Piratenpartei Österreich

Uh, he in 1 month I turn 18. So I could vote my first time. But things like programs or games are not having a price without a reason. So the idea of free content whereever you go (I would appreciate this muuch more for books than games and other entertainment things) is nice, but it would really be a bad thing for developers/musicians/artists/... and giving it a 2nd thought it would be quite stupid. Sad, but buying games instead of copying them saves jobs :/ (poor poor pocket money)

I always wondered how they think the production of those copyable things should be financed then. I don't see a reason why they should rely on donations only.

But maybe we'd be getting better quality of stuff if only people who are passionate about it make it and no "industry", marketing and stuff. But I don't think so.

Maybe I should look up how they think that problem would be solved, but I don't want to now. ;)

Personally I've bought all games I've played ever since I started earning money and not just poket money.

"...luckily I'm not a game developer anymore"

what's lucky about that? isn't it just boring to develop non game-related stuff?

Who knows...
Anyway,
I don't know which is the right, but I really despise of the RIAA sueing (and getting $12,0o0,o0o) some 14-year-old for downloading an MP3 that he found somewhere...

No matter if you legalize or illegalize private pirate copies, they are here to stay. So we might as well embrace it and think about alternative solutions.

I think it was Warren Spector who put it in these words: "Every gamer that acquired a pirated copy of your game wouldn't have bought it anyway." However, I don't agree entirely. Everyone would rather have an original, with handbook, shiny cds/dvds and whatnot. But they are simply not going to pay 35-55€ for something they get for free on the net. Actually, they wouldn't pay that much either way. They would just cut back on their gaming habits and maybe(!) buy 1-2 games a year. I'm pretty sure if the companies would drop the sell price significantly, they would sell alot more. At least I know that *I* would rather pay 15-20€ and have the shiny original than download it.

I agree...

but, with rising costs lowering the price would seem like suicide to a marketing type

yeah i think thegolems oppinion is right in some way :)

I was going to leave this one alone, but I just can't help myself now :)

Firstly, I am against legalizing piracy as I understand this new party is after. I believe people have to right to copy their own CD's/DVD's and even the taping of "free-to-air" broadcasted television/radio. However, allowing people to pirate games, movies, etc that they would otherwise have to buy to obtain - this goes against the grain.

If one allows people to copy games/software/movies/etc with no need to pay for it in the first place (remember, broadcasted movies/songs are supported by advertising), there simply is no incentive to create them in the first place. Modern games & movies take alot of effort to put together - effort that would not be undertaken without the lure of financial recompense.

On the other hand, I agree that something needs to be done. People are only governed by laws so long as they mostly agree with them. America's "prohibition" proved this and I think piracy is along the same lines. People are getting sick of paying through the nose for overpriced music, video games, etc. the gaming industry, I think, has more of an excuse than the recording & movie industries (look at the profit margins).

There needs to be an incentive to create (i.e. for the artists, including game designers & developers), but the publishing industry is sucking too much cash as middlemen and soonere or later they will either (a) become irrelevant as people start voting for parties like those mentioned above or (b) they will lower their prices. There is no middle ground as the further into the near future you go - the more people will be able to download & copy what they want off the Net. Sooner or later there will come a point where the governments will not be able to force stupid laws on the populace like the DMCA.

--EK

People obviously have a problem paying for non-material things than CAN be copied. On other hand, they have far less problems buying let's say Coca-Cola, where a bottle is 33% full of liquid, another 33% of marketing and 34% of their "copyright". But at least they can drink the liquid.

What? Can we drink Coke without buying it? Where do you live? In Heaven?

Matthias: Yes. You say sw just needs better copy protection/DRM and everybody will buy it. (You can't get Coke for free anywhere, I suppose, but you can buy some replica for one third of its price, or yet better, dring water. But everybody seems to be perfectly happy to pay relatively high price of marketing/copyright, as long as they get the liquid, too. The same thing with let's say GPUs. You get one copy of copyrighted design with one piece of silicon. Perfect copy protection. And nobody complains it costs only few bucks to produce a silicon. Most people don't even think of stealing it. )
What I'm trying to say besides spamming is, sw has unfortunate luck to be one of first quite expensive non-material things and people feel a lot better about copying software than stealing cherries.

Most people I know have no problem paying for things they can copy. For example, nigh on every person I know who copies MP3's will pay $20+ for a novel.

I think the issue for most people is that the publishers of movies/records are manipulating the laws to sell more crap to the public. For example, DVD's being sold in US for more than they are sold to say Korea (these are the legitimate ones I'm talking about here). They can only do this once they made sure laws were passed forbidding people from circumventing the "scam".

--EK

Many people say that copying something you are supposed to buy and stealing something material is ethically the same evil, but I don't think so. Copying does not necessarily do any harm.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1144619553287&call_pageid=968350072197&col=969048863851

Actually, the "ethically the same" thing is being pushed very hard by the MpAA & RIAA in alot of advertising I am seeing at the moment here in Australia. The ads keep saying things like "You wouldn't steal a car and you wouldn't take someone's handbag. Piracy is the same thing".

I personally think that piracy is "wrong", but I do not think it is the same as stealing. You are not depriving someone else of the use of the copied material. If I steal a car, the owner can no longer use that car. If I copy a song, I am not depriving the person who bought it of listening to it. Piracy is "supposed" to be wrong because it deprives the creating artist of financial recompense. However, it is becoming more & more obvious that the current publishing regime rewards the middle man MUCH more than the artist themselves and people are using this as justification.

--EK

Of course piracy might cause for games something similar to Microsoft's "Windows Genuine Advantage". Only instead of doing it over the internet, maybe the requirement will be to mail in the UPC and a copy of the receipt. That would certainly fix the problem. And I can almost imagine it happening after a while.

I personally think people should see copyright violation for what it really is – blatent cheekyness. Pirating a DVD is like walking in to a shop and reading a magazine without paying for it, I don’t think this should be illegal but it should be frowned upon. If everyone did it without feeling any guilt then there would be a serious problem, artists wouldn’t be able to make any money and maybe (debatable) less art would be produced. I personally have no problem with ‘stealing’ a crappy DVD, album, or piece of software on a trial basis, but the moment it becomes worth the money I feel incredibly guilty that I didn’t buy it, so I do buy it. I’m against copyright law on the basis that it can (and does) restrict the poor’s access to education, information and the arts. The needs of the many clearly outweigh the rights of the few, but unfortunatley this kind of ethics can’t be easily legislated without bringing a new star trekesque style of communism into play.
Instead my vote would have to go to minimal (5-10yrs?) protection for copyrights and patents for non-profit/personal use (ie 5 for software, 10 for music and video), and slightly longer for business use (30 years seems enough).