Thousands of people probably did it. I was one of them.therapist wrote: what kind of blind person buys an indie game like factorio, the first of its kind, without trying it first? Without piracy, alot of us wouldn't have even bothered with this because it is so radical in gameplay mechanics and new in it's concept. Don't get me wrong, these are the things I LOVE abot factorio, but how in the heck was I suppose to figure that out from screenshots and youtube videos that, quite frankly, make this game look like a demake of Starcraft from 1998.
I wouldn't say 40% of all people on the internet are ideological pirates. Not even "part of the pirating community". Like pirating, a large part of people with a car drive over the speed limit occasionally. It doesn't make them part of the "I drive too fast" community, and neither will they defend their "right to speed".therapist wrote:This accusation, if that is what you are saying, is very offensive to the entire pirating community, which is statistically more than 40% of all human beings who have internet access.
Are you perhaps referring to the guy who was threatening to DDOS the servers down unless he was allowed to post Factorio torrent links? The mods just kept editing his messages to remove the link and eventually he snapped and started ranting about how he would fuck up the lives of the developers to retaliate. And right now, his signature (check the first thread ssilk posted) still has those torrent links up ... and nobody knows if he has trojanized his torrents with malware or if they're genuinely legit stuff. That whole thread makes me feel sick. It's not about piracy, it's not about torrents, it's about complete and utter lack of respect and some jerk's power trip because he thinks he should be allowed to order the developers around.therapist wrote:Apparently, discussion of pirating is already regulated. According to another thread I had been reading recently, repeated posting of links to torrents is a bannable offense on this forum.
Um, yes it does? The speeding community is made up of both hardcore, and casual/occasional speeders. Likewise, the pirating community is made up MOSTLY of people who download music. You really don't think that makes them part of the pirating community as it were? I guess if you just want to only consider "ideological pirates" to be pirates. (WTF does that even mean? you don't guilt trip yourself for trying a game first and you are some kind of ideological religious fanatic of pro-piracy?)Gammro wrote:I wouldn't say 40% of all people on the internet are ideological pirates. Not even "part of the pirating community". Like pirating, a large part of people with a car drive over the speed limit occasionally. It doesn't make them part of the "I drive too fast" community, and neither will they defend their "right to speed".therapist wrote:This accusation, if that is what you are saying, is very offensive to the entire pirating community, which is statistically more than 40% of all human beings who have internet access.
Well, that tells me you are probably fairly spoiled by this world if you have enough money to spend on playtime without even knowing if you will enjoy the game. I am curious if you have a large exercise device you don't use, or products from the home shopping network or maybe amazon that you haven't even opened or used yet. You should probably understand that you are one of the lucky ones, and you're part of the minority, most people in the world are not lucky enough to live like you do. Most people go directly from highschool/college to having children with only a 4 to 6 year gap in between those phases of their lives. Neither of those situations leave much room for buying yourself play toys.Ric wrote:Thousands of people probably did it. I was one of them.therapist wrote: what kind of blind person buys an indie game like factorio, the first of its kind, without trying it first? Without piracy, alot of us wouldn't have even bothered with this because it is so radical in gameplay mechanics and new in it's concept. Don't get me wrong, these are the things I LOVE abot factorio, but how in the heck was I suppose to figure that out from screenshots and youtube videos that, quite frankly, make this game look like a demake of Starcraft from 1998.
Your entire rant protecting pirates is really rather funny. You're protecting people that steal first, buy later(or maybe never buy at all)
Do what you want mate but please don't try to justify it. It's just sad to read.
I meant, that discussing this is like discussion about money, or religions, or if abortion/marijuana/alkohol/[whatever] should be allowed or not or if it is good or bad to own weapons, or if the NSA is allowed to read this post or [... placeholder for many more questions ...]:therapist wrote:@ssilk, can you possibly elaborate on what you mean by what you just said? I don't know if there is a language barrier or if something was lost in translation, but I don't understand alot of what you said.
Do you really believe that these questions have no answers? Or are you just saying you don't feel you or others are capable of coming to a reasonable answer to these questions?ssilk wrote:I meant, that discussing this is like discussion about money, or religions, or if abortion/marijuana/alkohol/[whatever] should be allowed or not or if it is good or bad to own weapons, or if the NSA is allowed to read this post or [... placeholder for many more questions ...]:
We are discussing which thing is the proper or right to do, what we should teach our children to do, what we should act with praise or outrage when others do? Action springs forth from opinion, opinion is shaped in discussion. Fuedal lord's and peasants all agreed that there was no purpose or value in even discussing the question "Would democracy be better than living under a king?" The nazi's thought the question of "are jews, gypies, homosexuals even considered human beings?" to not be worth even discussing, maybe you are making a similar mistake not to even try when maybe there are clear and easy answers to some of the questions you have listed. I can't respect the way you give up on those questions when I know there are answers out there waiting to be found.ssilk wrote:In my eyes it is useless to speak much about such things. What counts is the doing, not the saying. Doing the right things at the right time, with the right heart and a clean mind; like a child.
Nice trick.therapist wrote:Do you really believe that these questions have no answers? Or are you just saying you don't feel you or others are capable of coming to a reasonable answer to these questions?
Well, this is a small line you go here. There are not answers out there, waiting for to be found. Indeed, there is the science, which can answer things definitely, but will they ever find an answer what love is? Ask anyone: do you know, what love is? I think most people say yes. And you will get as many different answers as people. But will science ever be able to answer that question? I mean the "This is the answer about what love is"-answer.We are discussing which thing is the proper or right to do, what we should teach our children to do, what we should act with praise or outrage when others do? Action springs forth from opinion, opinion is shaped in discussion. Fuedal lord's and peasants all agreed that there was no purpose or value in even discussing the question "Would democracy be better than living under a king?" The nazi's thought the question of "are jews, gypies, homosexuals even considered human beings?" to not be worth even discussing, maybe you are making a similar mistake not to even try when maybe there are clear and easy answers to some of the questions you have listed. I can't respect the way you give up on those questions when I know there are answers out there waiting to be found.
I think to some point yes (chemicals, reactions in the brain...), but not above. 
Again, I;m confused about what your actually trying to say here, and honestly, I'm not trying to "trick" you, I'm not asking you if YOU have opinions on those issues, I'm asking you if you actually believe there are objective solutions to these questions or if you believe there are no objective answers to those questions at all.ssilk wrote:Nice trick.
Ok, if you don't see what I mean: if I answer yes, then you have an argument against me: I believe in something, which can be found easily an argument against. If I say no, also: I say like so, but don't believe in it...
I don't seek to ask "meta" questions, I am trying to point out that lack of discussion, the way you think it is better not to discuss, not to seek answers, is harmful to the efforts of finding of those solutions.ssilk wrote:If I say nothing, it's the best for me (and you).
But well, let's play this game further:
If I answer some meta like this, well, then we perhaps have a chance to come forward...
First sentence i don't understand your meaning, second sentence, at least you have finally taken a position, even if it is the position that there are no solutions to be found. I disagree, but at least I can understand you thinking this.ssilk wrote:Well, this is a small line you go here. There are not answers out there, waiting for to be found.
About science, Science did not prove democracy is better than living under a king. It is not something science can prove. But you and I still know the answer to which is better, democracy or dictatorship. Science never PROVED that slavery is wrong, but you better know it is ssilk. You can try to fight the democracy example and argue the "devil's advocate" and say maybe dictatorship is better for the dictator and his family, or say that some democracies have done atrocities, but if you do this you are trying very hard not to make the SIMPLE admission that democracy is objectively preferable to dictatorship. No science involved, just a question answered by discussion and logic without having to be PROVEN in the scientific sense.ssilk wrote:Indeed, there is the science, which can answer things definitely, but will they ever find an answer what love is?
This is a stupid question. Many questions can be asked, but not every question deserves an answer. I can ask the question "What is the purpose of a mountain?"ssilk wrote:Ask anyone: do you know, what love is? I think most people say yes. And you will get as many different answers as people. But will science ever be able to answer that question? I mean the "This is the answer about what love is"-answer.
Again, i cite democracy being preferable over kingship. All the different interests, all the different types of people, and we all agree on all of these different things that are impossible to deny. Slavery is wrong, almost all humans on earth have begun to agree with this statement, did science ever prove slavery is wrong? Nope. It's just wrong, and we can all explain why, even without scientific proof. This is the glory of the exchange of ideas between human beings, each human is like one single brain cell in a large "god-brain" that sometimes makes up its mind on issues and comes to conclusions.ssilk wrote:And you forget, how big the world is, how many people live on it, and how many different interests are in it. And the interests have interests of interests, good or bad, who knows? The way to come to some kind of common conclusion is - that's my opinion - definitely NOT to say "things are obviously like so and so and therefore we need to make it so and so". The way I prefer meanwhile is to learn things and then find a way to show them my view (which is the most difficult part). And then we are at a point, where we can discuss.
So you wouldn't ever tell a person to stop being racist. You'd respect a person's right to think that woman are subhuman and do not deserve respect? If most people on the globe wanted to suddenly believe the earth was flat you wouldn't try to persuade them otherwise? You wouldn't ever tell another person that the violence they are committing, or the harsh ignorant words they are saying needs to stop? I don't believe you, swedish or not, I think you stand up for the things you KNOW are right.ssilk wrote:In other words: I don't like, if someone comes and tells me, how to think about something, cause that leads always to such problems, like those unsolvable questions.
I agree, NEVER let yourself be told anything. Form your own conclusions, but I implore you ssilk, use many hours of discussion with other human beings to inform your decisions and make your opinions BETTER. Understanding the BEST POINTS of the people that completely disagree with you will help you understand where and why you form an ideological difference with those people. Even if you disagree, both sides can "sharpen their fangs" as it were thru discussion and develop their opposing purposed answers to these questions.ssilk wrote:Child's don't mind that. They aren't told (too much) about how to think. If we can stop sometimes that learned kind of thinking, that could help.
I try what I can....
Hm. Did I say that so?therapist wrote:I don't seek to ask "meta" questions, I am trying to point out that lack of discussion, the way you think it is better not to discuss, not to seek answers, is harmful to the efforts of finding of those solutions.
No, again: Nearly everybody has an answer. Is that "answerable"?Back to your nonsensical question, "WHAT IS LOVE?". Another stupidly posed, unanswerable question.
This is quite good, cause it goes into the right direction. If we speak of DRM we speak of very different aspects. Each of it's own viewpoint. If you try to speak THEN about it, you won't come to an conclusion. But if you instead try to separate the big thing into several smaller, it becomes much easier. And for parts there is suddenly an answer possible. Maybe for other parts too, if we continue to separate the concerns?The reason this question is not answerable isn't because there is no answer at all, like with questions based on opinion or viewpoint ("Does this apple taste good?"), but the question is unanswerable because it is nonsensical. First off, Romans and Greeks had a better handle of the word love. They separated love into different categories. One word meant spiritual love, one word was love inside a family between family members, one was romantic love like between husband and wife. (Full Listing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love ) If you dont even bother chopping up the word love into parts, OF COURSE it is impossible to answer what it is or even define it.
Hm. This path becomes too narrow. This is now the same level as if I say "I don't like to go to work", but do it every day.So you wouldn't ever tell a person to stop being racist.In other words: I don't like, if someone comes and tells me, how to think about something, cause that leads always to such problems, like those unsolvable questions.
That's what I try to say.You are exactly right about issues of OPINION, but I think you and I think very different of what we think are issues of opinion, and what issues have definite answers, (even if those definite answers are unknown). I assert that many of the questions from your earlier post have DEFINITE ANSWERS but we need to discuss them ALOT before we get to the answer.
But the point is: You cannot find answers, if you write walls of text. Nobody reads it and nobody answers it and too much got misunderstood.
That's the way I don't like. Well, discussion is sometimes fine, but it believe, that there is so much things, which has no words, that you cannot find the right words to discuss. You can just do. Doing with good example. Doing to protect something or someone. Doing to build the stuff you are always talked about, so that others can believe that it is really working. And much more examples.Too many people AVOID talking about those issues because they really do believe that these issues are either issues of opinion or that it is impossible to figure out the answer. I disagree with both, answers exist, AND they can be found with something as simple as ALOT of informed discussion. It isn't a matter of telling someone else what to think, it's a matter of letting my opinion brush up against your opinion and both becoming "polished" until we both reach the apex, the conclusion, the agreement, the undeniable, the ANSWERS.
But why, then, would the DRM-free version of The Witcher 2 be ignored by pirates, when it was an open target? Marcin Iwinski, CEO of CD Projekt Red, responded:
You would have to ask someone at the pirate group which cracked it, but I have to admit it was a big surprise. We were expecting to see the GOG.com version pirated right after it was released, as it was a real no-brainer. Practically anyone could have downloaded it from GOG.com (and we offered a pre-download option) and released it on the illegal sites right away, but this did not happen. My guess is, that releasing an unprotected game is not the real deal, you have to crack it to gain respect and be able to write, “cracked by XYZ.” How would “not cracked by XYZ, as there was nothing to crack” sound? A bit silly, wouldn’t it? The illegal scene is pretty much about the game and the glory: who will be the first to deliver the game, who is the best and smartest cracker. The DRM-free version at GOG.com didn’t fit this too well.
So, DRM is nothing more than an incitement to crack, and over 4 million copies of the Witcher games have been passed around. Do these represent lost sales, or would file sharers not have bought the game? How do you see the future of DRM in games generally? Iwinski responded at length:
First of all let me dispel the myth about DRM protecting anything. The truth is it does not work. It’s as simple as that. The technology which is supposed to protect games against illegal copying is cracked within hours of the release of every single game. So, that’s wasted money and development just to implement it. But that’s not the worst part. DRM, in most cases, requires users to enter serial numbers, validate his or her machine, and be connected to the Internet while they authenticate – and possibly even when they play the game they bought. Quite often the DRM slows the game down, as the wrapper around the executable file is constantly checking if the game is being legally used or not. That is a lot the legal users have to put up with, while the illegal users who downloaded the pirated version have a clean–and way more functional!–game. It seems crazy, but that’s how it really works. So if you are asking me how do I see the future of DRM in games, well, I do not see any future for DRM at all.
Hey, That one was your fault! You tryed to do the whole "What is LOVE" crap, and dispelling that kind of "riddle" requires explaining the difference between an answerable question and an unanswerable question, the nature of which questions warrant a reply, the logical fallacies inherent in asking such a question, and describing what the meaning of the word "is" actually is etc etc etc etc etc etc.ssilk wrote:Uffz. too long to read... you should seriously work on the size of your postings...
Yeah, I think you did say that. You said some issues are not worth discussing. See:ssilk wrote:Hm. Did I say that so?
I believe, it is NOT useless to speak about such things, and I think your opinion that it IS useless, is the willful spreading of ignorance.ssilk wrote:In my eyes it is useless to speak much about such things.
What? Do you really think these 2 things are the same? What does not liking to work, yet working, have to do with things that cannot be proven, yet are undeniable?ssilk wrote:In other words: I don't like, if someone comes and tells me, how to think about something, cause that leads always to such problems, like those unsolvable questions.Hm. This path becomes too narrow. This is now the same level as if I say "I don't like to go to work", but do it every day.me wrote:So you wouldn't ever tell a person to stop being racist.
Well, this is your choice and your opinion, the choice I am imploring you not to make. I believe discussion (even in the forms of walls of text) DOES lead to answers. I ask you try harder to have the discussions you do not want to have or are sick of having, try harder to understand the ideas within life's many walls of text, even when you disagree, you may be surprised how useful it can be to know so well the details of that which you disagree with. It will not be a short response when I have to tell you why asking "what love is" is a bad question. I believe, we CAN find answers to many questions you listed (not the love one, as i explained in my wall of text). Just not if we listen to your way and refuse to discuss the things which are hard to figure out. These things need the most discussion, but receive the least.ssilk wrote:That's what I try to say.
But ssilk, I cannot decide what to do on some things, how will I decide which is the right thing to do? Which action is the better one? You cannot simple purpose we just go with our "guts" can you? Go with the gut is what lead to so many atrocities, thinking, and discussion, are what explain to us why those things are atrocities and not good things our gut was telling us to do.ssilk wrote: That's the way I don't like. Well, discussion is sometimes fine, but it believe, that there is so much things, which has no words, that you cannot find the right words to discuss. You can just do. Doing with good example. Doing to protect something or someone. Doing to build the stuff you are always talked about, so that others can believe that it is really working. And much more examples.
As such, might I suggest that such be carried on in a pm, or change the topic name if you want to allow others to continue commenting as well (and create another about DRM) 
, I'd like to make one 'little' comment: You [therapist] (off topic: there should really be a separator there to show whether it's 'the rapist' or 'therapist', though i remember you saying it was the former elsewhere) mention a monarchy ("Would democracy be better than living under a king?") and then very quickly switch to 'dictatorship' which is not the same at all, and argue that a democracy is undeniably better. It's quite easy to argue that a 'democracy' is simply a dictatorship with the 'dictator' being the 'majority' of people (and thus falls into the same argument of "would you not try to convince people that thought the planet was flat that it wasn't" in that the majority could easily dominate the minorities)...
Of course historically/statistically speaking a democracy is probably less likely to do so...theoretically... A separator eliminates the whole damn purpose. Your blowing up my damn spot.FreeER wrote:(off topic: there should really be a separator there to show whether it's 'the rapist' or 'therapist', though i remember you saying it was the former elsewhere)
I was just thinking that if this discussion goes on for 4 pages or so then a better topic for it would be something like 'Are complicated topics worth spending much of your time discussing' or something, not perfect but most of it hasn't been on drm so far... was just an idea/suggestion to help people that do want to discuss a specific topic do so without having to sort through a lot of 'slightly' related content as well.therapist wrote:the whole "plus meta" thing did get REALLY REALLY meta. although we are just discussing if a topic (all topics) are worth discussing or if some topics or questions are not worth discussing, which has relevant here, also partly why the thread was created.
I simplified it because I didn't want to go into every variation of government that's possible (and there are several places where you can read all the tiny details that determines what to call a specific government), and they essentially boil down to 'how many people are in power (and how they get into power)' and 'how they treat their people'. So, Monarchy -> one person in power (typically through inheritance), Democracy -> majority in power (only done through representatives at this time, but with the power of the internet it could be possible), Aristocracy -> select few in power (typically rich and more educated), Dictatorship -> a government that undeniably treats it's people poorly (whether it's one or more in power), which covers the essentials (and probably what most people would expect) without complicating everything for those who don't know the details and don't care that much.therapist wrote:Single men in power, are not necessarily kings.
see above, but it is my fault, I'd intended to phrase it along the lines of "a democracy has the real potential to become a 'fascism', because if the majority rules you simply need the majority to change the laws so they can do anything they want". I simply failed to phrase it as I actually intended, my apologies there.therapist wrote:Also, democracy where the majority simply rules without restrictions is called fascism.
This is the essential difference between our beliefs, I don't think the people need true power in order to know they are respected, they simply need for their desires to actually be considered (along with all of the other tiny facets that make up what is 'best' for the country as a whole). Essentially: It's ok if people have the power of influence, but not the final word. Probably a large part of why I feel this way this stems from the fact that I don't trust most people to inform theirselves about all the facts surrounding every decision that needs to be made (or even just the 'important' decisions)...maybe I should trust them more, but I don't.To me, a lack of democracy is the very definition of disrespect for the people.
Essentially (assuming that you swap 'dictatorship' with 'monarchy' according to the definitions above), yes. Of course if the monarchy ever comes to a point where it's no longer a paradise, well that's why the word 'revolt' shall stay in my dictionaryCan I ask plainly if you would really trade away a democracy that doesn't work for a working dictatorship? You say this in your post that paradise monarchy is prefereable to flawed democracy, but I have a hard time imagining you really would choose such a thing. Maybe I'm wrong.
Why would I want a democracy that does not work over any government that does (assuming that the will of the people has some influence)? Now, would I trade a flawed democracy for a government that does not listen to it's people and allows no freedom whatsoever even if it made what life you were allowed to have 'great'? no! I'd try to analyze why that working government actually worked and apply that to the government I was in so as to improve it.
I myself would prefer if companies would do it theirselves, but I don't think it's likely to ever happen without someone with the power forcing them to do so. Bear in mind that I wasn't saying that was the best way, it's simply the only way that I can actually see digital piracy disappearing.but I would never want any of the things you suggest and put forward to become the law
I agreeyou cannot truly be secure in your opinions or beliefs until you expose yourself to the BEST arguments of the other side, several times.
