Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 90 of 90

Thread: The Quality Of The Witcher 2 Linux Port Is Upsetting Many Gamers

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by log0 View Post
    Because the quality of a copy determines whether is to be seen as counterfeit or not, right. Rofl.
    Quality has nothing to do with it. What matters is if it's an imitation; a fake. Maybe you should go look up the definition of "counterfeit".

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    841

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by log0 View Post
    Yeah, stealing is the wrong terminology. Counterfeit would be more fitting, as copying and distributing without creators consent.
    No... there's already a legal term for this and it's not stealing, and it's not counterfeit, and we don't need to make one up. This term is Copyright infringement as that's exactly what it is. Theft requires depriving someone of property that they currently own without their permission, and counterfeit goods are imitations of another good, pretending to be a product that they're not.

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    879

    Default

    That makes sense, company goes out of it's way to support you so you rip them off. GG fuckwads.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yogi_berra View Post
    That makes sense, company goes out of it's way to support you so you rip them off. GG fuckwads.
    The sad thing is that these people even are proud of their behavior and don't see anything wrong with it.

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vim_User View Post
    The sad thing is that these people even are proud of their behavior and don't see anything wrong with it.
    There is nothing wrong with their behavior, on the contrary - they are correct.
    Its not stealing - because nothing is stolen,
    its not sharing - because they make a copy,
    its license violation. Nothing more.

    Image a company making a bad physical product - people try it and then ship back angry, if they are allowed per law.
    If no such law exists, they must keep it and waste money - because their expectations and producer claim did not meet the real quality.

    Reviews are nothing, because reviewers are very often bribed (EA+IGN); even individual opinions are often faked or incorrect.
    So, the only way to know the quality is to get the actual thing in own hands (and not demo, shareware).

    So what is wrong when they give the device to a friend (sharing), he tests it, and then gives back because its a crap? If its good, he will buy his own device or request the device from the friend again. The lend thing is a bit stressfull, so he will buy if he has money AND if in his opinion advantage of having > money costs.

    So, it is perfectly right to take a copy, try and then buy or throw away or even keep if low on money. Especially you can't give back electronical media or get a refund.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,116

    Default

    So license violation is OK if you are low on money?
    I guess you would be OK then with a company taking GPL licensed code for a proprietary project if they are low on money and can't afford additional coders, but have to deliver the software?

  7. #87
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vim_User View Post
    So license violation is OK if you are low on money?
    I guess you would be OK then with a company taking GPL licensed code for a proprietary project if they are low on money and can't afford additional coders, but have to deliver the software?
    People use GPL libraries all the time that way.

    I always find these discussions funny. The hilarious thing is, I have seen pirated software that works better than the purchased copy, simply because of the copy protection being ripped out. I also have seen game demos that ran a lot better than the full release. So there are perfectly legitimate reasons for getting the pirated version. There have been plenty of articles out there saying either out hurts or it helps companies. Not too long ago, a company actually used torrent sites to advertise their game. It was hilariously successful.

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by leech View Post
    People use GPL libraries all the time that way.

    I always find these discussions funny. The hilarious thing is, I have seen pirated software that works better than the purchased copy, simply because of the copy protection being ripped out. I also have seen game demos that ran a lot better than the full release. So there are perfectly legitimate reasons for getting the pirated version. There have been plenty of articles out there saying either out hurts or it helps companies. Not too long ago, a company actually used torrent sites to advertise their game. It was hilariously successful.
    Unfortunately, it doesn't matter. If you want more games and a future in software development, it has to be funded in some way. That's how our current society works. If you don't like it, come up with a system where developers can be funded and support a family without having to take money out of your pocket.

    There's also a difference between popularity and profit. Companies and developers are hurt when you don't buy their product. It just so happens that there are enough people now adays to where the advertisement from torrenting ends up spreading popularity and that leaks over into the profitable side.

    http://www.greenheartgames.com/2013/...use-of-piracy/

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vim_User View Post
    So license violation is OK if you are low on money?
    I guess you would be OK then with a company taking GPL licensed code for a proprietary project if they are low on money and can't afford additional coders, but have to deliver the software?
    Yes, but it is not way things should be. In both cases.
    License violators recieve less service, proprietary companies risk being sued - this is a good motivation to change things asap.

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vim_User View Post
    So license violation is OK if you are low on money?
    I guess you would be OK then with a company taking GPL licensed code for a proprietary project if they are low on money and can't afford additional coders, but have to deliver the software?
    License violation is always ok! Our understanding of copy rights is a very new invention - e.g. Shakespeare took parts of his plays from the work of others and nobody had a problem with it, such was the norm. Now we have different norms, but it does not mean that they are perfect. Some people believe you can't own art, the same way you can't own the words you've just said. While there are contrary arguments - copy right is just one point of view, just one that is often legally enforced. Morally? If you copy a program you violate the law, if you walk past a man dying of hunger it's ok. And before you say this is an extreme comparison, sure it is, but it shows why some people feel they do nothing wrong by violating licenses

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •