FBI raid brings down illegal Lineage II service
The FBI's cyber squad has unsealed details of a California man's bid to host an illegal emulation of NCsoft's Lineage II MMORPG. The scheme was simple enough: obtain a copy of the game's stolen source code, rent some servers to host the game, undercut NCsoft's subscription fee -- and watch the money pile up. Blinded by greed, hoisted up by his arrogance, the man would let NCsoft hate (all the way from South Korea). They ain't gon' do nothin' 'bout it...When the man failed to shutdown his fraudulent site following a stern request, NCsoft turned to its Austin, Texas offices (didn't know about those, did ya?), which quickly contacted the FBI. Last November, agents raided the man's home and thereafter put an end to the crooked enterprise. The accused now faces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
[Thanks, Froren]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Hannibal @ Feb 9th 2007 2:31AM
Wow, I almost joined one of those. Sucks to be that guy.
Steve @ Feb 9th 2007 3:47AM
why would you make an emulation of that horrible mmorpg. world of warcraft would be worth it
ss @ Feb 9th 2007 3:56AM
"Last November, agents raided the man's home and thereafter put an end to the crooked enterprise. The accused now faces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine."
Cool.
Grunge @ Feb 9th 2007 4:07AM
I hate how they (meaning all forms of media) always say "up to" as though that's what he'll actually get.
mocax @ Feb 9th 2007 4:26AM
It means the judgement's not passed.
Miharu @ Feb 9th 2007 5:16AM
He got unbelievable fines when if you commit a murder or rape someone, you wouldn't get as much.
TopaZ @ Feb 9th 2007 5:31AM
There are still dozens of these private servers running, and they're free.
So I guess it's only the charging-money thing that pissed everyone off?
Morally, I don't see the problem of a few friends WHO PAID FOR THE GAME getting together on a private server and having fun. After all, the monthly service fees are supposed to be to offset the cost of running massive servers, right?
Druidika @ Feb 9th 2007 5:52AM
Yeah, and the guys working on the content work for free.
Kusobi @ Feb 9th 2007 7:06AM
@Grunge: They don't know the exact time and fine yet, so the words "up to" are quite essential.
@Miharu: Murder and rape victims can't be punished severely enough imo. But I think the fine for this guy isn't all that high. He should at the very least lose all the money he earned by hosting the game and make up for the loss of income NCsoft suffered.
DWells55 @ Feb 9th 2007 7:50AM
Thank God all terrorism has been stopped, the country is 100% secure, and all wanted criminals and terrorists have been captured so we can spend our FBI resources on things like prosecuting music, movie, and game piracy. Wait, what?
Grunge @ Feb 9th 2007 8:02AM
My point is, why would you put the maximum sentence but leave out the minimum? Yeah, he could go to jail for 5 years and be fined a quarter million, but even if he's found guilty, what are the odds of that happening? Do you really think that someone's going to go to jail for that sort of thing in the U.S.? Find me one case where it's happened. Copyright infringement is very rarely prosecuted criminally in the U.S. anyway.
Jake @ Feb 9th 2007 8:24AM
It seems that people who steal and cheat with the internet are rarely caught. Nice to see this dude get his come-upins. And yes, to the person who asked earlier, him charging for the subscription is what really got the man mad.
Grunge @ Feb 9th 2007 8:35AM
It's either "comeuppance" or "comeupance", originating presumably from "coming up" to present oneself before a tribunal, judge, or jury.
And what's so wrong with pirating games and making your own servers? It's not like anyone but the RIAA really cares that I've stolen several hundred gigs of songs, why is it so different with games?
CV_Otaku @ Feb 9th 2007 9:01AM
#11 - Grunge
I can't speak for every reporter, but I, personally, put in the minimum sentence when it includes jail time (Vehicular Manslaughter is a class 3 felony which carries a minimum sentence of one year in prison and a maximum sentence of five years).
But most minimum sentences aren't even worth mentioning. Most people can figure them out.
32_Footsteps @ Feb 9th 2007 9:19AM
Also, quite a few crimes don't carry a minimum sentence - meaning, in theory, the person could be found guilty and not have any punishment (not that it usually works this way, but it can happen).
Also, DWells, are you advocating that because we haven't stopped terrorism, murder, and other major crimes, we should just ignore smaller crimes like theft and fraud? That's a recipe for anarchy - and that never works out well.
Grunge @ Feb 9th 2007 9:27AM
"Also, DWells, are you advocating that because we haven't stopped terrorism, murder, and other major crimes, we should just ignore smaller crimes like theft and fraud? That's a recipe for anarchy - and that never works out well."
Uh ... this is what we already do. How many people get a ticket for jaywalking? The fact is, we don't have enough of a police force for every single crime to be seen, let alone the resources to catch the people who commit them and ticket/arrest them. We make choices with our police force about what we pursue. You'd better believe that they put more people on a murder investigation than on catching someone who egged a car.
Jake @ Feb 9th 2007 9:58AM
Grunge,
Thanks for the correction, I didn't know how to spell it, only say it.
But whether you like it or not, stealing intellectual property is still stealing. And when you copy an resell it it becomes a big deal. The reasons for it being illegal are very obvious. You can only get away with stealing your music and movies because many people pay for it. If everyone stole it, there wouldn't be much being made, now would there? Then nobody is happy. Your stealing causes a combination of less profit to the industry and more cost to paying customers, just so you can have free stuff.
I don't get mad at people stealing the stuff; I've burned a few CD's in my day as well. But I do get a little pissed when they act ignorant about how it can even be wrong. I mean, come to your senses. I can't even believe I am explaining how stealing is wrong.
In this person's case, they stole intellectual property in the form of game code that an entity spent a lot of money to create for the purpose of profiting off of it. He then sold it as his own for profit. He probably wasn't going to report it to taxes, either. If you can't see how that is illegal, then you are in a weird state of ignorance and/or denial that I can't even touch. Sorry if that sounded condescending, but it was unavoidable given the way you structured your question.
I break the law all the time, but I don't sit and justify it by saying it shouldn't be wrong anyways.
ssuk @ Feb 9th 2007 10:04AM
2: no it's not.
Jake @ Feb 9th 2007 10:07AM
@16
Come on. Small crimes get enforced all the time. I've seen people get Jaywalking tickets, lol, though that is a bad example. So do big crimes. You have to enforce everything because people like me and you will break the law if it isn't. Everyone would speed if it weren't illegal, and it would kill more people than terrorism every year. Travel to Argentina some time and rent a car. If you survive, which you probably won't, come back here and tell me you don't think we should worry about petty crimes like traffic laws. You gotta practically be Mario Andretti to get around in some countries.
And please don't liken terrorism to a "crime". It is at times organized mass murder, genocide, and suicide. At other times it is simply a nation or group taking out a coordinated militaristic strike on another nation or group, usually targetted at civilians. It mostly only works because of the United State's kindness. Past leaders, foreign and American, would have simply carpet bombed muslim cities whenever a strike occured. Eventually, it would stop. Because this threat no longer exists, terrorists can pretty freely attack. I mean, what do we really do in retaliation? Occupy a country for a short while. Woopetidoo. Just think what half the countries in the world would do if they had our army and some hippees crashed a jet in one of their cities. yikes.
Grunge @ Feb 9th 2007 10:13AM
Okay, there's a huge difference between stealing intellectual property and stealing physical items. HUGE. If I steal someone's bread, then they can't eat it; if I steal someone's song - well, actually I'm not stealing, I'm just making a copy. It's not like the guy who I made the copy from doesn't have a song anymore, and it's not like the guy who originally wrote the song doesn't have a song anymore. This is the difference between IP and physical items.
And really, would it be so bad if people went back to making music and games for fun instead of profit? This besides the fact that copyright used to be 14 years instead of FOREVER. The purpose of copyright was to promote creativity, not to stifle it, and it's been warped into this giant, ugly thing that's controlled by corporations.
That's another thing - who am I really hurting when I steal IP? The short answer - a corporation. Even then, I'm not really hurting them, because I haven't cost them anything besides a potential sale (and usually not even that, because there are many things that I would take for free that I wouldn't dream of spending money on).
Yes, I will agree that it's a bit different when someone charges for stolen IP - that's more akin to plagiarism than it is to "theft".
Grunge @ Feb 9th 2007 10:23AM
@ 19 (Jake)
I wasn't saying that small crimes aren't punished, I was just saying that large crimes are punished at a much higher rate than large crimes. Face facts: I can commit some crimes in broad daylight with lots of people around (littering), and some crimes I can't (assault). This is because we devote larger resources and public disapproval to certain crimes (the large crimes).
IP theft? That's a small crime.
nintendofan @ Feb 9th 2007 10:35AM
And really, would it be so bad if people went back to making music and games for fun instead of profit?
Yes it would since it takes money to make music and put it out for people. Artists have to eat and live somewhere. No one wants to be a starving artist because guess what they die real quick or they realize they don't actually have any talent.
"This besides the fact that copyright used to be 14 years instead of FOREVER. The purpose of copyright was to promote creativity, not to stifle it, and it's been warped into this giant, ugly thing that's controlled by corporations."
Who the frak told you that line of bull? Copyrights were meant to protect the investment of the copyright so the owner would get their money. The owner would then make sure everything gets their cut. Copyrights are extended if the copyright owner can show that the items using the copyrights are still being sold. Hence why Happy Birthday is still copyrighted since greeting cards, movies, tv shows pay for the right to use the song.
"and it's not like the guy who originally wrote the song doesn't have a song anymore. This is the difference between IP and physical items."
He isn't getting anything for it. So yes you did steal from him and are encouring stealing.
"That's another thing - who am I really hurting when I steal IP? The short answer - a corporation. Even then, I'm not really hurting them, because I haven't cost them anything besides a potential sale (and usually not even that, because there are many things that I would take for free that I wouldn't dream of spending money on)."
You know in other countries they would chop off your hands for your way of thinking. I seriously think we need to do it in this country. Would certaintly decrease the shoplifting and cause prices of items to drop since stores have to increase the price as well as the manufactor to take care of the shrinkage.
There is no such thing as free. Everything has a cost. Companies give aways things for free because they consider it an investment. When that investment doesn't pay off they no longer give freebies. You are the reason a lot of free stuff is no longer free. Because you don't realize the taking of free stuff is not meant to be abused or that you have to pay back later.
Stop being a leech on society.
You are a reason a lot of smaller artistic companies have gone out of business because you deprived sales from them by not buying their stuff.
You are the reason most artists don't make any money.
Guess what 99% of bands, rappers don't have million dollar houses. Most of them have full time jobs to support their families. They don't get that much money since you don't buy the albums you are stealing.
steve @ Feb 9th 2007 10:41AM
20. When was this magical time when people made high-quality music and games for fun instead of profit?
"The purpose of copyright was to promote creativity, not to stifle it, and it's been warped into this giant, ugly thing that's controlled by corporations."
There's nothing inherent about the idea of copyright that stifles the creativity of those who wish to create original works.
It does, however, hamper those who want to profit from derivative works. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing; without copyright, those corporations you hate so much could steal your ideas and you'd have no recourse.
"That's another thing - who am I really hurting when I steal IP? The short answer - a corporation."
You do realize that most corporations are public companies, and that public companies issues shares to the public, right? Most corporations are owned by people like you and me.
Or to put it another way, who do you think was hurt most by Enron's collapse? Here's a hint: It wasn't the high-level executives. It's was the low-level employees, shareholders, and people whose 401Ks included Enron stock.
So by all means rail against the might corporation. While it's true that all of those rich executives will no longer be able to afford a second Lear jet, you'll also be taking down the guys in the mail room and the average Joes who put their retirement hopes in the hands of their 401K.
Jake @ Feb 9th 2007 10:55AM
Grunge,
I can't believe you are fighting this argument. You are lying to yourself to justify stealing in your own little mind. You have yourself convinced that it is okay because big corporations are evil, when in reality it is just your own selfish greed of wanting to save $15 per CD. It is okay to be greedy and want things, like a massive music collection, that you cannot legally afford.
I can honestly tell you that I own pirated games and music myself. I have them because of my own greed of wanting them at a time I couldn't afford them. Now I can afford things I want, and I buy them. When I was much younger, I stole from stores for the same reason and was never caught. I am not proud of it, but I'll be damned if I lie to myself about it being right just because I stole from someone who could afford to be stolen from.
Just be happy it isn't highly enforced. But don't think for a minute that it isn't wrong. I mean, you almost seem to think you are fighting some kind of good fight against corporations. Ha! I love how people with your mentality love to bitch and bend your arguments to benifit yourself and give excuses for your own failures, yet usually don't do anything real to fight for your supposed "beliefs." Be a man, damnit.
And I am not trying to say you are a failure or anything, so please don't take it that way. It is just that most of the people I meet that blame corporations and stuff for all the world's problems usually are the ones that aren't succeeding much in life or our own system.
I used to think the same way growing up in poverty. But, I kicked ass in school, the government spotted me loans to go to college for engineering at a top engineering school, I got my degree with honors, and now a multibillion dollar corporation pays me $60k a year to design products that we sell all over the world. That means other country's money becomes our money through the magic of evil multibillion dollar multinational corporations. America ftw. okay, back to working for the devil, lol.
Grunge @ Feb 9th 2007 11:08AM
@ nintendofan
Really, it's hard to take you seriously, because you're advocating cutting off a person's hands for stealing, but I'll try anyway.
First of all, I got the idea that copyrights were meant to promote creativity because I've read six books on the subject and taken a few courses in copyright law. The Statute of Anne, circa 1709, the first copyright law ever, even had that in rough goal in its title; "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned". It lasted for 14 years from date of publication.
In the U.S. it's been;
1790: 14 (renewable for another 14)
1909: 28 (renewable for another 28)
1976: Author's life + 50
And since you mention "Happy Birthday", that's a perfect example of how broken the system is; it's a song that's so enmeshed into our society as to be part of every person's yearly ritual, and yet no one can sing it anywhere in the media without paying for it. That doesn't seem even a little fucked up to you?
On artists eating and living: first of all, I don't really buy that "You're stealing from artists and they won't be able to eat!" argument for the following reasons;
1) If they're unknown, there's no way that I'll be able to download their song, because there are good odds that no one will have it.
2) If someone puts an unknown on the net, chances are that it'll boost their popularity - and you'd better believe that people will buy stuff from unknowns just to support them.
3) Unknowns (or local bands) only make a fraction of their pay on CD sales; the rest comes from T-shirts, gigs, concerts, donations, advertising, whatever. The lesson here is that if you're not making money one way, then seek alternative revenue streams.
And when you say that there's no such thing as free, you're a fucking idiot. I can watch five channels on my TV for free. I can stream hundreds of radio stations to my computer for free. I can download indie games that the authors put online for free. Joystiq? Yeah, that's free too. My e-mail account is also free. Lots of that is paid for by advertising, sure, but have you ever considered that maybe some people will write a poem because they want people to hear it, not because they want to make money off of it?
Retard.
Jake @ Feb 9th 2007 11:20AM
Grunge,
You are so off-base I can't even believe it. The only free things you list you are paying for by looking at their advertisements. That's not exactly free. And whether or not some people give their stuff away doesn't have anything to do with your "stealing is okay if I don't get caught" argument anyways. That is really all it is. If 30% of people to illegally download something got caught and prosecuted, you wouldn't be having this conversation.
Some people write poems to be heard. Those are the ones that put them up on the internet for free. Some people write music to be heard, they put it up on the internet for free. People that sell CD's, games, poetry collection, and books don't want little a-holes like you stealing it without paying anything for it, and they really don't want you reselling it. So, keep justifying stealing in your own little mind. I hope you have to try to have this argument with a judge some time. Unfortunately, you can get away with internet pirating pretty easily so most of you get to go on forming your opinions and stealing without any real confrontation from society.
Zequel @ Feb 9th 2007 11:33AM
People who think corporations are dirty evil things need a clue. I'll give you one - Third World Nations don't have any, First World Nations do - coincidence?
You can talk about the ugly side to a lot of things such as unions, lawyers and the US court system, they may even be broken and need reform but that doesn't mean we'd be better off without them and they're not an inherently good idea.
As for IP, IP has to be protected. Unfortunately the US Patent System is f'd up. When they allow patent like 1-click shopping (Amazon) or tons of other questionable ideas that were never IP to begin with. Lately a number of things have been patented like buisness processes or things that are too general. Its screwed up - imagine if McDonalds patented the drive-thru window so only McDonalds could use one. Every other place, people would have to walk in, it would suck right?
The other side of the coin is China and (other similiar countries) - China doesn't believe in IP for the most part. They simply pirate US crap. Innovation/Invention/IP Generation from China: very low. They're basically leechers and the government allows it. No IP: No new inventions. Why spend money on a product if someone overseas is gonna rip it off and make it cheaper partly because they didn't invest any $$ in R&D.
steve @ Feb 9th 2007 11:36AM
25. "And since you mention "Happy Birthday", that's a perfect example of how broken the system is; it's a song that's so enmeshed into our society as to be part of every person's yearly ritual, and yet no one can sing it anywhere in the media without paying for it. That doesn't seem even a little fucked up to you?"
Sure, it seems silly. But if I'd written that song, I might feel differently. I also wouldn't be too happy if people were re-recording my song and making money from it.
"2) If someone puts an unknown on the net, chances are that it'll boost their popularity - and you'd better believe that people will buy stuff from unknowns just to support them."
My own personal experience says otherwise. Most people, when given a choice between "free" and "pay," go with "free." Once they're conditioned to believe everything should be free, it's harder to get a penny out of them.
"The lesson here is that if you're not making money one way, then seek alternative revenue streams."
It's one thing to say, "Your art is crap; no one wants to buy it." But when it's obvious people dig it but just don't feel like spending a couple of bucks to buy it, the problem lies with the mindset of buyer, not the artist. This is an issue of morality in addition to a legal one.
But here's one example of alternative revenue stream: Advertising. What's the first thing people do when faced with ads? Bitch about them, and then find ways to avoid/block them.
"have you ever considered that maybe some people will write a poem because they want people to hear it, not because they want to make money off of it?"
There's nothing about copyright laws that prevents people from doing this.
What it does protect you from is some corporation or individual taking your poem which you offered to the world for free and re-selling it for profit. It's easy to forget this, but copyright protects both individuals and corporations.
Jake @ Feb 9th 2007 11:41AM
Zequel,
Don't worry too much about China. Soon they will overpopulate and overpolute themselves to a point where they will have to conquer new land on their borders or go into a depression.
Xian! @ Feb 9th 2007 11:42AM
I have the one question that makes or breaks Grunge's entire argument and dictates whether he needs to be appreciated or ignored completely.
Grunge: Are you a professional musician?
Requires a simple answer.
Kazi @ Feb 9th 2007 11:48AM
"There's nothing inherent about the idea of copyright that stifles the creativity of those who wish to create original works.
It does, however, hamper those who want to profit from derivative works. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing; without copyright, those corporations you hate so much could steal your ideas and you'd have no recourse."
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac
Jake @ Feb 9th 2007 11:52AM
In summary, you need to take a long look in the mirror, Grunge. It is one thing to steal something because you want it for free and are willing to take the risk of getting caught. It is another to justify with complicated arguments why it is okay in this one particular case.
Basically, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want the benefit of stealing-being able to own lots of stuff for free. You also want the moral benefit of not doing anything wrong-hey, it isn't really stealing. This is common human nature.
My confession.
I used to steal music (and may again) because I wanted it and couldn't really afford it. I saw an easy way to take advantage of the system before me to acquire illegally something I wanted for free with almost no risk of getting caught. I am not proud of it, nor am I particularly ashamed. But I don't lie to myself to say "it was totally fine because I was stealing from evil corporations-hell I'm a damn hero." I'm not diluted. It is just that the gain seemed to outweigh the moral dilema involved. That is what crime is and why sane criminals commit them, even when they are very small crimes. It is the crazy's that don't even think what they are doing is wrong.
AirIntake @ Feb 9th 2007 11:57AM
Sounds like the RIAA and MPAA have some Joystiq posters on the payroll!
Ikitsumatatsu @ Feb 9th 2007 11:59AM
In before shitty "stealing ferraris" analogy
AirIntake @ Feb 9th 2007 12:04PM
Yes, MPAA and RIAA, I would steal a Ferrari if the person I stole it from was still left with the original. I'd steal that purse too.
steve @ Feb 9th 2007 12:18PM
33. Or alternatively, it's populated by creative types who can see the benefit to copyright. (Which doesn't mean it's been perverted by corporations; just to repeat this again, it protests my works as much as it protects Mickey Mouse for Disney.)
Or maybe we're all just MPAA and RIAA stooges.
Here's a thought: I'll setup a website that yanks down all of the content on Joystiq and posts it on my own site. It's not theft. It's not depriving anyone of seeing the content on this URL. So it'd be totally kosher to many of the people in this thread. And it'd only be hurting the big corp AOL.
AirIntake @ Feb 9th 2007 12:22PM
Go right ahead, you'd be doing no different than Google News, and I'll still come to Joystiq. And either way, since I'm not buying any Zwinkys or anything else that's advertised here, it doesn't really make a difference. Also, Joystiq articles are frequently just links to other sites anyways.
steve @ Feb 9th 2007 12:51PM
37. "Go right ahead, you'd be doing no different than Google News"
Google News doesn't duplicate the articles in their entirety without permission.
Grunge @ Feb 9th 2007 1:01PM
"Sure, it seems silly. But if I'd written that song, I might feel differently. I also wouldn't be too happy if people were re-recording my song and making money from it."
No, if you had written that song you would have been DEAD FOR THE PAST SIXTY YEARS.
"Grunge: Are you a professional musician?"
Professional writer: does that count?
"Or to put it another way, who do you think was hurt most by Enron's collapse? Here's a hint: It wasn't the high-level executives. It's was the low-level employees, shareholders, and people whose 401Ks included Enron stock."
Hey, who do you think caused the collapse of Enron? It was the guys at the top fucking over the wage slaves. That's the worst analogy ever.
Look: I don't have any problem with copyright in principle. But it's been taken from a fourteen year term to a 75 years after the author's death term. The public domain was the wellspring of creativity and derivative works (and yes, I defend derivative works because they on occasion add something of value). Now we have fair use doctrine as a band-aid on a broken system, which has put a stranglehold on documentaries and cultural reference.
Do you know why all the classics are so cheap? Because they're all in the public domain, different publishers are put into competition and it lowers the prices. It doesn't seem fair to me that a publishing company has a monopoly on something as culturally relevant as the Chronicles of Narnia, especially considering that the author has been dead for over forty years. How many great books of the last century will be lost because the publishing companies decided that it wasn't worth the cost to publish them?
Let's take a more modern example. Pretend that I'm a fan of the 80's TV show Manimal. It ran for two and a half months in 1983, for a total of eight episodes. There's no way in hell it's ever going to be released on DVD. For me, the dedicated Manimal fan, there's no way for me to ever see those episodes again. No legal way, that is. For you see, I could go online and download these episodes in all of their glory, but it would be illegal - illegal even though it's not hurting anyone.
In short, until the copyright system is fixed, I'm going to disregard it completely. I'll only pay for IP if I think it's the right thing to do (local bands, great DVDs, indie games, etc.) or if I can get some added convenience out of my payment (this is why I've never played a pirated console game - mod chips are too much work). If and when it is fixed and the public domain is resurrected, then hey, I might still steal things, but at least I won't feel good about it.
jfls @ Feb 9th 2007 1:20PM
That's some nice self-righteous bitching. If you're so passionate about how broken the copyright system is, how about you try and do something about it? How many times have you written your congressman expressing your concerns? How many groups have you joined in order push your agenda? To how many political groups supporting your opinion have you donated money? If you're not going to be part of the solution then your complaints mean little.
Furthermore, the idea that you can just disregard laws you disagree with is ludicrous. What would society be like if everyone had that attitude? If you disagree with a law, then you need to go through the proper channels. And yes, I understand how lobbying works, but bitching about unbeatable corporate-backed lobbyists and doing nothing is the same as doing nothing.
Grunge @ Feb 9th 2007 1:37PM
"How many times have you written your congressman expressing your concerns? How many groups have you joined in order push your agenda? To how many political groups supporting your opinion have you donated money?"
1) I've written three times so far, but the problem extends far beyond my congresspersons' power - because copyright is an international issue (as first seen with the Berne convention) I'm a little more worried about what the EU is going to do.
2) http://www.boycott-riaa.com/ and http://www.futureofmusic.org/ are the ones that I visit most often - I'm a (forum) member of the former and subscribed to the newsletter of the latter.
3) I don't donate to political groups - ever.
In short, I don't really see how you can ask those questions in an accusing tone and think that you don't sound like an asshole.
(01) @ Feb 9th 2007 1:45PM
Not that I don't appreciate the news, the guy totally deserves what he gets, but isn't this 3 month old news?
mrrooster @ Feb 9th 2007 2:08PM
@ lots of people
Don't know about the US, but in the UK piracy IS NOT stealing, it's piracy. OK, I know the distinction is a subtle one, but it is important.
I personally have priated things in my life, but never stolen.
Also, the damage done through piracy is increadably subjective, the huge figures often reported in the media are very rarely, if ever, backed up, and no explanation is given as to how their generated. Also noone ever seems to mention the positive effect of piracy, in that it can often bring awareness of new artists that wouldn't otherwise be noticed. I personally have several CDs that I would never have bought had someone not passed me a tape (or nowadays an MP3), and the same with TV too, I've been a proud owner of the Family Guy series 1 DVD since the day of it's release. Why? Because I downloaded it off the internet. Had I just watched it on Sky 1 or Channel 4 where it was heavily cut I probably wouldn't have bothered.
Incidentally, the FG DVD, released first in the UK, was one of the fastest selling TV DVDs ever, now how many people bought it because they'd been downloading the episodes illegally off the internet? (I can't actually answer this because noone ever seems to actually research these things, so I might as well make up a number... it was 43 thousand.)
Mind you... people are starting to notice: http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,20713160%5E15306%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html
@38
Google news may not, but google cache does.
@Grunge
"It is another to justify with complicated arguments why it is okay in this one particular case."
Yes, how dare you make reasoned and salient points, expressed with a degree of level headedness and absolutly no trace of rabid polarisation. We (the internet) demand you stop this forthwith, as all arguments are only ever black and white, there's no shades of grey, ever! ;)
This is quite interesting reading....
http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf
Oh... and @19
"I mean, what do we really do in retaliation? Occupy a country for a short while. Woopetidoo."
Wow!! I have never heard the invasion of a country, the deposition of it's governing body and what may potentially turn out to be one of the most damaging events in the middle east for years summed up so succinctly.
Merlic @ Feb 9th 2007 2:09PM
You guys dont know what your talking about.. Half of you havent even played the game i bet
Xian! @ Feb 9th 2007 2:15PM
"Professional writer." No, it doesn't count, sorry. (That's even assuming you have legitimate pub credits and aren't using the term loosely like everyone else.) Books and music are both creative endeavors, but they're different animals operating in different statistical environments (ie, market, demand, price, etc).
And your comparison to publishing doesn't hold up at all. Unless, when you say you steal music, you're talking about Beethoven concertos. By your own argument, if you're so offended that the laws of public domain have been changed, then you'd only be downloading music that is at least 14 years old. I'm willing to bet that's not the case.
You're trying to morally justify an illegal act. If you ever get taken to court on it, you'll lose. Just own up to it. You steal because you don't want to pay, which is the reason every crook steals. I'm not saying you're a bad person. I'm saying you're a crook. Done.
(As an aside, please don't sling the word "retard" around. Whatever you may know about anything else, that word reveals a chasm of ignorance yawning inside you. Close it quick before anybody else notices.)
Virtua Fanboy @ Feb 9th 2007 2:28PM
Regardless of what most of you snot nose kiddies think or say, I can guarantee that most of you have a "shared collection" of music on the very same computer your typing this shit on. Even if it's just one song. And all I have to say on this subject is:
"If sharing is wrong baby, then I just don't wanna be right." Kevin Pereira
Dolla dolla bill ya'll, HOLLA! lol
TroutNinja @ Feb 9th 2007 2:41PM
Grunge:
So, if you publish a book, and each person who buys it takes the book to a Kinkos and makes copies for 50 of their friends; that's okay, he's not hurting anyone.. right?
I mean, you still have the original book, a copyright on the ideas. Nevermind the fact that your publisher won't publish you again because of your 20,000 copy selling book.
They only hurt the big bad publishing corporation. The author was completely unaffected by the copying of the book.. right?
Jake @ Feb 9th 2007 2:41PM
Well, you guys win. I have considered your arguments thoroughly and I think that piracy should be legal for everyone. From this moment forward, all games, movies, and CD's that are released in any way should be freely distributed to the world. Hell, in many cases it will help the artists. In other cases, it will hurt evil rich people and the American corporations that are ruining Iran. And the people that made it still have their originals anyways. It should be illegal to use copyright protection technoligy, since copying and piracy is now legal. Heck, in England it isn't even theft, it is piracy. Piracy isn't bad. Hell, pirates kick ass and I want to be one. Now I really can't wait for the new Mass Effect and Halo3 games, since they will be free for everyone.
Do you guys even know how ridiculous you sound. You are taking advantage of the fact that a lot of people pay for music, games, and movies to be made, thus making them possible, just so you can leech off of them. It doesn't matter what you call it. Parasitic, piracy, theft, whatever. If everyone did what you do, there wouldn't be anything for anyone. I really don't care if some people do it, it just irritates me the level of ignorance it takes to justify it. Some of you think you are cool for doing it and brag about it. It is just selfish leeching off of others, plain and simple.
And no, I don't work for the RIAA or whatever and don't even know what that is. But I do know what is legal and what isn't. When I break the law, frequently, I don't try to justify it in my mind that I am somehow in the right. I just do it for selfish gain and leave it at that. If I don't get caught, I could care less what others think. I know it is wrong, but it is what it is. It just irritates me when people try to argue that it isn't even bad and they use all these wacky examples and logical fallacies to convince themselves of it.
You morons could probably be convinced of just about anything.
Grunge @ Feb 9th 2007 2:42PM
"No, it doesn't count, sorry."
Yeah, I don't really think it counts either. Books aren't really something that you see floating out there on the internet, mostly because there's no good way to read them without having to print out massive quantities of paper (to the point where it would be cheaper to have just bought the book).
"By your own argument, if you're so offended that the laws of public domain have been changed, then you'd only be downloading music that is at least 14 years old."
It's not really that they've been changed - it's that they've been broken. Going back to the 14 year system would be only one of many ways to deal with the problem, but my point is that the current system is broken. You're right, I do take whatever I want from wherever I want; but I do still pay for some of it.
"You're trying to morally justify an illegal act."
Legality and morality are different things. I know that I would face penalties if caught, but the presence of a penalty does not imply the presence of morality. Look at the Jim Crow laws if you need any proof of that. By the same coin, just because something is legal doesn't mean that its moral.
Also, I would argue that I copy the songs more because I can than because I don't want to pay. There's a difference.
(And consider this my official apology for the use of the word "retard". Sorry.)
steve @ Feb 9th 2007 2:44PM
"No, if you had written that song you would have been DEAD FOR THE PAST SIXTY YEARS."
If your argument is that copyright law is in need of reform or that the terms are too long, you'd get no argument for me.
Using the disagreements with those aspects as a rationalization for infringement is where I run into issues with people.
"Hey, who do you think caused the collapse of Enron? It was the guys at the top fucking over the wage slaves. That's the worst analogy ever."
That wasn't the point. Your point is that infringement hurts the company. The end game of everyone doing this is that the company will eventually cease to exist. Who's hurt most by any major public corporation's failure? The public, who are its employees and its owners via the stock market.
Those fat cat execs you hate so much already have their millions.
"The public domain was the wellspring of creativity and derivative works (and yes, I defend derivative works because they on occasion add something of value)."
Um, you have no idea what you're talking about. Again, when was this magical time when everything was public domain?
Almost every major work of classical music was commissioned by someone wealthy, for example. Shakespeare wasn't writing for free.
"Do you know why all the classics are so cheap? Because they're all in the public domain, different publishers are put into competition and it lowers the prices."
Are the classics cheap? If you're talking about books, the answer is no. They cost the same as, er, Narnia. (I guess.)
The Odyssey (Penguin Classics): $10 at Amazon.com
Chronicles of Narnia: $10 at Amazon.com
The market for books determine their price, and competition with other books and demand is what sets the market rate.
"How many great books of the last century will be lost because the publishing companies decided that it wasn't worth the cost to publish them?"
None? They don't just disappear into the vapor. There's this wonderful "digital" technology the kids rave about which virtually guarantees that the great books of the last century won't disappear.
Also, not every author signs the rights of their books to the publisher in perpetuity.
Another question is this: how many great books would be lost because the original manuscript was lost and no one published it in the first place?
"For you see, I could go online and download these episodes in all of their glory, but it would be illegal - illegal even though it's not hurting anyone."
Such are the terms dictated to you by the creator of a work. I'm under no obligation to provide you with my works in perpetuity. If I made Manimal and I'd rather that work never appear on DVD, why wouldn't I get to control this?
By always turning this into a "big corporations vs. me" argument, you're forgetting that everything a corporation can do is available to any individual as well.
"If and when it is fixed and the public domain is resurrected, then hey, I might still steal things, but at least I won't feel good about it."
You rock! Stick it to the man!
Here's a better question about what you stand for: Do you pirate anonymously? If so, you're just looking to mooch free stuff. If you really want to take on copyright, be willing to do it in a very public way so you can get yourself arrested.
Civil disobedience isn't posting on forums under pseudonyms; it's believing enough in your cause to put your life and liberty on the line for it.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say copyright isn't quite that important in the overall scheme of things.