Factorio Forums

This is a placeholder meta-topic for all discussion now and in future, about regulating (or even trying to regulate) discussions about pirating, DRM and so on and the sense or non-sense of that.

We already had many discussions about that:

https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... f=5&t=1821

https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... f=5&t=4020

To avoid future of-topic discussions, please use this thread to canalize this and enable others to ignore it.

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.

This is fine and makes perfect sense for linking to thepiratebay.org, but what about a personal webpage with links to torrents? The hott new thing in piracy is to use post and manage your torrents from pages like vk.com (the Eastern European version of facebook). I personally used to use this webpage: http://vk.com/gnomoria?w=page-40365130_44441288 to get updates to the english version of gnomoria even though I purchased the game legally already. Will i get banned for making a link to a facebook page just because that user likes to do nothing but post torrents of gnomoria? Probably not, but if I posted a link to a facebook page that posts links to factorio torrents, I wonder what they (devs and mods) would do?

I want to bring in a moderating aspect: if money is nothing than colored paper, then paying is nothing else as setting trust in someone. But it isn't just that easy!

Money is much more: payment, respect, charity, interest, trustiness, weight.

I think nobody can answer this questions so, that everybody nods, cause it is something about the moral and insights of everyone. Which can't be discussed in a way, that nobody tends to misunderstood, because it isn't just money.

This might be good or bad, but can't be changed only by discussion.

@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.

"if money is nothing than colored paper, then paying is nothing else as setting trust in someone. But it isn't just that easy!"

Money reflects value, although many disagree on that value and the value fluctuates, I think we can all agree that money represents value that can be exchanged. Instead of trading 2 chickens for 10 hours of work, you pay someone 16 "value bucks" for an hour of work, and then charge that person 8 "value bucks" per chicken. Who doesn't agree that money reflects value, even if you disagree with the amount of value for a certain item, even children understand this is what money is.

Pirates do believe in money, and paying people for their work, they just dont like to be forced to buy a box with cover art and a big question mark inside. Who knows what you're getting when you buy a video game, a movie, or a book, only the pirate knows. I hope someday, developers are forced to let people try their products before they buy them, the way you are ALWAYS allowed to try on shoes or pants before you buy them. It would be absolutely flipping STUPID not to try on some types of clothing before you buy them. This is how I feel about video games, 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.
And don't even get smart and start yammering about the demo, a crippleware demo doesnt give the player enough time to figure these things out, OR it misleads the player into thinking that the beginning portion of the game is actually all that the game has to offer. Gnomoria's demo gave me just enough time to get a taste of gnomoria so as to figure out that I was too stupid to figure out how to play it (and this is coming from a dwarf fortress veteran here) I am so glad I finally decided to pirate the game and put 10 hours into trying to figure out how to play. Now, I love the game! And i bought it, but your damn right that I seed the latest updates on the pirate bay every single day so others like me can enjoy it, seeding is the only respectful thing left to do.

Sorry if I'm all rantsy doodles, but If you meant that pirates don;t value or care about money, that offends me, although I will try to curb my reaction, I must stress how wrong you are in your assumption that we have no respect for money or game devs, that we don't place faith or "weight" in money. 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.

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.

Thousands of people probably did it. I was one of them.

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.

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.

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".

Change in mindset. We are glad to pay our money. Many people figured it out. If we like the product, we like to spend money on it and even spend money to be "part of community".

Books: Neil Gaimman have proof of that.
Music: Many proofs, eg. muscians give their music free on internet and then make shitload of money on concerts.
Many indie games as well.

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.

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.

Gammro wrote:

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.

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".

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?)

Ric wrote:

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.

Thousands of people probably did it. I was one of them.

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.

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.

You should go buy a coat or pair of pants without trying it on, how can you possibly justify wearing someone else's pair of pants they will someday buy and wear? That is truly creepy.

Edit: It came just to my brain, that, when the topic is about "off-topic", that the discussion is also off-topic". So I moved this thread to off-topic.

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.

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 ...]:

There will be no right answer.

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.

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 ...]:

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: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.

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.

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?

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...

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...

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.

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. I think to some point yes (chemicals, reactions in the brain...), but not above.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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: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...

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:Well, this is a small line you go here. There are not answers out there, waiting for to be found.

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:Indeed, there is the science, which can answer things definitely, but will they ever find an answer what love is?

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: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. I think to some point yes (chemicals, reactions in the brain...), but not above.

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?"
You could try and answer the question by talking about the geological powers that cause mountains to be formed, you could answer by talking about how mountain affect the water cycle how they affect wildlife etc etc, you could try to answer the question by saying mountains are an abstract idea that simply expresses a high point in geography.

All of these answers are equally valid, but the question, the question is what is absolutely absurd and simply stupid to pose. That question is not worth thinking on, it is not worth answering, it is a nonsensical question, even though it might sound like an intelligent question to some, we can objectively say, this is a not a "question" this is a logical fallacy in question form.

Back to your nonsensical question, "WHAT IS LOVE?". Another stupidly posed, unanswerable question. 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. Brotherly love is OF COURSE not the same as romantic love or the love between soldiers who fight on a battlefield or a person's love for god. If you lump all these different definitions into one, then well no-duh you are going to have confused answers about what love is. Once you have a specific definition, it becomes easier to answer question ABOUT love, but the question WHAT IS LOVE is still nonsensical. You yourself started to answer questions ABOUT the topic of what love is when you mentioned chemicals and such, but you could also say that love is necessary to bind humans together into families, this is one thing that is evolutionarily positive that many mammals exhibit in a "loving" way. My cat sometimes snuggles on my leg and "loves" me, is this really some undefinable, unknowable concept in your mind? See how you and I have both started making a list of answers that are all good answers, but stem from a silly question that is completely nonsensical and unanswerable? just like the "What is the purpose of the mountain" question. If i tweak your question to "Where does love come from?" everyone would agree that the answer has something to do with the brain. You might cite evolution or chemicals or something like that, but again, this is due to FLAWS (not being specific enough) in the question, not in the answer or the ability of a person to produce answers.

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.

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: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.

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.

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. 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.

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 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.

To avoid having the discussion, whatever your reasoning is, is to choose ignorance.

Uffz. too long to read... you should seriously work on the size of your postings... I try what I can....

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.

Hm. Did I say that so?

Back to your nonsensical question, "WHAT IS LOVE?". Another stupidly posed, unanswerable question.

No, again: Nearly everybody has an answer. Is that "answerable"?

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.

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?

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.

So you wouldn't ever tell a person to stop being racist.

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.

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.

That's what I try to say. 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.

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.

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.

Breaking DRM is a thing some people use to prove their skills and spread their name. Without DRM there is no point in bothering. DRM's only purpose is to appease shareholders to pretend you are actively doing something to combat that "EVIL" piracy: http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielnyegr ... kt-on-drm/

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.

ssilk wrote:Uffz. too long to read... you should seriously work on the size of your postings... I try what I can....

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:Hm. Did I say that so?

Yeah, I think you did say that. You said some issues are not worth discussing. See:

ssilk wrote:In my eyes it is useless to speak much about such things.

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 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.

me wrote:So you wouldn't ever tell a person to stop being racist.

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.

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?

My point was, you must stand up for some things, and they are not scientifically proven things, but they are undeniably correct. It is good to fight for these things, it is good to assert that a thing like racism, or the disrespect of women is bad, even if it cannot be scientifically proven. And we need discussion to come to these conclusions that we have all come to agree upon, there was a time in the past that people did not believe the "road was so narrow" i wish to narrow some more of these roads, if they are good roads to be narrowed that is.

ssilk wrote:That's what I try to say. 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.

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 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.

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.

Interesting discussion here, but I think it's off the topic of the off topic topic (I hope that makes sense) 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)

First however , 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)...

I think the most logical 'undeniable' fact is that a government that treats people as 'people' (according to some to-be-agreed upon 'inalienable rights') and not 'resources' is really the best, regardless of whether that government is a Monarchy ('King'/'Queen'/'Emperor'/'Empress' make laws) or a Democracy (majority make laws, but are there even any 'true' democracies? as far as I know there are only Republics which are 'representative democracies') or an Aristocracy (ruled by a select few, typically thought if/historically rich and more educated than the citizens). A Dictatorship on the other hand is either a Monarchy or an Aristocracy (depending on how many are making the laws) that specifically treats it's people cruelly (ie 'inhumanely' aka not as 'people'). As such regardless of who is in charge of making the laws as long as they are making laws that benefit the people (obviously they need advisers/experts that they actually listen to since they can't know everything!) it really doesn't matter who or how many are 'officially' in charge except in times of a crisis when a decision needs to be made quickly. I'd be interested if you could actually argue that a democracy that treats (at least part) of it's citizens poorly is really better than a Monarchy that treats people (both citizens and non-citizens) as they deserve to be treated Of course historically/statistically speaking a democracy is probably less likely to do so...theoretically...

As for the DRM (on-topic subject): I believe ssilk was trying to say that there are too many 'opinions' which are equally valid to find a solution that everyone would agree to at this point in time (and the foreseeable future), aka not that it shouldn't discussed but that the discussion itself is fairly pointless (like 'love', which even if defined by 'type' can be explained both biologically/chemically and 'emotionally'). I rather feel the same in that there will always be someone who will strip that drm and redistribute the product, unless the 'government' required free and accurate representations of digital products (software/games/etc) (aka trials/demos) for everything and somehow prevented 'over-pricing' and provided a way for people who can't afford even the reasonably priced product but had a legitimate need/use for it to be able to do have access (perhaps some sharing service or 'personal use' or 'product credit' where they'd pay afterwards)... now that only applies to pirates that would buy the product if they liked it or it did what they wanted. Those that truly do not want to pay for it would obviously be labeled as criminals and appropriate action would need to be taken for them, however I believe those would be in the minority if everything has an accurate representation and decent pricing. Now, to finish up the idea; Those who remove the DRM to prove their skill, well there are other more widely beneficial ways of doing so (improve security software by finding vulnerabilities and repairing them, creating unique software theirselves, improving other software, etc), that could be officially encouraged and perhaps 'rewarded' instead. That would quite likely reduce the number of people willing to involve theirselves in illegal actions simply to 'prove theirselves', and the above actions by the government would eliminate the 'need' for those who do so in order to 'help' others (who want an accurate representation or can't afford the product)...Unfortunately I doubt any of those actions would be done soon, by anyone...The people making those products make a decent amount of money that they are then able to use to 'bribe'/'lobby' those in power, so other than it being the 'right' thing to do, why should those in power turn down 'free' money which would improve their lives and that of their families? As such...piracy will continue and there are several 'types' of piracy, some of which most (but not all)would probably agree aren't really 'bad' (demos before purchase, insanely overpriced, etc.)

Ok...not so very 'little', I tried to keep everything to the point however
Oh, one last thing, "I agree, NEVER let yourself be told anything.": I'd rephrase it as "Never allow yourself to be 'forced' into doing something which you do not believe to be right, and never try to force others to do that which they do not believe is right except when what they are doing violates the 'inalienable rights' of others"...perhaps also expanded with "never simply follow the advice of a single person, always try to research the right method (that may involve asking multiple people or other such information gathering and interpretation)." At least I believe that covers everything a bit better...

@FreeER

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.

Dictatorship is not exclusively defined by aristocracy or monarchy. Single men in power, are not necessarily kings. In fact the classic examples of dictatorship are neither. Also, democracy where the majority simply rules without restrictions is called fascism. Alot of people mix up the definitions of totalitarianism and fascism, but look at the meaning of what is "a fasch", the root word in fascism. It means a bundle of sticks that are wrapped with a rope making the whole bundle of sticks unbreakable. This represents many people, who are made stronger by standing together. In a democracy, the majority cannot simply do ANYTHING that they want. They have rules they live within. The majority can't just choose to kill people if they want, this would be fascism, not democracy. They can't choose to enslave the minority if they want, this is classical fascism not democracy. When you say democracy is a dictatorship with the majority being the dictator I have to disagree with you, majority rule is the essence of fascism, the coming together of many to be strong as the majority, sometimes called mob rule. Fascism is certainly a type of democracy, but the democracies set themselves apart from the fascist systems by restricting what the majority can and cannot do and empower the individual rights of citizens. The way you are describing democracy as mob rule is only accurate of the ancient forms of democracy, not a reflection of any democracy I can think of since WW2 when we started labeling certain democracies and to be "fascist". Again, don;t quote wikipedia for me, I understand that it is very popular to mix up the definitions of the words fascism and totalitarianism, but I take the ww2 era Italians at their word, and I use THEIR definition. I remember them holding up bundles of sticks with rope tied around them during their elections of fascist leadership, while this is democracy it is also mob rule, it is the essence of what the self defined fascists who are proud of that definition aspire to be.

I suppose its possible that a dictatorship or monarchy that respects the people is okay, but like i said before, I think your stretching things a little bit here to make a point that I'm not sure if you really believe in. Even if a democracy passes terrible laws, at least they have made the choice to make those laws democratically, to be forced into anything, even to be forced into paradise, doesn't really sound like a regime I would want to live under. To me, a lack of democracy is the very definition of disrespect for the people. I was not really aware there were still people in the world who would put total trust in a monarch or dictator to respect the people without some kind of force or power over that ruler to enforce that respect.

Can 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.

I enjoy many benefits of socialist policies, but the parts where you talk about the government forcing some type of fair pricing thing on video games or some wierd "product credit" is just too much for me, but this is just our ideological differences I suppose. I would say I'm not morally opposed to poor pirates that simply cant pay for games getting to play games anyway, I don't like the idea of only the rich or middle class being able to enjoy art, but I would never want that allowed within law, again, as much as I'm an american in support of socialist ideas, thats just too much for me. Maybe I haven't shed my native home's capitalistic belief's as much as I would like to think I have. I care not what the law says when I'm trying a video game before I buy it, failed DRM that only punishes the legitimate users disgusts me, but I would never want any of the things you suggest and put forward to become the law. You say they won't happen anytime soon, I hope they never happen.

Fair enough about research and not taking the advice of another person, but I would again like to add, you cannot truly be secure in your opinions or beliefs until you expose yourself to the BEST arguments of the other side, several times. If you hide from them, or ignore them, you'll never know if you only believe what you believe out of ignorance. Once you know the very best arguments that exist against yo, you will begin to know the very best COUNTERS to those arguments, and truly find security and justification in your beliefs.

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)

A separator eliminates the whole damn purpose. Your blowing up my damn spot.

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 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:Single men in power, are not necessarily kings.

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:Also, democracy where the majority simply rules without restrictions is called fascism.

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.

To me, a lack of democracy is the very definition of disrespect for the people.

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.

Can 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.

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 dictionary 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.

but I would never want any of the things you suggest and put forward to become the law

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.

you cannot truly be secure in your opinions or beliefs until you expose yourself to the BEST arguments of the other side, several times.

I agree

Now the above is all based around the idea that the people in power actually listen to the rest of the people. I do believe that a democracy is the most likely to do that since the power is more distributed and only a few would feel as if they were 'losing' their power by listening to the majority, compared to the governments with only a few people in power, to do what someone else wanted instead of what you wanted (even if that 'someone' is the majority) would very much feel like giving up your power. As such, realistically I believe that a Democracy is the most likely to truly work and become a 'paradise', but that the others could do it and since they could they are not undeniably 'inferior' in comparison to a Democracy. (and of course by others I mean 'monarchies' and 'aristocracies', not 'fascism' or 'dictatorships' etc., the last of which is practically defined by not caring about their people...)