Factorio Forums

Not gonna quote because I'm short on time and it's easier to just address what I've read. But I'm glad we're actually having some decent discussion on this because I feel that what is happening (IE malokin releasing torrents) requires ongoing discussion to keep people aware of the fact that this is not simply "allowed" and that it is an issue. Maybe not an issue that requires snuffing, but an issue nonetheless.

That being said. malokin, I agree with your philosophical views. However there has to be limitations. Software in its current form cannot be 'owned'. It cannot be transferred from person to person where person a gives it to person b and person a no longer has it. It is duplicated. This is where the whole argument starts to fall apart. Primarily because you agree that not everything should be free. People should be able to sell their products/wares. Unless I misunderstand. The only difference between Factorio, and a car is that the car cannot be duplicated. Thus is not 'licensed' in sale. That being said, cars are still licensed. You cannot just go around willy nilly and drive cars and not face potential criminal consequences in most of the world. A license is a way of giving both the buyer, and the seller some afforded protections. And yes... these protections are needed. What saddens me is your aggressive tactics regarding your "honor" to fight people who somehow stand in the way of your agenda. You have jumped all over me simply for standing up for MY opinion.

So I'm a bit confused, why is it your opinion is somehow more valid and more acceptable than mine? Or anyone elses here? We all have a right to an opinion. You don't have any more rights than I do. I personally respect the 'license' to play Factorio. If I wanna break it apart... decompile it... rebuild it... I agree. That should be within my right. No license is going to tell me otherwise. However what I do with something... in my own home is completely different to releasing it to the world.

I really don't think there is going to be any agreement here though sadly. malokin, as much as many people are trying to accept your attitude and behaviour and even the fact that you're openly promoting piracy of the game... I think you should take a step back and try to at least reduce your hostility towards anyone who questions you. You made it very clear about your opinion. Most of us respect your opinion, we do not agree. But we respect it. You are not showing the same respect in kind to everyone else.

Nova wrote: Yes, but you say this things about information and games, which doesn't change anything about my original statement.

Sure, as long as you understand I dont ever want to replace sales with pure piracy. I just think piracy will change what the word sales means, and that is a really great thing.

Nova wrote:Many companies say, that you are not allowed to reverse engineer their products or publish them. Don't know about factorio, but I think it's roughly the same. All in all it's some kind of "moral standard" that you don't publish something like that. Also the people who want to publish it, don't care about this "terms of use". License agreements are mostly a waste of effort, because under 5% (maybe even under 1%) of people really read them.

Yes, i understand they say this, and i understand consumers say "ok" just before they purchase anything, but what I am saying is that it does not matter. Once a person has payed money for a product, they own it. If you don't want another person to own your product, don't hand it to them. If you (a company) wish to go against what I am saying here, that is your choice, but don't expect other people to respect the invisible lines you place all over your product that say "do no cross" "do not decompile" "do this do that"
I dont care what the company said, it is unreasonably restrictive to a person's freedom to expect someone not to cross those lines.

Nova wrote: *sign*
You're right with technological progress, but there's a huge difference: You can (and must) sell cars. Nobody can build and distribute free cars in their spare time without a huge amount of excess money. Games are something else. You can program games in your spare time. It needs time and it's not too easy, but possible. For bigger or more advanced games you need more programing time. Either with longer development time (as example 2 years instead of 1) or with more time per day (Working 8 hours a day instead of 4).

Right, and that difference is cars are tangible goods with an insanely high degree of overhead cutting into profitability VS. intangible goods like software which cost almost nothing to produce.
That is precisely why I don't buy the sob story "one of the dev's left his joooooob, don't pirate the gaaaaame". Too damn bad, that guy's new job is using factorio as a platform to make more and more monay. If he was smart, he wold LEVERAGE piracy to make more money. I think if dev's released a free torrent version, it could contain adverts, finally giving pirates who want to be moral a piracy friendly option that makes money for the home team. It will be a unique selling point that every time a player dies in game this companies advert will play. You could release the entire game for free and sell stuffed animals on your site, hats tshirt. Make the game super fucking hard and charge for tips.
Now, these are all really really bad ideas, but then again it isnt my job to come up with ideas that make you money, its the job of the guy who quit his job to make factorio. If they all starved because of piracy, it's still on their own heads for not spending more time thinking up new and innovative ways to make $$$ from their amazing product, it wouldnt be hard with a product this good.

malokin wrote:

Nova wrote: Yes, but you say this things about information and games, which doesn't change anything about my original statement.

Sure, as long as you understand I dont ever want to replace sales with pure piracy. I just think piracy will change what the word sales means, and that is a really great thing.

Nova wrote:Many companies say, that you are not allowed to reverse engineer their products or publish them. Don't know about factorio, but I think it's roughly the same. All in all it's some kind of "moral standard" that you don't publish something like that. Also the people who want to publish it, don't care about this "terms of use". License agreements are mostly a waste of effort, because under 5% (maybe even under 1%) of people really read them.

Yes, i understand they say this, and i understand consumers say "ok" just before they purchase anything, but what I am saying is that it does not matter. Once a person has payed money for a product, they own it. If you don't want another person to own your product, don't hand it to them. If you (a company) wish to go against what I am saying here, that is your choice, but don't expect other people to respect the invisible lines you place all over your product that say "do no cross" "do not decompile" "do this do that"
I dont care what the company said, it is unreasonably restrictive to a person's freedom to expect someone not to cross those lines.

Nova wrote: *sign*
You're right with technological progress, but there's a huge difference: You can (and must) sell cars. Nobody can build and distribute free cars in their spare time without a huge amount of excess money. Games are something else. You can program games in your spare time. It needs time and it's not too easy, but possible. For bigger or more advanced games you need more programing time. Either with longer development time (as example 2 years instead of 1) or with more time per day (Working 8 hours a day instead of 4).

Right, and that difference is cars are tangible goods with an insanely high degree of overhead cutting into profitability VS. intangible goods like software which cost almost nothing to produce.
That is precisely why I don't buy the sob story "one of the dev's left his joooooob, don't pirate the gaaaaame". Too damn bad, that guy's new job is using factorio as a platform to make more and more monay. If he was smart, he wold LEVERAGE piracy to make more money. I think if dev's released a free torrent version, it could contain adverts, finally giving pirates who want to be moral a piracy friendly option that makes money for the home team. It will be a unique selling point that every time a player dies in game this companies advert will play. You could release the entire game for free and sell stuffed animals on your site, hats tshirt. Make the game super fucking hard and charge for tips.
Now, these are all really really bad ideas, but then again it isnt my job to come up with ideas that make you money, its the job of the guy who quit his job to make factorio. If they all starved because of piracy, it's still on their own heads for not spending more time thinking up new and innovative ways to make $$$ from their amazing product, it wouldnt be hard with a product this good.

I just used an analogy in PM with you that I'll convey here so that others can see what I mean on the next bit. Think about those old arcades you used to go to (If you are old enough anyway). You went into the arcade... went up to a machine. Put a quarter or two in and you got a certain length of gameplay. Often in the form of 'rounds'. Now by your logic malokin, you've paid your money. You should be able to pick that machine up... and take it home. And dismantle it and tinker with it and play it with friends... share it. Profit from it or whatever other nifty little ideas you think are valid with your "freedom". But no... you paid your money. You to play it. That's it. No more. No less. You really seem to be trying to rewrite the concept of ownership. You are happy for it to exist as it does for tangible items, but for data... nope. Gotta break down all the barriers. And tell them they cannot impede your freedom. Which is true. You literally CAN do anything with their game/software. But I CAN go out and kill someone. I have that ability. Doesn't mean I'd do it. "freedom" is bound by principals of right and wrong. So is the concept of ownership. Some people have a very loose concept of ownership. They'll happily take whatever they want because they don't care that someone else might own something. In the cases of software/data/games they think it even more so because they think noone is losing anything.

You seem to be one of the few honorable pirates, you yourself bought the game and also you encourage others to do so. If all pirates were honorable this wouldn't even be an issue.

Edit:

If they all starved because of piracy, it's still on their own heads for not spending more time thinking up new and innovative ways to make $$$ from their amazing product, it wouldnt be hard with a product this good.

You throw around people being naive for living in the real world. Yet you expect developers to not only design an awesome game, but also find some really clever innovative way to sell their product? When there is a long-standing historically viable system with which they could use with relatively no effort? Hmm seems to be very naive. Developers are developers, not salespeople. Lets not try to turn them into salespeople too, don't know about you but salespeople are dirty. I don't want devs to become dirty as well. And if you think that making games is sustainable when you have to 'convince' people to part with their money whilst giving them little benefit to do so actually works, you should take a lesson in economics. That isn't how the world works, never has... and probably won't for a long time. No matter how many people like you try to force such a change. Alternatively they could go the current 'innovative' route of micro transactions and/or subscription fees. Or even making the whole game an MMO... strictly for DRM purposes. Oh wait... no that doesn't work either. Big... BIG companies have tried to innovate in this regard. The fact is most people don't pay for good products out of the goodness of their hearts. That is not what drives economy, and unless you change the entire system. That won't change. People pay for things because they have to or they gain some benefit by doing so. The problem is how do you entice people to buy something they can get for free? Factorio is amazing. We all know that. But convincing people to part with their money over it if they don't have to... probably not likely to happen. Sure there are a lot of people with disposable incomes that WOULD donate to projects like this. But when you offer up the full game to download. You're basically saying "Here ya go people. YOU choose whether or not you wanna pay us".

Meh. I could go over this and over this and over this and I don't think it will make any difference. Would be really nice if people actually understood how the world worked before they tried to force it into changing.

TGS wrote: requires ongoing discussion to keep people aware of the fact that this is not simply "allowed" and that it is an issue. Maybe not an issue that requires snuffing, but an issue nonetheless.

Lol, so your saying it's important to have this discussion because piracy is wrong and you need to raise awareness that piracy is wrong? Do you want to raise awareness for any other things that the general public already believes?

TGS wrote:Software in its current form cannot be 'owned'. It cannot be transferred from person to person where person a gives it to person b and person a no longer has it. It is duplicated. This is where the whole argument starts to fall apart. Primarily because you agree that not everything should be free.

I understand you assert those things to be facts, but I disagree. In your example, I would assert that both people own the "thing" at that point. My evidence is they both have it, can use it, they can discard it, malform it, improve it, etc. Thats why your screwed, even if you WISH they didnt both own it at this point. It's far too easy, I agree, breaks the whole way the ownership system was supposed to work, i agree, but that is how digital media works. One person can give another a copy of the product, and then they both own a copy. Because of these FACTS the developers of digital media have to create monetary value elsewhere, if you dont know these things as facts or rather accept these things I have said as facts, you are probably going to FAIL at selling digital media. But It's okay gramps, your children's children will understand this system, and become GOOD at generating monetary value out of digital media that the world is freely sharing.

People should be able to sell their products/wares. Unless I misunderstand. The only difference between Factorio, and a car is that the car cannot be duplicated. Thus is not 'licensed' in sale. That being said, cars are still licensed. You cannot just go around willy nilly and drive cars and not face potential criminal consequences in most of the world. A license is a way of giving both the buyer, and the seller some afforded protections. And yes... these protections are needed.

I agree with the licensing of a car to a person, you have to accept those conditions, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to loan someone software get it? You cant take it from me, I can just tuck away an extra copy. Software licensing is not anything like a car or any other licensing deals. You are making a false equivalency.

What saddens me is your aggressive tactics regarding your "honor" to fight people who somehow stand in the way of your agenda. You have jumped all over me simply for standing up for MY opinion. So I'm a bit confused, why is it your opinion is somehow more valid and more acceptable than mine? Or anyone elses here? We all have a right to an opinion. You don't have any more rights than I do.

HA HA HA oh wow, I didn't mean I am honor bound to fight with people on internet forums XD XD XD you guys always assume the funniest terrible things about me. What I meant was, I don't care about the law, or armies in my way, I will use sneakyness, guns, bombs, landmines, conveyor belts, lasers, and even risk death in order to accomplish the completion of the grand archive of all man's works that i mentioned earlyer.

I personally respect the 'license' to play Factorio. If I wanna break it apart... decompile it... rebuild it... I agree. That should be within my right. No license is going to tell me otherwise. However what I do with something... in my own home is completely different to releasing it to the world.

Well, then you deny the true nature of digital media, you have a naive belief that it matters what you think of people releasing things into the wild. They are going to do it anyway. I'm the guy who does it without assembling a giant botnet, and tries to stay within the law and moral boundaries when at all possible. (sometime not possible)

I really don't think there is going to be any agreement here though sadly. malokin, as much as many people are trying to accept your attitude and behaviour and even the fact that you're openly promoting piracy of the game... I think you should take a step back and try to at least reduce your hostility towards anyone who questions you. You made it very clear about your opinion. Most of us respect your opinion, we do not agree. But we respect it. You are not showing the same respect in kind to everyone else.

I'm not reposting my opinion over and over or trying to bring anyone to an agreement or bring any person to my side, i'm addressing the logical debate points and criticism of myself and piracy in this thread and this thread alone. I will preapologize for publicly responding to people who agro me in the other threads, but it really frustrates me when a nice topic gets ruined by people's predispositions. I challenge you to show me a situation where a person showed me respect, and then I afforded them none. I dont pick on people, i say please and thank you, but I dont just hit report or send a private message or sulk away when personally attacked or criticized, i simply respond to the criticism in a very blunt, unapologetic, but respectful way. (Although lately outside of this thread I have been resorting more and more to private messaging people responses to their criticisms privately.) Go ahead and quote every mean thing I ever said, but unless you match it up with a quote of what I'm responding to, your just pulling out the best examples of me trying to be lightheartedly funny, albeit mildly-insulting, during a flamewar.

TGS wrote: Now by your logic malokin, you've paid your money. You should be able to pick that machine up... and take it home. And dismantle it and tinker with it and play it with friends... share it. Profit from it or whatever other nifty little ideas you think are valid with your "freedom". But no... you paid your money. You to play it. That's it. No more. No less.

An arcade machine is a physical good that you can charge me to spend time on (lease time on the machine per quarter) this differs from digital goods that dont really work the way physical goods do.

You really seem to be trying to rewrite the concept of ownership.

*I* did not change the rules of ownership. Digital media, changed the rules of ownership. You seem really determined for that not to be true, good luck with that.

You are happy for it to exist as it does for tangible items, but for data... nope. Gotta break down all the barriers. And tell them they cannot impede your freedom. Which is true. You literally CAN do anything with their game/software. But I CAN go out and kill someone. I have that ability. Doesn't mean I'd do it. "freedom" is bound by principals of right and wrong. So is the concept of ownership.

Well, thats your opinion, but you are putting words in my mouth to say just because I can copy something that it is okay. I told you the grander purpose I believe I am fulfilling, but you seem bound and determined to falsely accuse me of just doing whatever I want to, which is something i would find morally reprehensible. My concept of ownership of digital media is different then yours, i understand you think that this is the way things MUST always work in the future just because they have always worked that way in the past. After all, this is all you have ever known. It is my opinion that digital goods have their own SEPARATE set of ownership rules that are based on the HARSH REALITIES of technology and the internet. You cant fight the wind in a sailboat, and because of this I think my way of thinking is slated to replace yours. NOT FOR FRIDGES THO (please stop accusing me of pirating cars and vending machines and arcade machines) But only for digital goods.

You seem to be one of the few honorable pirates, you yourself bought the game and also you encourage others to do so. If all pirates were honorable this wouldn't even be an issue.

What a sick thing to say, that there will never be a place for moral pirates just because amoral pirates will always exist. As though I should be punished for another man's crimes.
Are you sure you understand morality?

You throw around people being naive for living in the real world. Yet you expect developers to not only design an awesome game, but also find some really clever innovative way to sell their product?

YEAH I SURE DO. It is every man's job to provide for his family, and when the man with a fishing boat suddenly finds the fish GONE, I dont feel bad for his ass, he can survive if he just stops living in the past, accept the fishless future fand igures out a new way to use that boat

Hmm seems to be very naive. Developers are developers, not salespeople.

Wrong, game developers have to plan every aspect of the game's lifespan. From conception to development to sales to distribution to support to product retirement.
You are the one who is being naive about this, and I think the devs are naive to this fact too, only because a cafepress page or something similar would cost nothing to make, and wouldnt cost them money unless they sold products. Sorry if you think calling the devs naive is disrespectful, this is the critixal difference between you and me on respect, I respect them enough to say what I think is true and helpful even if it isnt sugar coated and covered in compliments that detract from what I am trying to say.

Lets not try to turn them into salespeople too, don't know about you but salespeople are dirty. I don't want devs to become dirty as well.

Well I think you're dirty. And I'v been a salesperson, so has my wife, so has almost every person in my family at one point or another, you are being REALLY naive now, or making a REALLY CLICHE joke about salespeople.

And if you think that making games is sustainable when you have to 'convince' people to part with their money whilst giving them little benefit to do so actually works, you should take a lesson in economics.

You need to buy a book or take a class in the economics of digital goods, the people who have to sell digital products concede to the points I am making much more readily than you do because they want to accept the future and make some money.

That isn't how the world works, never has... and probably won't for a long time.

Only because of people like you living in the past.

Alternatively they could go the current 'innovative' route of micro transactions and/or subscription fees. Or even making the whole game an MMO... strictly for DRM purposes. Oh wait... no that doesn't work either.

Thats your opinion, you seem to think you know what will work for game dev's and what won't based on the old system of ownership, but I think it is becoming harder and harder every day to try and force techniques like these down the throats of people who dont want them.

The fact is most people don't pay for good products out of the goodness of their hearts. That is not what drives economy, and unless you change the entire system. That won't change. People pay for things because they have to or they gain some benefit by doing so. The problem is how do you entice people to buy something they can get for free? Factorio is amazing. We all know that. But convincing people to part with their money over it if they don't have to... probably not likely to happen. Sure there are a lot of people with disposable incomes that WOULD donate to projects like this. But when you offer up the full game to download. You're basically saying "Here ya go people. YOU choose whether or not you wanna pay us".

Right, you understand the dilemma, but you deny digital rights are going to fail to sell if you try sell them the same way people sell cars while simultaneously burying your head in the hand and say, "because thats how the economy has always worked, everything else is improper" My view is that doing things the clearly outdated way is improper, and anyone who finds a new way to make money with the harsh realities of digital media, they are the ones doing things correctly. Sorry if that is hard, noone said being an entrepreneur would be easy, and it is my opinion that people like you are making it harder on yourselves in those markets by trying to do things the old way.

Meh. I could go over this and over this and over this and I don't think it will make any difference.

I agree with you, just not for the reason's you have stated.

Would be really nice if people actually understood how the world worked before they tried to force it into changing.

I wouldn't pretend to know how the world works the way you do, I only purpose that I understand how digital media works, and that it is a good idea to take those implications into account when selling digital media instead of trying to pretend that treating digital media like cars is going to continue to work. Your standing up for an outdated concept of ownership that still applies to alot of things, just not ANYTHING digital.
This is why i said my famous quote from earlyer in this thread:
"Don't hate the player, hate the game."
Meaning dont be mad at me, the pirates who arnt going anywhere, be mad at the way digital media works that necessitates the existence of people like me.

malokin wrote:Right, and that difference is cars are tangible goods with an insanely high degree of overhead cutting into profitability VS. intangible goods like software which cost almost nothing to produce.

They cost time, and time is one of the most expansive goods.

malokin wrote:I think if dev's released a free torrent version, it could contain adverts, [...]

Doesn't work. That would just let other pirates still release the original game without getting the devs any money.

For me, buying a game runs like this: I pay money, I get the game, I play the game. The end. There is no DLC, no "pay to win". (Yes, DLC can be implemented in a not annoying, money-grubbing way, but that's another story...)

Basically it is very simple: You don't have the right to share the game, because you're not the owner. There's a difference between "having something" and being the owner. It doesn't matter what you say or think about that. Only the devs have the right to choose their way of selling (or sharing) the game. Of course you can still just upload the newest versions of Factorio, but don't think that behaviour is accepted, just tolerated.
There's a difference between the world we have and the world we want.

Oh, not "hate the game", but "hate the system".

malokin wrote:

Robik wrote:Would you consider illegal uploading a game which someone who bought it first shared with you?

If my friend acquired the game properly, didnt somehow steal it from the artist, Well, then my friend has every right in the whole damn world to share the game with his family, with his friends, with his community, and with the world if her wants to. He can mush it mash it turn it upside down inside out remix it wipe his ass with it ANYTHING.

No, no. You made perfectly clear that if you buy a game, you can do whatever you want with it, so your friend is OK. I am asking if you would consider wrong to upload a game you obtained not via buying, but from someone other that bought it first.

Why I am asking:
1) you said that you upload only thing you yourself obtained by buying, because otherwise you would have to steal / hack
2) you said that once you buy a game, you can do anything with it, like sharing

It leads me to conclusion, that it is perfectly OK for you to upload game which friend bought and shared with you even if you didn't buy it yourself because:
1) He bought it and he can share it to you, which is OK.
2) You obtained it without stealing / hacking so uploading is OK

Let me touch something else from the thread:
Do not try to argue that producing games costs almost nothing. Wages are big part of costs in every industry. Or you think that programmers and artists should work for free?

malokin wrote:Lol, so your saying it's important to have this discussion because piracy is wrong and you need to raise awareness that piracy is wrong? Do you want to raise awareness for any other things that the general public already believes?

No, I'm saying it is important to have the discussion because this is all very new and we haven't really established the standards yet. Simply saying you are right and everyone else is wrong isn't how the world operates. I'm actually quite interested in your point of view, but sadly you haven't really given it aside from direct responses to specific things people say.

malokin wrote:I understand you assert those things to be facts, but I disagree. In your example, I would assert that both people own the "thing" at that point. My evidence is they both have it, can use it, they can discard it, malform it, improve it, etc. Thats why your screwed, even if you WISH they didnt both own it at this point. It's far too easy, I agree, breaks the whole way the ownership system was supposed to work, i agree, but that is how digital media works. One person can give another a copy of the product, and then they both own a copy. Because of these FACTS the developers of digital media have to create monetary value elsewhere, if you dont know these things as facts or rather accept these things I have said as facts, you are probably going to FAIL at selling digital media. But It's okay gramps, your children's children will understand this system, and become GOOD at generating monetary value out of digital media that the world is freely sharing.

Actually I'd say if everybody (potentially) owns something, then by nature nobody owns it. Possession is not ownership. Just because you possess something you do not own it. This is where much of this whole argument breaks down imo. You think, that because you 'have' it. You own it. This is not the case. Nor should it be imo. I get that you think otherwise. I'm trying to find out why so I can better understand and line my views up towards yours. Because I think we probably agree on a lot.

malokin wrote:I agree with the licensing of a car to a person, you have to accept those conditions, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to loan someone software get it? You cant take it from me, I can just tuck away an extra copy. Software licensing is not anything like a car or any other licensing deals. You are making a false equivalency.

Everything has to be compared to something mate. "Digital" is a fairly new concept. In human history anyway. I understand that maybe a few hundred years from now it might be so well integrated that your views are the norm. But we're not there yet. And I don't think forcing small indie groups towards it is the best way to go about it. Fight the big guys. The big guys are the ones that gouge everyone for inferior and substandard content. Absorbing development companies in any mainstream media for the sole purpose of profit. Regardless of any true value.

malokin wrote:HA HA HA oh wow, I didn't mean I am honor bound to fight with people on internet forums XD XD XD you guys always assume the funniest terrible things about me. What I meant was, I don't care about the law, or armies in my way, I will use sneakyness, guns, bombs, landmines, conveyor belts, lasers, and even risk death in order to accomplish the completion of the grand archive of all man's works that i mentioned earlyer.

You realise how bad this sounds right? If not... then I need not comment. I think it speaks for itself.

malokin wrote:Well, then you deny the true nature of digital media, you have a naive belief that it matters what you think of people releasing things into the wild. They are going to do it anyway. I'm the guy who does it without assembling a giant botnet, and tries to stay within the law and moral boundaries when at all possible. (sometime not possible)

I'm not denying the true 'nature' of anything. I simply do not believe that possession equals ownership. Thus I cannot understand the pirate mentality. I would like to understand it, I really would. I would honestly like to be part of this "brave new world" you are all trying to usher in for us. I just don't get it, because in my day. If you make something. You created it, thus you own it. Some magical technology shift doesn't change that fact. This is how licensing was born. It was a means of creating a sense of ownership to those who create digital content. Or any content really. You don't agree with that. I understand, I really do. I agree completely in fact. I'm 110% against DRM of any sort. I will pirate any DRM based game because I refuse to be told how I can play games I paid for. I stil respect the license, minus the DRM part. I pay a small amount... for something someone else put a considerable amount of work/money/time/energy into. My $15 or $30 or $50 or $100 is NOT worth 'ownership' of said content. No way in hell. I have a right to use it. I believe I have a right to use it how I wish.

malokin wrote:I'm not reposting my opinion over and over or trying to bring anyone to an agreement or bring any person to my side, i'm addressing the logical debate points and criticism of myself and piracy in this thread and this thread alone. I will preapologize for publicly responding to people who agro me in the other threads, but it really frustrates me when a nice topic gets ruined by people's predispositions. I challenge you to show me a situation where a person showed me respect, and then I afforded them none. I dont pick on people, i say please and thank you, but I dont just hit report or send a private message or sulk away when personally attacked or criticized, i simply respond to the criticism in a very blunt, unapologetic, but respectful way. (Although lately outside of this thread I have been resorting more and more to private messaging people responses to their criticisms privately.) Go ahead and quote every mean thing I ever said, but unless you match it up with a quote of what I'm responding to, your just pulling out the best examples of me trying to be lightheartedly funny, albeit mildly-insulting, during a flamewar.

Sadly predispositions are human nature. It's based off perception. How you perceive things is not how others perceive things. It's life.

malokin wrote:An arcade machine is a physical good that you can charge me to spend time on (lease time on the machine per quarter) this differs from digital goods that dont really work the way physical goods do.

You're still being controlled. Told how your money works. I'm really curious as to why 'digital goods' is somehow exempt to something you obviously respect and understand. Aside from being able to copy it. Which if your ability to copy something is the entire crux behind your point of view then I wish I could share that mentality. But I think due to my personality type, even if I did I would not go on a crusade over it. The library/archive context you shared is an interesting one though.

malokin wrote:*I* did not change the rules of ownership. Digital media, changed the rules of ownership. You seem really determined for that not to be true, good luck with that.

This is a good one actually. The rules weren't changed though. They were adapted to fit the medium. You simply didn't agree to them. Though, you did agree to them. You're simply ignoring that fact. Would be intriguing to see if you held the same attitude towards any sort of contract between you and another party.

malokin wrote:i understand you think that this is the way things MUST always work in the future just because they have always worked that way in the past.

I don't think this at all. In fact I know things will change. They already have started changing, and not for the better. Take DRM for example. Companies are becoming increasingly aggressive with DRM to 'control' their content. Not only is it not working, it's actually hurting legitimate customers far more than illegitimate customers. There's a game I wanted to buy for ages that fit this category. Settlers 7. Had an always-on DRM even though I had no intention of playing it online, and my internet was rather dodgy at the time. What did I do? I pirated it. Because I could not actually play the game at all for any length of time due to their DRM.

malokin wrote:It is my opinion that digital goods have their own SEPARATE set of ownership rules that are based on the HARSH REALITIES of technology and the internet.

I actually agree with this. I think they should also have separate set of ownership rules. However they should not be based on the harsh realities of technology and the internet imo. The internet is very unforgiving and very fickle. To use another comparison that to something in real life. I can go down my street... 3 doors down (lol) and break into an abandon house. It's been abandoned for awhile. Someone actually owns it. Don't know who. But I could break in. Fix it up. Live in it. And plant a flag saying "I own this". Doesn't mean I own it. But THAT is a harsh reality. I can do that. I could even burn the place down if I wanted. Harsh reality. That doesn't mean I should have the right to do so. Simply because I can. Ironically in this country if you 'squat' in a house for I think 15 years... and no one stops you. You can legally claim ownership. of it.

malokin wrote:What a sick thing to say, that there will never be a place for moral pirates just because amoral pirates will always exist. As though I should be punished for another man's crimes.
Are you sure you understand morality?

Uh I'm not sure what makes this sick exactly. You seem to be rather sensitive about it, despite your insensitivity to everyone else. Odd. I never said you should be punished. Though I've implied that you should be impeded. Not sure how that equates to punishment though.

malokin wrote:YEAH I SURE DO. It is every man's job to provide for his family, and when the man with a fishing boat suddenly finds the fish GONE, I dont feel bad for his ass, he can survive if he just stops living in the past, accept the fishless future fand igures out a new way to use that boat

Interesting. You use real life comparisons and analogies, that are actually quite good. But you expect me not to. Even though yours are equally out of context.

However to respond. This man would have to adapt. I agree. But how he adapts is not unknown to him. He has several options available that are very obvious, very in line with what he previously performed. With what we're facing now... there is no obvious alternative. I'm pretty sure if you make 'paying for digital goods' completely optional you will find the majority of indie game developers don't have a hope in hell of surviving in the current market. The innovation simply isn't there. If it were it would be so insanely competitive that it would probably not work for many many years.

malokin wrote:You need to buy a book or take a class in the economics of digital goods, the people who have to sell digital products concede to the points I am making much more readily than you do because they want to accept the future and make some money.

Interesting. Though I am actually in the digital industry myself. I do services rather than 'products' though. As far as people conceding to your points. I only have your word to take on that. The fact is a great many people are adapting, or trying to. I'm sure they will probably succeed over time. The fact is this whole thing cannot be stopped. I am not going to pretend it can. However I'm not trying to stop it either. I'm trying to understand it. While hopefully detering people from hampering smaller indie studios before they've gained their traction.

malokin wrote:Well I think you're dirty. And I'v been a salesperson, so has my wife, so has almost every person in my family at one point or another, you are being REALLY naive now, or making a REALLY CLICHE joke about salespeople.

Mkay I'm not gonna bother responding to this. Especially seeing as how I've been a salesperson myself. And I still retain that opinion. Though I probably shouldn't have used the term salesperson so much as marketers.

malokin wrote:Thats your opinion, you seem to think you know what will work for game dev's and what won't based on the old system of ownership, but I think it is becoming harder and harder every day to try and force techniques like these down the throats of people who dont want them.

No I don't. That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. And I don't think you do either. Hell, neither do they I imagine lol. That's the thing. I want these devs. The Factorio devs to have the best shot. Throwing them into this 'brave new world' is probably not the best to go about it. I'm not against you, or the movement or even pirating. I'm against the attitude and the trolling sure, but that's about it.

malokin wrote:Right, you understand the dilemma, but you deny digital rights are going to fail to sell if you try sell them the same way people sell cars while simultaneously burying your head in the hand and say, "because thats how the economy has always worked, everything else is improper" My view is that doing things the clearly outdated way is improper, and anyone who finds a new way to make money with the harsh realities of digital media, they are the ones doing things correctly. Sorry if that is hard, noone said being an entrepreneur would be easy, and it is my opinion that people like you are making it harder on yourselves in those markets by trying to do things the old way.

Honestly I think the digital market and distribution of goods, if done your way will potentially destroy how economy works entirely. Which may not be a bad thing. My concern is that economy is so ingrained in our culture that breaking it without a viable alternative can potentially to lead to anarchy. Which I know many people are all for, but I don't know that it works with 7~ billion people on the planet.

malokin wrote:I wouldn't pretend to know how the world works the way you do, I only purpose that I understand how digital media works, and that it is a good idea to take those implications into account when selling digital media instead of trying to pretend that treating digital media like cars is going to continue to work. Your standing up for an outdated concept of ownership that still applies to alot of things, just not ANYTHING digital.
This is why i said my famous quote from earlyer in this thread:
"Don't hate the player, hate the game."
Meaning dont be mad at me, the pirates who arnt going anywhere, be mad at the way digital media works that created people like me.

I like that jab. Cute. So you don't really know how the world works, yet you're willing to challenge it because you feel that it is wrong. Simply because you have a system in front of you which allows you to do something that has never really been available before. Duplicate 'goods'. This is ultimately the issue as I see it. It will be very interesting to see how it turns out in the end. Either way.

They cost time, and time is one of the most expansive goods.

How so? Digital products require the least amount of manhours of any product produced in any industry anywhere period. You can't get a small group to release a product into the american or other major marketplaces without having many different organization with more than 4 people all put in thousands of man hours developing, QA testing, logistical considerations, middle management, mailroom, janitors, snow plow guy for the parking lot. How many consultant groups do you think a sole inventor has to use to bring any invention to marketplace? The combined man hours involved greatly eclipse that of any software team except for maybe major OSes. You could write the code for factorio in notepad. The software industry is famous for a few guys in a basement being able to DEMOLISH the efforts of giant corporation with thousands of employees in no time flat. You are trying to pretend one of the biggest boons to software devs is some kind of enormous challenge. Not only that, but doing an alpha or beta without opening the source for other authors to assist you means that developing the game will take MORE man hours, not reduce the amount of hours needed; so I don't know why I should be sympathetic that time and a thinking brain are the ONLY barriers to entry for indie devs like ours.

Doesn't work. That would just let other pirates still release the original game without getting the devs any money.

So don't make the ads intrusive or interfere with the game enough to make getting the right version a big deal, just banners on menus or certain screens. Like i said nova, it is not up to me and you to come up with working revenue models for digital goods, there are known models and i listed a few good examples, some might work for factorio, some might not. Its up to the devs to figure that part out, and considering they created factorio, I know they can come up with something that can leverage piracy into sales if they crack open some reading materials on selling digital goods.

For me, buying a game runs like this: I pay money, I get the game, I play the game. The end. There is no DLC, no "pay to win". (Yes, DLC can be implemented in a not annoying, money-grubbing way, but that's another story...)

Yeah, the good ol' days.

Basically it is very simple: You don't have the right to share the game, because you're not the owner. There's a difference between "having something" and being the owner. It doesn't matter what you say or think about that. Only the devs have the right to choose their way of selling (or sharing) the game. Of course you can still just upload the newest versions of Factorio, but don't think that behaviour is accepted, just tolerated.
There's a difference between the world we have and the world we want.

Well, thats your opinion, but I beg to differ. It doesnt seem to matter what you, the RIAA, SOPA, international anti-piracy committees and treaties or anyone else has to say or think on the issue. I HAVE decided how I want to distribute this game and then I did it because the nature of digital goods is that one person can share that software with another and whether the original owners want to recognize me as a new owner of the software is irrelevant, as long as I have all of the same abilities as the original owners, as long as the nature of digital goods puts me on the same footings of utility as the origianal owners, i fail to see the usefulness in using those labels the way you do. The only reason to use the labels like that is to make it LOOK like digital goods are controlled and owned in the same way regular goods are, which is not true. You can change the vocabulary words around and just call me a "license holder" but that is only as true if I am actually somehow different than an owner in what I can do with the software, and thanks to the nature of digital media, I have all the same rights and abilities to the game as any other person who "owns" a copy of the game.

Oh, not "hate the game", but "hate the system".

I dont hate how the system works, I love how this system works, it is what lets me pirate this game and any game or music to my hearts content without fear of reprisal and without the fear that I am going to accidentally deny someone money for their development.

TLDR: Did free internet porn turn the multi-billion dollar porn industry into a breast implant laden graveyard?? NOPE! Still turning out more cash than the US arm's industry does year after year, and now, in fact, we are seeing the same shift to "indie" pornographers as we have seen recently from "corporate games" to "indie" games. And they still make bank no muss no fuss.

Robik wrote:No, no. You made perfectly clear that if you buy a game, you can do whatever you want with it, so your friend is OK. I am asking if you would consider wrong to upload a game you obtained not via buying, but from someone other that bought it first.

As long as that person bought it, I wouldnt mind uploading it for them, but I would probably put THEIR name on it, not mine. Why doesnt this person upload it themselves if they wanted it uploaded? Who am I, the last pirate left on earth?

Let me touch something else from the thread:
Do not try to argue that producing games costs almost nothing. Wages are big part of costs in every industry. Or you think that programmers and artists should work for free?

I AM going to argue that point, mostly because its true. Compare the wages that are required to release a new can of string cheese with the wages needed to release a new digital game. The wages of the truckers alone who carry the string cheese eclipses the cost of a small development team. Not to mention the receptionist at cheesewhiz corp doing her part, the telemarketers on the cheesewhiz product help line. Read the bold section of my last post.
I KNEW you would all really hate that point, but the onus for finding a successful path to monetization and revenue realization is on the person(s) who choose to enter the digital areana. You will live and die (profit or starve i mean) by the rules of the digital world, even if you find them unfair because they are different than the way everything else has always worked for you.

malokin wrote:

Robik wrote:No, no. You made perfectly clear that if you buy a game, you can do whatever you want with it, so your friend is OK. I am asking if you would consider wrong to upload a game you obtained not via buying, but from someone other that bought it first.

As long as that person bought it, I wouldnt mind uploading it for them, but I would probably put THEIR name on it, not mine. Why doesnt this person upload it themselves if they wanted it uploaded? Who am I, the last pirate left on earth?

Let's say friend is to lazy to upload it or he does not care to play digital Robin Hood as you do and simply share only with friends and not with the world Anyway, the point is that it is OK to upload even in this case, it would not be consistent otherwise.

malokin wrote:

Robik wrote:Let me touch something else from the thread:
Do not try to argue that producing games costs almost nothing. Wages are big part of costs in every industry. Or you think that programmers and artists should work for free?

I AM going to argue that point, mostly because its true. Compare the wages that are required to release a new can of string cheese with the wages needed to release a new digital game. The wages of the truckers alone who carry the string cheese eclipses the cost of a small development team. Not to mention the receptionist at cheesewhiz corp doing her part, the telemarketers on the cheesewhiz product help line. Read the bold section of my last post.
I KNEW you would all really hate that point, but the onus for finding a successful path to monetization and revenue realization is on the person(s) who choose to enter the digital areana. You will live and die (profit or starve i mean) by the rules of the digital world, even if you find them unfair because they are different than the way everything else has always worked for you.

I read the bold part, and I do not get what it has to do with stated fact that producing software does not cost almost nothing. I am not claiming that producing software is enormous challenge, I am claiming that producing software costs money as every other business does. It has slightly different structure of costs, with bigger share of wages in it, but that characteristic is common in hi-tech industry.

I do not see any particular reason to compare it to cheese industry. I will just state that software companies do have receptionists and help lines for customers and they do need to rent a space, pay for electricity, hardware and software. You can argue that indie does not need receptionist... well, farmer who makes niche cheese for small number of customers does not need receptionist as well.

There are differences physical goods and digital goods. Arguments can be made based on that. But your argument about producing software costs almost nothing compared to producing physical stuff is not convincing. At least for me... and I had to hold myself to not tell you what my opinion is about your economic knowledge, yea, this is personal attack and I know it

Edited for some formatting...

malokin wrote:Digital products require the least amount of manhours of any product produced in any industry anywhere period.

Not right. Me for example produces a digital product, but the copy runs only 2-3 times.

It depends on, how many times and how much software is paid per copy.

Much copies with low price, like some Apps for 0.79 cents can bring equivalent return as only some copies which cost much.

The point is: Factorio is not even at a point, where it could return the investment. And this is, where some wrong decisions or some people with your thinking really can destroy things, so that the game cannot be developed further. And at this point I think just: How can someone be so stupid to bite the hand that feeds you (with new versions of Factorio).

Maybe you're right, that pirating it will bring more users. But maybe not. You can't be sure! You can't. And that is in my opinion the point: You can't be sure, that your doing is right.

Right would be to bring it out and just shut up and and see. And not to "Yeah, I made it, I'm great!". This is the point, where me and I think also most of the others get pissed.

malokin wrote:You could write the code for factorio in notepad.

If you are so sure it is so easy why don't you go and write the code yourself and not try gettig ahold of it in any other way instead?

ssilk wrote:

malokin wrote:Digital products require the least amount of manhours of any product produced in any industry anywhere period.

Not right. Me for example produces a digital product, but the copy runs only 2-3 times.

It depends on, how many times and how much software is paid per copy.

Much copies with low price, like some Apps for 0.79 cents can bring equivalent return as only some copies which cost much.

The point is: Factorio is not even at a point, where it could return the investment. And this is, where some wrong decisions or some people with your thinking really can destroy things, so that the game cannot be developed further. And at this point I think just: How can someone be so stupid to bite the hand that feeds you (with new versions of Factorio).

Maybe you're right, that pirating it will bring more users. But maybe not. You can't be sure! You can't. And that is in my opinion the point: You can't be sure, that your doing is right.

Right would be to bring it out and just shut up and and see. And not to "Yeah, I made it, I'm great!". This is the point, where me and I think also most of the others get pissed.

This is exactly the nature behind all of my responses in this thread really. Factorio is simply NOT at a point in its development cycle where the developers can really afford to gamble on its potential. What I mean by gambling is that when you start releasing 'free' versions via torrent sites in the name of piracy, not only are you just releasing the game you are doing it in the name of piracy. When you attach the piracy label to it you're actually kind of encouraging people to download it and NEVER pay for it. The game is great... as I'll keep saying over and over. But many great games go unnoticed and never really do very well in the mainstream market. Not because they're bad games but simply because they couldn't be properly marketed or the market is fickle.

Now I imagine this point will probably get argued but the fact is Factorio is a great game, we all agree on this. But it has been said a few times now that it is AS OF RIGHT NOW not sustainable on its current sales. I think if someone really wants to help them out and attract attention then GREAT. Do that. But doing it by piracy is not the way to go about it. Releasing the game in that fashion is not doing Factorio or its developers any favors and I think it's rather arrogant to think it is. If Factorio was at a point where it was currently sustainable by a fair margin, I would say go for it. Because at that point the piracy is very unlikely to impact sales so negatively that they end up in any financial strife. This is where the negative attitude comes into it. I don't want to see any sort of "Survival of the fittest" mentality with regards to indie game developers because they're already in a place where if their games aren't good they probably aren't going to be financially successful. But if their games are good then they will be.

Factorio is in an odd spot in that regard because it is a great game, but it currently might fit a niche market. I imagine and hope that multiplayer will change that, but really that's anybodies guess. Again... I really personally myself wouldn't wanna gamble on that.

No, I'm saying it is important to have the discussion because this is all very new and we haven't really established the standards yet. Simply saying you are right and everyone else is wrong isn't how the world operates. I'm actually quite interested in your point of view, but sadly you haven't really given it aside from direct responses to specific things people say.

I;v given you my point of view over and over in this thread if you bothered to read the thread, but you arnt going to be able to pin me down to one of the cookie cutter world views or political parties or ideological systems that exist in the world. My viewpoint is the sum of all the knowledge I have ever processed, combined with whatever my natural temperament and predispositions are.

Actually I'd say if everybody (potentially) owns something, then by nature nobody owns it.

This is where we disagree, I think if everybody owns something, then I think everybody really owns it at the same time concurrently without interference with each others rights of ownership. It looks like they own it. It smells like they own it, they act as they own it, they do as they wish with no restrictions, you dont have to call that ownership if you dont want, but I do. You think it is okay for a person to put a game on my computer for money, and then tell me what I can and can't do with it, I find that wrong, because anything I want to do with that thing is none of anyone's business EVEN if I release it onto the internet. When I do that, I'm not doing anything that isnt inevitable in the digital realm, so I dont know how you can penalize me for it or think I am somehow in the wrong (going back to the hate the player/game thing) You can keep trying NOT to call a spade a spade, but I assure you if you look closely, it is a spade. I thought I already addressed the "possession vs ownership" thing. You can say all that is true, but good luck with trying to apply the difference between those two concepts to the pirate community. To do so the way you are over and over is NAIVE. It isnt going to work separating "owners" from license holders, or "people who possess the game but DONT own it", and I really want to know how you are going to keep the two groups separate?
Spoiler alert: you already lost that battle. We have made owners of ourselves despite your definitions because we perceive the rules of this plane differently than you do.

Everything has to be compared to something mate.

Right, but sometime people compare things that are not the same, when really, fundamental differences mean your wasting your time comparing apples to hedgehogs. They call these types of comparisons "false equivalencies."

"Digital" is a fairly new concept. In human history anyway. I understand that maybe a few hundred years from now it might be so well integrated that your views are the norm. But we're not there yet.

Speak for yourself mate, I am there already and have been for years and I live here with a large community of people. You (and the other forum members who go against piracy) are the peoplo who havnt reached that point yet.

And I don't think forcing small indie groups towards it is the best way to go about it. Fight the big guys. The big guys are the ones that gouge everyone for inferior and substandard content. Absorbing development companies in any mainstream media for the sole purpose of profit. Regardless of any true value.

the producers of the actual content are logically going to be the last ones to come around to the "Piracy is not immoral" argument. And large corporations are NOTORIOUS for being the SLOWEST ones to change. When big companies see that the factorio development team (or some other indie dev) found a way to leverage piracy into a permanent revenue stream out of lost wages. When they see that sales and profits go UP thanks to piracy, they'll still be the last to switch over. (Example: RIAA)

You realise how bad this sounds right? If not... then I need not comment. I think it speaks for itself.

Sorry, I wouldnt ever kill anyone who didnt threaten my life first, but if you attempt to use force against me, my family, or the other pirates for something as silly as piracy, then I am honor bound to fight you, and stop you. I'm willing to die to keep the internation library of humanity's works of art and science open, if someone is willing to die to close it down, then me and that person will fight a very bloody engagement.

I'm not denying the true 'nature' of anything. I simply do not believe that possession equals ownership. Thus I cannot understand the pirate mentality. I would like to understand it, I really would. I would honestly like to be part of this "brave new world" you are all trying to usher in for us. I just don't get it, because in my day. If you make something. You created it, thus you own it.

Let me explain it again then:
When an artist releases art, it belongs to the public they have released it to. Not that they TAKE AWAY ownership from the artist, but that they ALSO own the art.

Some magical technology shift doesn't change that fact.

Tell that to thepiratebay.org and kickass.to, they seem to think the technology shift DOES change that fact. And they test that little theory in practice (unlike you relying on only theory and concepts) every single day that the archive of human works stays open.

This is how licensing was born. It was a means of creating a sense of ownership to those who create digital content.

EXACTLY! The artists, sad that digital media now meant they would have to forever share ownership with the wide world, HIJACKED and CHANGED the concept of copyright and licensing of tangible goods to fit their selfish purposes. Copyright WAS a good tool for making sure inventors get credit for the initial designs, and some1 couldnt just peak in the window and steal your design plans and beat you to the patent office or beat you to the media with discoveries; and it was also used as a tool for establishing who the author actually was, and who the plagiarists are. Not to separate the license holders club from the owners club. (again i find that such a weak distinction if it doesnt work in practice and that distinction only exists in people's minds)

Or any content really. You don't agree with that. I understand, I really do. I agree completely in fact. I'm 110% against DRM of any sort. I will pirate any DRM based game because I refuse to be told how I can play games I paid for. I stil respect the license, minus the DRM part. I pay a small amount... for something someone else put a considerable amount of work/money/time/energy into. My $15 or $30 or $50 or $100 is NOT worth 'ownership' of said content. No way in hell. I have a right to use it. I believe I have a right to use it how I wish.

So wait, what in the hell makes DRM an inappropriate way of restricting a person, but a license is an appropriate way of restricting a person? For me, I find any restriction inappropriate after the sale. How do you decide which restrictions should be followed and which restrictions can be ignored? And dont say the money thing, you have all your work still ahead of you if you want to show an example of piracy hurts sales and doesnt boost them as a type of commercial.

malokin wrote:I'm not reposting my opinion over and over or trying to bring anyone to an agreement or bring any person to my side, i'm addressing the logical debate points and criticism of myself and piracy in this thread and this thread alone. I will preapologize for publicly responding to people who agro me in the other threads, but it really frustrates me when a nice topic gets ruined by people's predispositions. I challenge you to show me a situation where a person showed me respect, and then I afforded them none. I dont pick on people, i say please and thank you, but I dont just hit report or send a private message or sulk away when personally attacked or criticized, i simply respond to the criticism in a very blunt, unapologetic, but respectful way. (Although lately outside of this thread I have been resorting more and more to private messaging people responses to their criticisms privately.) Go ahead and quote every mean thing I ever said, but unless you match it up with a quote of what I'm responding to, your just pulling out the best examples of me trying to be lightheartedly funny, albeit mildly-insulting, during a flamewar.

Sadly predispositions are human nature. It's based off perception. How you perceive things is not how others perceive things. It's life.

I was responding to your criticism of the way I treat people, I dont understand what your response to me is meant to mean. Are you trying to justify people acting on their predispositions and fucking up threads yelling about how I'm a rude prick even though I asked a simple question about how to use the console to update the game factorio? I fail to see how you did anything more than explain why people make these kinds of mistakes, and the WHY of stupidity and aggression doesnt really interest me, i find these reasons irrelevant to the ideas and concepts being discussed.

You're still being controlled. Told how your money works. I'm really curious as to why 'digital goods' is somehow exempt to something you obviously respect and understand. Aside from being able to copy it.

Because when digital media was invented, the assumption was made that ownership would work just like with cars and tangible goods. This assumption was proven false when the creators of content were FORCED to stand on equal footing with the people they released their content to. Digital media made every person with a copy, even the guy with the original copy, all equals in terms of the practical rights and abilities over those works that they all possess. Noone was left in the driver's seat at that point, even if you continue to claim that the original creator still sits in that driver's seat, I'd like to see even one instance where that analogy with the original creator in the driver's seat holds true in the practical bounds of our reality.

Which if your ability to copy something is the entire crux behind your point of view then I wish I could share that mentality. But I think due to my personality type, even if I did I would not go on a crusade over it.

Really? I think you would.

This is a good one actually. The rules weren't changed though. They were adapted to fit the medium. You simply didn't agree to them. Though, you did agree to them. You're simply ignoring that fact. Would be intriguing to see if you held the same attitude towards any sort of contract between you and another party.

No, reality is forcing the rules to adapt. The rules arnt going to somehow magically force reality to adapt.

I don't think this at all. In fact I know things will change. They already have started changing, and not for the better. Take DRM for example. Companies are becoming increasingly aggressive with DRM to 'control' their content. Not only is it not working, it's actually hurting legitimate customers far more than illegitimate customers. There's a game I wanted to buy for ages that fit this category. Settlers 7. Had an always-on DRM even though I had no intention of playing it online, and my internet was rather dodgy at the time. What did I do? I pirated it. Because I could not actually play the game at all for any length of time due to their DRM.

I find this hilarious, When the rules "owners" set for themselves interfere with you, you can avoid them, but when I make the decision that ALL interference is wrong after you have sold me the game, I'm somehow way off base? Seems like a double standard.

I actually agree with this. I think they should also have separate set of ownership rules. However they should not be based on the harsh realities of technology and the internet imo. The internet is very unforgiving and very fickle. To use another comparison that to something in real life. I can go down my street... 3 doors down (lol) and break into an abandon house. It's been abandoned for awhile. Someone actually owns it. Don't know who. But I could break in. Fix it up. Live in it. And plant a flag saying "I own this". Doesn't mean I own it. But THAT is a harsh reality. I can do that. I could even burn the place down if I wanted. Harsh reality. That doesn't mean I should have the right to do so. Simply because I can.

So now digital media is the same as HOUSES? That illiterates EXACTLY why digital goods are different. I CAN burn down my file without taking away from the ownership or infringing on the rights of any other person. Get it? Your flag and fire would be okay inside of a digital abandoned house, because even though you burned down YOUR copy of the house, everyone else still gets to do anything they please inside of THEIR copy of the digital house. If you could walk into the digital house, and the moment you walked into it, it split into 2 different house files, one for the guy who actually owns the house, and one house for you. That would make it morally acceptable for you to burn the house down. If you dont hurt anyone or affect the ownership of other people's digital houses, then YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO BURN IT DOWN!

malokin wrote:What a sick thing to say, that there will never be a place for moral pirates just because amoral pirates will always exist. As though I should be punished for another man's crimes.
Are you sure you understand morality?

Uh I'm not sure what makes this sick exactly. You seem to be rather sensitive about it, despite your insensitivity to everyone else. Odd. I never said you should be punished. Though I've implied that you should be impeded. Not sure how that equates to punishment though.

I find it sick that your sense of morality is one that "Pirating would be okay, if it wernt for those bad pirates". How and why should the crimes of worse more immoral pirates affect the rest? To even consider the actions of someone else when judging a persons actions makes no sense to me. Why am I responsible for someone else's behavior? Ludicrous.

malokin wrote:YEAH I SURE DO. It is every man's job to provide for his family, and when the man with a fishing boat suddenly finds the fish GONE, I dont feel bad for his ass, he can survive if he just stops living in the past, accept the fishless future fand igures out a new way to use that boat

Interesting. You use real life comparisons and analogies, that are actually quite good. But you expect me not to. Even though yours are equally out of context.

The fish are the sales drying up from all the piracy. The devs are the fishermen who has to innovate or die. The boat is factorio, a medium in which the fisherman can use to make a living, EVEN without the fish there. What I'm saying isnt a flase equivalency like the ones you keep spouting off comparing tangible goods and intangible goods.

However to respond. This man would have to adapt. I agree. But how he adapts is not unknown to him. He has several options available that are very obvious, very in line with what he previously performed.

What? How in the heck are you gonna tell ME what the people in my own analogy do or dont know what to do? It's pretty obvious to anyone (that isnt just trying to twist things) that I meant a scenario where the fisherman DOESNT know what path he will take to food. He and the devs are in the same boat.

With what we're facing now... there is no obvious alternative. I'm pretty sure if you make 'paying for digital goods' completely optional you will find the majority of indie game developers don't have a hope in hell of surviving in the current market. The innovation simply isn't there. If it were it would be so insanely competitive that it would probably not work for many many years.

There are obvious alternatives, you just fail to see them. You very wrongly made the assumption that when I said developers would release their own torrents, that they wouldnt sell their game. You do both, and you promote on social media, and you sell cafepress stuff with gear logos, and you do many thousand techniques that I wouldnt do service to if I tried to guess them. Selling digital goods alternative ways isnt some government level research project. You just need to go to your local library or take a college level course on digital arts marketing.
http://hbr.org/product/11-rules-for-cre ... 6E-KND-ENG
http://www.amazon.com/Creating-Value-Di ... 0333725271
http://hbr.org/product/11-rules-for-cre ... 6E-KND-ENG

Interesting. Though I am actually in the digital industry myself. I do services rather than 'products' though. As far as people conceding to your points. I only have your word to take on that. The fact is a great many people are adapting, or trying to. I'm sure they will probably succeed over time. The fact is this whole thing cannot be stopped. I am not going to pretend it can. However I'm not trying to stop it either. I'm trying to understand it. While hopefully detering people from hampering smaller indie studios before they've gained their traction.

but TGS, without the loud voices like yours which are the last to cry out against piracy before a complete turnover there wouldnt be anyone except large companies and groups like the RIAA fighting this change

Mkay I'm not gonna bother responding to this. Especially seeing as how I've been a salesperson myself. And I still retain that opinion. Though I probably shouldn't have used the term salesperson so much as marketers.

Well I dont take back the comment about you being dirty then, because I wasa salesperson at a marketing company, so I still find what you said before or what you are saying now to either be REALLY naive or REALLY bad at telling cliche jokes.

No I don't. That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. And I don't think you do either. Hell, neither do they I imagine lol. That's the thing. I want these devs. The Factorio devs to have the best shot. Throwing them into this 'brave new world' is probably not the best to go about it. I'm not against you, or the movement or even pirating. I'm against the attitude and the trolling sure, but that's about it.

Right, living in the past and pretending that houses are the same as files is the proper path to making money, I'm so sure.

Honestly I think the digital market and distribution of goods, if done your way will potentially destroy how economy works entirely. Which may not be a bad thing. My concern is that economy is so ingrained in our culture that breaking it without a viable alternative can potentially to lead to anarchy. Which I know many people are all for, but I don't know that it works with 7~ billion people on the planet.

Destroy the economy and the planet?? WTF?
It's not like i said any REAL goods would be free, just music games movies, all of the world's DIGITAL works. but hey, maybe your right and THE END IS NIGH

I like that jab. Cute. So you don't really know how the world works, yet you're willing to challenge it because you feel that it is wrong. Simply because you have a system in front of you which allows you to do something that has never really been available before. Duplicate 'goods'. This is ultimately the issue as I see it. It will be very interesting to see how it turns out in the end. Either way.

What I said that was whether or not I know whats best, the old system that doesnt work anymore isnt an answer for the questions "what should we do next" "What is the best way" definitively the answer will not be do it the way they did things during the first 5 years of understanding that field, thats for sure.

malokin wrote:It's not like i said any REAL goods would be free, just music games movies, all of the world's DIGITAL works.

So how can then authors of music, games and movies survive in this crazy world we are living on? They do have to buy the food they eat, they have to pay for expenses, etc.

You guys should note that Factorio is effectively immune to piracy.
Because it is literally impossible to pirate the full version of Factorio at the current time. It doesn't exist.
And once it is done, it will already have been paid for by the preorders.
Also note that historically, before the introduction of modern copyright, artist being payed in advance was more or less the norm.

It isnt the pay or the return on the investment, It is the fact that the only TOOL a programmer has to buy to start programming is a copy of notepad and a compiler. There are no other barriers to entry. You can act like time is the most precious resource since toungsten, but I tend to think that hundreds of thousands of dollars that go twords new products every year would disagree with you.

Do you know what it costs to have molds created for any kind of physical object you intend to have manufactured? And thats after you designed that product made a prototype and tested it for millions of dollars. Everyone knows that the software industry is famous for a small team of people turning out a project for no money. Your claims that the returns dont make it worth it are FALSE, ask bill gates about that one or steve jobs or McAfee or any other software dev. Your trying to stick up for the devs and I appreciate that, i do, but you arnt going to change the way the entire software industry works. You make the product and dont get paid till you are selling it, nice trick with the kickstarters and open alphas letting people buy the unfinished game, but everyone else in the entire universe DOESNT GET PAID until the product has been finished and released. I don;t have sympathy, because every single entrepreneur has to borrow out of themselves or live off of nothing until AFTER their product is finished. It might not sound FAIR to you but life isnt FAIR. If you expect to make some kind of hourly wage, your just dreaming. That was never in the cards for software development. Gates had to sell every copy of windows, and he's notorious because he got GOOD at it. Evil Good.

I'm not saying they don;t work hard, I'm saying that the ONLY thing they have to do is work hard to succeed. In any other industry, it doesnt matter how hard you worked, you'll always have to shell out a quarter mil just to see if your product works or not. Sorry if you dont like it, thats reality. NO ONE gets to get away with as cushy a deal as dev's like these. It is UNREASONABLE for you all to think the dev's deserve a revenue stream at this point, they DONT.

But, on the other hand, if you give up on the old world ways, diversify income streams between all the latest techniques of creating value out of something other than archaic sales, you can make alot of fucking bank as a software dev, even with a failed project. There are people who still make $30,000 a year from a flash game they made in the nineties (merlin the wizard). But they wouldnt be able to make that much if an engine had cost them $100,000 or a set of wrenche

Sorry if you all dont like it but
Software Programmer - Cushy, no physical effort job - No barriers to entry - can create a huge project without any money needing to be invested - no other industry is this forgiving. Your so delusional to think ANYONE would be making money from a product this early on, any money the devs have gotten is more than what any other career or project would net.

Not that this has anything to do with piracy but yeah, just a fact of software development, sorry to burst your bubbles. If you like tv, try a canadian program called dragon's den if you are interested in seeing what the barriers to entry for different industries, the show is cheezy but they break down those numbers for you and show you it is PROPER not to be paid during the first 3 years of a starting a new business/company. I don't know why you or the devs think a brand new startup should be payed in the first year, no1 else is afforded that luxury.

SilverWarior wrote:

malokin wrote:It's not like i said any REAL goods would be free, just music games movies, all of the world's DIGITAL works.

YOUR JUST SO RIGHT SILVER!
bearshare and kazaa killed all of music didnt they?
Free porn killed the multi billion dollar porn industry didnt it?
Thepiratebay killed the entrie movie industry didnt it?
Malokin killed the whole gaming industry with his craziness didnt he?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPE

Maybe you're right, that pirating it will bring more users. But maybe not. You can't be sure! You can't. And that is in my opinion the point: You can't be sure, that your doing is right.

i am right about this. Indie bands dont get the luxury of selling their music. They have to let it be free, ESPECIALLY at the beginning in order to generate enough buzz to become discovered or just to even get steady gigs and stay fed. Indie game development is NO DIFFERENT.

Right would be to bring it out and just shut up and and see. And not to "Yeah, I made it, I'm great!". This is the point, where me and I think also most of the others get pissed.

I already did see the system begin to fall apart, and I told you about the grand archive, and you know it does exist already in a primitive form, and it is becoming fuller and fuller and it isnt destroying the whole world's economy the way TGS wants to believe.

Now give me one good reason why a thing that isnt a tangible good should be sold exactly the same way as a tangible good.