In Arizona: Dana Crow-Smith first got into trouble with Arizona police when she stepped onto public property while handing out free bottles of water during a July arts event.

Police issued Crow-Smith a warning, saying she needed a vendor's permit after handing out the water during a First Friday Art Walk on July 6. A Phoenix city memo states that Crow-Smith violated an ordinance requiring permits for "vending, selling, serving, displaying, offering for sale or giving away goods, wares, or merchandise or food from either a mobile vending unit or a mobile food vending unit."

So yeah, you can give stuff away, as long as The Man doesn't know about it. :-)

Yes of course. Look at me for example. I have a job paying at least standard pay in germany. This means I can buy the whole GOG catalogue if I wanted to (while probably eating rice for some month). But I don't need to. I can also illegally download it. So now I think it is absolutely ridiculous to assume that all pirates have no job and no prospects for one. Hence we have lost sales.

But that's not the core. The core is if we all should benefit from shorter or less or different copyright or not. As I see it, the pirates/copyright infringers take the law into their own hands. And that's not the right way. They should try to convince the majority of people that copyright must be changed. Everything else is undemocratic.

I can hear the voices of thousand of pirates that scream "that won't make a difference in a million years and you know it.."

Taking the law into your hands is not necessarily bad in all cases. For example, we know that armed citizens are notoriously bad at stopping criminals, but whistleblowers disregarding their NDAs are doing more good than harm. Generally speaking, there might be a positive correlation between pirating games and vigilante "justice", but the social benefit of cultural integration of social classes and nations* more than compensates for that. Furthermore, the democratic process has consistently failed to change copyright laws for quite some time now.

*inb4 "how can poor people afford gaming rigs": by saving money, naturally, and buying refurbished (hardware is nonscarce). I get $7/hour and I would've bought a brand new rig long ago if not for unsafe wiring in the apartment, even though hardware costs more around here.

---
Entitlement is a buzzword, and as such it doesn't mean shit. For example, people may be said to be "entitled" when they want:
- official tech support for a game they didn't buy
- medical compensation for a dislocated jaw from a person they bit (it's funny 'cause it's true!)
- a place to live if their apartment burned down (rent a room and sue the guilty party for the expenses, you hobo)
- free healthcare (should have saved for a rainy day, idiot)
- to worship their "wacky tribal god" (this country is culturally Orthodox Christian, YHWH or GTFO)
- food without human shit in it (serves you right for not reading online reviews)
- to take a day off when their relative is sick
- to post about competing services on a commercial website
- money for an expensive operation (there are children dying from hunger and the money is better spent to feed them, you selfish prick)
- to organize an (illegal) gay pride event in the city center and not be punched in the face (why should honest cops risk their lives to protect those "amoral freaks"?)
- for a free website to give notice if the management is planning to close shop and destroy users' data, and a means of rescuing said data (it was free! don't complain!)
- their daughter to marry someone they approve of (we fed, clothed and educated that ingrate, and she intends to bring shame on the family)
- to not be called a dick (hello there, various countries where it's illegal to insult specific people)
- to not be called a n****r (freedom of speech!)
- for their favorite gaming site to release only the games they are personally interested in.

To use a buzzword, it is necessary to provide it with a workable definition. Given that the word "entitled" has a negative connotation, I suggest "making a demand that, if met, will cause harm to society". In this case, the burden of proof lies on the accuser.

Alternatively, we can keep the buzzword as "making a demand that I personally do not approve for personal reasons", in which case no proof is needed (not even internal consistency!), but then the claim is meaningless and irrational.

That suggests that as long as you can convince yourself that you wouldn't have bought anything, you can pirate everything. The key word being "convince" - how can you know, with utmost certainty, what you would've done in different circumstances ?
Also - this is what the Kantians get right - if everyone consumed without paying, there would be no authors and thus - nothing to enjoy. Piracy is parasitic (perhaps we should call it "parasee" ?).

I love it when the democratic process is deemed a failure by the unhappy minority (or incompetent masses for that matter). :P I'm still amazed that people are actually blaming the law. "How dare he demand money from us for watching HIS work?!" *angry face* Last time I checked there was nothing evil about copyright - people just tell themselves so to feel better about themselves when they decide not to pay for something.

Also, piracy is obviously not the right way to improve things - all it leads to is a ridiculous arms race. Pirates are looking for new methods to distribute and get stuff, copyright owners in return demand rights that may hurt the average guy's piracy. And in the process good and talented artists suffer because piracy does not recognize innocence. :P What DOES help is playing by the rules, by setting new standards, serving as a role model. You want to see more cultural products in the public domain? Fine, then create and provide them yourself! You want to legal distribution methods which are as straight forward as piracy? Fine, then found a distribution company! If you can't do either then you're probably not the right person to say what's right in the first place.

Copyright term extension act. Life of the author + 70 years. Last time I checked, dead people don't demand money.

//Note that this specifically refers to the failing of the democratic process where it concerns recent changes to the copyright law. Live people are within their moral rights to demand payment - which doesn't automatically deny other people the moral right to withhold it.

Piracy is often a case of "Much, the miller's son," A character from the Robin Hood Myth. The powers that be persecute the starving people who poach deer on the kings land to survive. I support every developer I can, pre-purchase, kickstarter, and so on just because I love video games and I love the people who make them (when I learned that the rights to Psychonauts was returned to Double-Fine I bought the game again, once on GOG and once on PSN).

By that same token, I didn't always have the funds to do that or the financial smarts to plan far enough ahead to do that. In the past I would pirate games I couldn't afford or that hadn't seen publication for a decade or more.

I'm older and more financially stable these days so I buy my games; not just the ones I want now, but many of the ones I pirated back in the day (if they didn't suck). I understand the impact of piracy on the bottom line of a developer, but there's a deeper issue here than just stopping it.

I think that Sos is on the right track, it's not the answer but it's pretty close. Steam, GOG, and some other, similar sites make money because they have great prices, great promotions and great products but they keep loyal customers and make more through their treatment of their customers.

I know people who make six figures a year who won't buy a game, DVD, or CD, and instead pirate all of their entertainment. they say that it's because it's not worth buying, but I find it interesting that it's worth jail time, but not a few dollars. I don't make six figures a year and I still buy my stuff.

PSN is on the right track pretty much as well (I cannot speak for XBOX Live or WII as I don't use them), they offer full game trials for their Plus subscribers that allow you to play a full game for an hour and buy it after that time with all of your progress in the trial saved. It's a great idea and I can see how it would help stem piracy for some games, but having it as a premium service defeats that purpose, since a lot of people who pirate simply don't have the money to pay the subscription fee, let alone the new game prices.

Another great attempt was made by the late Ascaron Entertainment in their Sacred 2 release. The demo is the first section of the map, and it's huge with tons of area to explore. I played the demo for four hours all on it's own, and still didn't get all of the area mapped out. It impressed me so much that it became the very first game I ever pre-purchased. Something like that gives a prospective buyer and potential pirate a means of actually sampling the game play in a fully realized way without "giving the game away."

In the end, I don't know what the answer is, I'm just another guy who want's a solution rather than the argument. When a good solution is found, all of the self-styled "hero" pirates will simply disappear like the trolls they are and the ones who pirated out of necessity (and entertainment is a necessity, ask any 4x player) won't have that reason any longer. That's what I'm waiting for.

Last time I checked this served among other things the safety of the artists. IPs are capable of generating incredibly huge sums. In a world where people sometimes kill others for a few bucks, it's just common sense to make legally sure that nobody can benefit from an artist's death. 70 years is obviously pretty steep (and it's the extreme case, in some countries it's "only" 60 or 50 years) but there has to be a law like that.

Balderdash you say? Note that in case of preservation areas (at least in some countries) there is no similar law - as a result there's mysterious "accidents" which cause a certain forest to burn down so the area stops being worth preserving and some company can put its plants there. Sucks, huh? Now say someone does introduce a law that a preservation area remains a preservation area for several decades even after the important objects are destroyed - people with your logic will complain that a pile of nothingness is not worth preserving, ignoring that this kind of seemingly absurd rule is a crucial part of the law that was supposed to protect the forest or whatever in the first place.

Someone must be real hardcore. I think I've spent more than an hour on it and didn't beat it entirely.

Wait, what? Piracy doesn't hust anyone? You're kidding, right? You have to be. Oh yeah, it's fine when millions of cheap bastards download your game for free without giving a single cent to the developers. Dvelopers/publishers don't need money anyway, do they?

Wrong. You took that argument out of your ass, to be precise. Some people will NOT pay for games, even if they enjoy them. Humans are not fucking saints. This logic is just ridiculous because humans are flawed. They will not pay for everything they like.


I do blame them. If you don't agree with DRM, just don't play the fucking game. If you pirate it, you're just contributing to more DRM measures. Games are not essential goods, we can live without them. it's not like games are like food or water. Don't agree with a form of DRM? Move along, don't buy it and don't pirate it either. Period. If you pirate games you are just giving publishers more reasons to move into more intrusive and absurd DRM schemes/F2P crap/streaming/social BS.

And it doesn't really matter. DRM is just another excuse for piracy. DRM-free games get pirated just as much as DRM-infested ones. It's just another excuse to try to justify piracy.

No. People want profits. And they deserve it. If you played his game and enjoyed it, he deserves a bit of a compensation for that.

I absolutely agree with you, Sir. Currently my own budget is pretty low but heck, I happen to love video games, music and movies and am willing to pay for them - and actually I'm even surprised how many of these things I can afford while having a full fridge. In my opinion it's usually pure hypocrisy when people say that they can't afford it. There may be extreme cases but most people are simply greedy and cheap bastards.

And just as you pointed out, the companies are providing new and better methods to entertain people, to help them decide what to spend their money on etc. In these circumstances I really can't imagine how piracy is necessary to improve things. No matter whether they blame piracy or not, they want to make more money and they will think of ways to make it, including such nice ideas and services as the oney that you described.

What does this have to do with piracy? If you don't like paying for 6-hour games just move along and buy another game instead. You DON'T have to pirate it. If you don't like a game and you still pirate it you must be fucking retarded.

By the way, the 6-hours long games are the ones focused on multiplayer, like COD and BF3. If you don't like multiplayer you shouldn't even look at these games.

No, they will not. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but humans are not saints. A small percentage might pay for it, but the majority won't. People don't pirate games they when they don't enjoy them or to use as demos, people pirate games because they're cheap and self-entitled. It doesn't matter if they enjoy it or not, they will still pirate stuff.

This game is hilarious. Maybe it is the lack of sleep, but I played the for about 30min and it got me to laugh. It really wasn't anything I could expect. Funny stuff.

You say it. There might be something. This is pretty weak and far from proof that piracy is not bad. It could as well just be an excuse to do something that gives positive effects only for yourself and not for society as a whole. But at least we can say that this question is somewhat open.

But for the democratic process. I would say that is the only peaceful option there is. Today you start pirating games and tomorrow you brake my leg because I don't pay you protection money. Where does it stop then? Which crime is a good crime? If democracy fails all else will also inevitably fail. That's just my opinion of course. There is nothing better.

Of course in many countries the political system is deeply corrupt, they are a democracy but only formally. It goes without saying that any time invested in improving these countries would be worth time. But if you happen to life in such a country you can as well pirate and get over it. Pirates shouldn't make the mistakes of inventing great moralic excuses, they will fail. Just say: I am as bad as the guys in power, now judge me because I am not better than them.