[dragonbird]

Costin Moroianu said:

The idea of copyright laws was to protect IDEAS from being stolen by others and then used by them. Say for instance you write a book, and the originally of your ideas in said book and the characters you created yourself are protected by copyright laws from being taken by someone else and being used by them in works. ›››

Just to nit-pick here, but actually, no, that's plagiarism, which has its own set of laws (including trademark protection and patents). You can't copyright an idea. Copyright law was originally to protect printers' monopolies, and to stop printers from publishing works prohibited by the authorities (religious or state). So it hasn't really changed that much

But I was thinking last night about the problem FoggyFishburne and Tommy described - trying to talk friends and acquaintances into paying for games. I'm curious about something - do these people download every single game that gets released, and therefore (probably) far more than they could ever play? I'm wondering if they tend to be collectors, people who feel they absolutely MUST have everything, and have it before their friends (bragging rights). If they're just totally amoral, then it's difficult for a friend to convince them to do the right thing, but if they're collectors, the "at least buy the ones you like/play, asshole" method might work sometimes.

[Costin Moroianu]

Ah I was thinking more of a case of Rowling vs Tanya Grotter where it was considered a case of copyright.

[dragonbird]

Costin Moroianu said:

Ah I was thinking more of a case of Rowling vs Tanya Grotter where it was considered a case of copyright. ›››

Yeah, you're right - there's presumably a cut-off point where it moves from one to the other.

[Aver]

Sirnaq said:

Kinda offtopic subject.
Was some months ago checking stock prices of cdpr and they are quite low, that means cdpr using most of money they get from witcher2 into their 2 big ass projects instead of paying higher dividends to their investors. If their stock are under-priced there is danger of aggressive acquisition from bigger companies like let's say EA am i right? Do you guys think it's wise from cdpr to make 2 big ass AAA games instead of let's say 1 AA game and 1 AAA?

edit: checking right now, meh it catching up, but there was some bad months in 2012 for cdpr. ›››

Paying dividend =/= higher stock prices. Paying regular and nice dividend may increase stock prices, but it's not a rule. Many big companies doesn't pay dividend and they have high stock prices. Stock prices represent value of company - to increase it they need good revenue, assets, cash flow.

Also low stock prices, doesn't increase chance of being bought by EA/Activision/Whatever. Over 50% of stocks are owned by CDPR founders*, so they would have to agree for this. And if founders wouldn't own over 50% of stocks then it wouldn't be a problem for EA/Activision to buy it out even if stock prices would be 2 or 3 times bigger than now. It's pocket money for them .

*Not all of them are original founders. Some of them joined later, but they are in company for more than 10 years and some of them are related to original founders.

[SystemShock7]

Demut said:

What the fuck had that to do with anything? The only thing I got from that is that you apparently think the First Amendment sucks and should be abolished.

Anyway, I feel like you still didn’t get rid of the idea that illegal downloading is tantamount to theft. It’s not. Copying some lines of code just doesn’t even come close to stealing objects. One is essentially nothing other than sharing information with others (a bunch of zeros and ones) that you would much rather like to sell than share, the other is the unlawful appropriation of physical objects that have a tangible value. Equating information and matter like that makes no sense in any way whatsoever, not least of all in regard to physics. Or economically speaking, information is a non-rival good, matter is a rival one. This also speaks to the inane concept of “intellectual property” which is equally retarded. You cannot “own” information, you can only have it or not have it.

Again, it’s nevertheless immoral but on a completely different level from the examples you mentioned. ›››

If you are replying to me, what? What does the First Amendment have to do with ANYTHING being discussed here? Please, please explain.

There is so much wrong in that little snippet of yours...

It is so simple: it doesn't matter what you call it, what you take, being taking a bag of Cheetos from gas station, a shirt from Macy's, someone else's car, or downloading a torrent of Black Ops, you still are illegally obtaining something. That you think that one is not as bad as the other, I don't care, it is still you taking something illegally.

A video game is not "information". Adobe Illustrator is not "information". Madonna's Immaculate Collection is not "information". They are PRODUCTS for which the creator is entitled to compensation for their use. Companies spend very physical, non-trivial cash creating those products, which they put up for sale on a market. It is their right to get compensated for those products.

"Oh, gee". I don't hurt anyone. It's not the same", yeah, whatever makes you sleep at night. You are still in the wrong.

A 9-month pregnant woman and a 1-month pregnant woman look very different. Yet, they are both pregnant.

[SystemShock7]

Aver said:

.
Also low stock prices, doesn't increase chance of being bought by EA/Activision/Whatever. Over 50% of stocks are owned by CDPR founders*, so they would have to agree for this. And if founders wouldn't own over 50% of stocks then it wouldn't be a problem for EA/Activision to buy it out even if stock prices would be 2 or 3 times bigger than now. It's pocket money for them />.

*Not all of them are original founders. Some of them joined later, but they are in company for more than 10 years and some of them are related to original founders. ›››

Actually, low stock prices do increase the chance of either a hostile take-over or a merger/buyout, nor do high stock prices guarantee a company wouldn't be bought, depending of course on the financial forecast of any given company. Unfortunately, I have experienced both, and both times I was on the bought side.

[Aver]

SystemShock7 said:

Actually, low stock prices do increase the chance of either a hostile take-over or a merger/buyout, nor do high stock prices guarantee a company wouldn't be bought, depending of course on the financial forecast of any given company. Unfortunately, I have experienced both, and both times I was on the bought side. ›››

You are partially right, but I didn't say that stock prices do not increase chance for take-over - I was talking only about CDPR. In case of CDPR it's different as over 50% of stocks are owned by original founders. So in that case they would have to agree to sell company - so there is no way for hostile take-over that is against their will.

[SystemShock7]

Aver said:

You are partially right, but I didn't say that stock prices do not increase chance for take-over - I was talking only about CDPR. In case of CDPR it's different as over 50% of stocks are owned by original founders. So in that case they would have to agree to sell company - so there is no way for hostile take-over that is against their will. ›››

I understood that, but the owners of CDPR am sure are investors, and there is such a thing as "an offer one can refuse". I guess we are saying about the same thing, just using different words

[Demut]

Costin Moroianu said:

An example would be Harry Potter, which many people tried to rip off. Copyright is designed to prevent them ripping off J.K.Rs ideas.

That was its original intent, yes, but nowadays it has been perverted to a degree where it is almost unrecognizable. The only thing it does nowadays is to protect corporations, not authors! I mean they get to retain the rights of “their” content creators for 80 years after their death! Are you fucking kidding me?
Ironically it’s corporations like Disney who pushed for these laws although they were built on “plagiarizing”. Snow White? Pinocchio? Dumbo? Bambi? All these iconic movies of theirs are adaptions of books! You can count the number of original screenplays by Disney from back then on the fingers of your hand. Had today’s copyright legislature existed at the time of their founding then Disney would have never even made it that far.
So please, don’t you ever assert that our modern copyright laws are supposed to protect the artist because that is just bullshit. Through lobbying they’ve been altered to now do nothing but secure the monopoly of corporations by squashing competition. There’s a reason why people claim that these days innovation is stifled by copyright laws.

Costin Moroianu said:

And yes, stealing ideas is stealing

No, it isn’t. Why won’t you see this? The same reasons apply here. Ideas, too, are non-rival goods and thus “stealing” them doesn’t leave the original “owner” without his idea. Copying is still the preferable term here.

SystemShock7 said:

If you are replying to me, what? What does the First Amendment have to do with ANYTHING being discussed here? Please, please explain.

You wanting to assault that person from your little story for what they believe in is what lead me to conclude that.

Now I’d like you to explain what that weird tale of yours has to do with the discussion at hand.

SystemShock7 said:

[Y]ou still are illegally obtaining something. [...] It is their right to get compensated for those products.

I whole-heartedly agree. Where did I ever argue that this is not the case?

SystemShock7 said:

A video game is not "information". Adobe Illustrator is not "information". Madonna's Immaculate Collection is not "information".

Yes, they are. I suggest you look up this word in a dictionary, mate, because the source of the information is irrelevant to its definition.

SystemShock7 said:

"Oh, gee". I don't hurt anyone. It's not the same", yeah, whatever makes you sleep at night. You are still in the wrong.

Again, I never argued that it isn’t wrong and I certainly did not claim that it does not hurt anyone (although it does so far less than you mistakenly believe, methinks). So what’s up with these false accusations?

Sirnaq said:

If their stock are under-priced there is danger of aggressive acquisition from bigger companies like let's say EA am i right?

Wait, what? CDPR is a publicly traded company?

[Costin Moroianu]

They are publicly traded though the founders of CDPR have a 50% majority in stock.