation, NOT piracy. If you want to discuss piracy, take it to another thread.

Accidental mistakes are forgivable, intentional ones are not.
Aondeug Oh My from Our Dreams Since: Jun, 2009
Oh My
#112: Nov 17th 2010 at 10:20:15 AM

I'm immensely fond of emulation. I can actually play games that I no longer own working systems for. Hell even if I do some of the carts' save batteries just died on me and finding a used copy can be a bitch and a gamble. I already paid for the fucker once when it was new, I'm not going to be paying for it again especially if it is something from an older console. Because then it isn't supporting the company and there is no point in me spending money. Then there's the multitudes of old out of print games I never got a chance to try when they were new and fancy...Emulation can help fix the pesky problem of games never making it over and things being region locked...Shit be expensive.

If I do like the thing enough I do try to get a physical copy if only because I like the thing enough.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah
Electivirus Since: Jan, 2001
#113: Nov 17th 2010 at 10:24:23 AM

Seeing as I missed the SNES age, emulation is quite a big help to me. Hell, I'm playing Earthbound for the first time now! 8D

Ralphrius Unwinning Ranger from Neo-Holland Since: May, 2010
Unwinning Ranger
#114: Nov 17th 2010 at 10:27:48 AM

One of the things I like most about emulation are the fan translations. Without those, I would never have had the chance to play Treasure Of The Rudras or Wonder Project J. Which are both very high on my favorite SNES games list.

edited 17th Nov '10 10:28:01 AM by Ralphrius

Stargate SG-1 Let's Watch. Because my ZHP thing failed.
Ukonkivi Over 10,000 dead.:< Since: Aug, 2009
Over 10,000 dead.:<
#115: Nov 17th 2010 at 10:28:24 AM

Interestingly, my original post in this thread was trying to say "emulation =/= piracy". Because a lot of people were acting like it was. Sorry.

Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]
Aondeug Oh My from Our Dreams Since: Jun, 2009
Oh My
#116: Nov 17th 2010 at 10:30:08 AM

I was a lucky bitch who managed to not miss out on the 8-bit and 16-bit eras in a way when I was a kid...Hooray for rental stores still carrying 16-bit carts, family who owned a fuckton of games (and consoles), and used games! Sadly our vast collection has been reduced to Lufia 1, Lufia 2, and Shining Force 1...With none of the consoles...D:

^^Oh god yes. Fan translations are much appreciated. Especially the really good ones...God damn Mother 3 fan trans. team...I love you.

edited 17th Nov '10 10:31:13 AM by Aondeug

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah
Electivirus Since: Jan, 2001
#117: Nov 17th 2010 at 10:30:41 AM

^^^ Oh yeah, that's how I finally got to play Mother 3. We need more fan translations like that.

edited 17th Nov '10 10:31:45 AM by Electivirus

Ukonkivi Over 10,000 dead.:< Since: Aug, 2009
Over 10,000 dead.:<
#118: Nov 17th 2010 at 10:35:15 AM

Emulation helped me discover Seiken Densetsu 3. A crime that it hasn't ever been ported. Still out of print, No Export For You, and everything.

Sadly, I have doubt we'll ever see a Stateside or Euro-side port of either that or Mother 3.

Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]
Aondeug Oh My from Our Dreams Since: Jun, 2009
Oh My
#119: Nov 17th 2010 at 10:39:28 AM

This does remind me of a problem I have had...When it comes to SEGA CD/MEGA CD emulation Gens+ is an overly stubborn bitch who refuse to start up the emulation within a decent period of time. KEGA Fusion just...goes. Gens works like this too. Which is nice. Gens+ works with the games otherwise, but god damn that wait...Why is that wait there!?

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah
Electivirus Since: Jan, 2001
#120: Nov 17th 2010 at 10:40:53 AM

Ugh. Genesis emulation is a real bitch. :/

Aondeug Oh My from Our Dreams Since: Jun, 2009
Oh My
#121: Nov 17th 2010 at 10:43:35 AM

I've never had a problem with Genesis and 32X emulation. SEGA/MEGA CD I've had issues with. From the taking forever to start with Gens+ and music issues with all of them (fiddling with settings so that perfect sync is on and converting the .iso to .bin fixes this). I haven't dared try 32XCD games partly because I don't know of any. That combo doesn't sound like it would work without some sort of issue though...Haven't tried Gamegear emulation either though I will be.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah
Ukonkivi Over 10,000 dead.:< Since: Aug, 2009
Over 10,000 dead.:<
#122: Nov 17th 2010 at 10:45:32 AM

I've never had a problem with any Sega emulation. With the exception of the fact that nullDC works just fine on my laptop, gives me an error message on Windows 7 64-Bit.

Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]
evilneko Since: Nov, 2009
#123: Nov 17th 2010 at 2:21:17 PM

I'm all for emulation, especially of arcade machines. Arcade machines are even more ephemeral than consoles, more difficult to find and buy when aged, and even if you did find one and buy it, it's not like the manufacturer or developer would receive any benefit anyway.

All that said I still downloaded Pcsx2 so I could try out Disgaea. Etna <3

Glowsquid Since: Jul, 2009
#124: Nov 17th 2010 at 2:23:12 PM

Ugh. Genesis emulation is a real bitch. :/

Lemme me guess: Never tried Kega Fusion?

GlennMagusHarvey Since: Jan, 2001
#125: Nov 17th 2010 at 2:36:15 PM

HOLY BATMAN WALLS OF TEXT GALORE

I teal-deer'd the last few posts, especially the big ones.

I have to say a few things.

1. Mother 3 is not getting an international release. The reason is, ironically, because of potential copyright/IP infringement issues on the part of the creators of Mother 3. (For what it's worth, series director Shigesato Itoi reportedly even encouraged the fan-translation effort.)

2. Copyright infringement (a.k.a. "digital piracy") is not stealing. This is not to say anything about the ethics or legality of copyright infringement; this is only to say that it is not stealing. Copyright infringement is an intellectual property issue, and cannot be reasonably compared to stealing a non-replaceable physical object. (Anyone who suggests that it can—who, generally, are personally ideologically or financially opposed to piracy—should be asked to kindly stop.)

3. Especially for non-essentials like games and other entertainment, you are not entitled to anything. If you are pirating such data, then you don't really have a right to complain when things turn out wrong—such as a game not install or running properly. (The big exception to this is education, but that's somewhat of a mess as to how much of it should ideally be counted as a public good.)

4. Just because copyright infringement may be unethical in many cases does not mean that copyright holders are necessarily more ethical. They may be just as unethical, such as in the use of legal action to turn profits, claiming greater amounts of sales lost than would reasonably be expected to occur.

Ideally, everything would be free, everyone's days would be spent with entertainment, and there would be no starving artists/writers/programmers. However, this is not an ideal world.

edited 17th Nov '10 2:39:08 PM by GlennMagusHarvey


Total posts: 196
Top