AgreedIn the end it comes down to this: Cyberxion and Del_Boy are both right from their points of view. As to which viewpoint is "correct" is a discussion for another day.
Cookie Thief
AgreedIn the end it comes down to this: Cyberxion and Del_Boy are both right from their points of view. As to which viewpoint is "correct" is a discussion for another day.
Skullfucked the ecosystem
Actually, I was merely inciting discussion. It's not really about who's right and who's wrong.
The Guardian of Life
Yo guys, i don't know where i heard this, but doesn't Copyrigth EXPIRE after a certain period of time?
And another question: if a game is copyrigthted in the US, does it also apply for every other country, or is it just for the US? (like licensed anime)
...
Banned
This might sound stupid, but what is anime?
Skullfucked the ecosystem
I believe copyrites expire after something like 70 odd years, though I may be wrong. I know it's a pretty high number though, and considering gaming hasn't been around that long, every game out there would still be covered by a copyright.Originally posted by Kha'alim
Yo guys, i don't know where i heard this, but doesn't Copyrigth EXPIRE after a certain period of time?
And another question: if a game is copyrigthted in the US, does it also apply for every other country, or is it just for the US? (like licensed anime)
If someone has the exact number, feel free to correct me.
Turn ∀ Turn
Same here.. i just thought this is worth descussing, and as we have both pointed out no ones wrong.. it's just an opinion thing..Originally posted by Cyberxion
Actually, I was merely inciting discussion. It's not really about who's right and who's wrong.
and i like this descussion so if you care to contuinue...
and what Masion said is True.... and dont get me wrong i know both are equaly wrong in the eyes of the law..
Well by the idea Masion presented, Murder and Speeding are equaly Illegal, being as things can only be Legal or Illegal..and can not be more or less legal then any thing else. The only diffrence between the two are their consequences... So to decide if one illegal thing is better then another illegal thing the basis should not come from the law but from the consequences of the action.
Ergo NES emulation ought to be valued above PS2 "Emulation" due to the non legal consequences.
And Anime is Japanise Cartoons.. check out Anime Paradise for more info.
Last edited by GundamGuy; 16th-September-2003 at 22:25.
Skullfucked the ecosystem
See, indeed both actions (speeding and murder) are illegal, and the consequences are different, but such is not the case with piracy. There is no destinction between downloading a game from twenty years ago, and a game from twenty days ago as far as the law is concerned. You'll get in just as much trouble if you had a disk with NES roms on it as you would if you had a burned PS2 game. Thus, there isn't any rational way to justify piracy of old systems over current ones. The fact is that you are engaging in copyright infringment, and as such really have no moral leg to stand on.Originally posted by GundamGuy
Same here.. i just thought this is worth descussing, and as we have both pointed out no ones wrong.. it's just an opinion thing..
and i like this descussion so if you care to contuinue...
and what Masion said is True.... and dont get me wrong i know both are equaly wrong in the eyes of the law..
Well by the idea Masion presented, Murder and Speeding are equaly Illegal, being as things can only be Legal or Illegal..and can not be more or less legal then any thing else. The only diffrence between the two are their consequences... So to decide if one illegal thing is better then another illegal thing the basis should not come from the law but from the consequences of the action.
Ergo NES emulation ought to be valued above PS2 "Emulation" due to the non legal consequences.
And Anime is Japanise Cartoons.. check out Anime Paradise for more info.
But really, it just comes down to your own personal feelings on the matter. For reasons that are his own, Del_Boy would've chose to be opposed to XBox and PS2 emulation. While there really is no destinction between what he does and what XBox/PS2 pirates are doing in the eyes of the law, Del_Boy may have felt it's morally wrong to download games that are still on the market. However, and this is my point, the law doesn't care that Del_Boy thinks it's ok to download NES roms, and yet is against XBox/PS2 piracy. He'd be in just as much trouble as those Xbox/PS2 pirates as far as they are concerned. So my question is, why should one be morally opposed to one form of piracy when what he is engaging in is just as illegal in the eyes of the law? It seems kinda silly. That said, I totally understand and respect Del_Boys position.
Last edited by Cyberxion; 16th-September-2003 at 23:49.
Bounce Bounce Bounce
I pirate everything imaginable, makes no difference to me!
FREE KEVIN!!!!!!!!!!!
Turn ∀ Turn
I think you missed the NON Legal consequences part....
meaning consequences that are not inacted by a Court of Law..
Like the company lossing money.. and possibly going Bankrupt..
as posted above he cares about the far reaching consequences of his action, not just the punsment he would recive. Ergo the far reaching consequences should be used to determan the beter of two bad options and not just the punishment you would recive... Thus PS2 rips are worse then Nes rips. But again that is Consequentialism...why should one be morally opposed to one form of piracy when what he is engaging in is just as illegal in the eyes of the law?
However what your saying is 100% true from a Deontological standpoint.
and i totaly see where your comming form.. i just think is cool to show that there are other ways of looking at things.
Rank of Master achieved
Copyrights expire after 75 years.
That means anything that was copywrited before 1928 is now public domain. At least in the US. There have been ideas passing around that they may change it to 50 years though, but that is pretty farfetched.
Master of Tech
50 is international copyright. Thus is may be still copyrighted inside the US however outside the the US it's not. And theres nothing to stop it being then re-imported in.
Skullfucked the ecosystem
Wow. Just...wow. I already stated that I fully understand his moral standpoint on the issue. Hell, I even acknowledged in one of my previous posts that XBox/PS2 piracty takes money from hard working developers. How did you miss that? However, I'm trying to illustrate that morals shouldn't come into play in situations in which a person is engaging in illegal activities similar to those he opposes.Originally posted by GundamGuy
I think you missed the NON Legal consequences part....
meaning consequences that are not inacted by a Court of Law..
Like the company lossing money.. and possibly going Bankrupt..
as posted above he cares about the far reaching consequences of his action, not just the punsment he would recive. Ergo the far reaching consequences should be used to determan the beter of two bad options and not just the punishment you would recive... Thus PS2 rips are worse then Nes rips. But again that is Consequentialism...
However what your saying is 100% true from a Deontological standpoint.
and i totaly see where your comming form.. i just think is cool to show that there are other ways of looking at things.
Look, if a person chooses to engage in illegal activities of any kind, that person shouldn't have the right to justify his actions over those of anyone else, regardless of what the consequences of those actions may be. Illegal is illegal, and once a person has stepped over that line, he's lost the right to find those engaging in similar activities as being in the wrong. Sure, the actions of someone downloading NES roms may not exactly put anyone into the poor house, but that person is engaging in activities just as illegal as the guy playing burnt PS2 games in his parents basement. It would be slightly hypocritical of that person to attempt to justify his actions, regardless of how much more harmful that basement dwellers actions may be. Do you see what I'm getting at?
I'll reiterate that I fully understand and respect Del_Boy's stance. I understand the moral implications of downloading games from current systems, and the consequences thereof. I am in no way intending to question Del_Boy's right to feel the way he does, regardless of past references to him and his stance. I'm merely using him as a springboard for this debate.
Anyway GG, I agree that it's cool to look at things differently. However, you've seemed to have overlooked where I acknowledged the differing viewpoints, even while I was trying to establish my point of view.
↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A START
When it comes to art in any form (even pictures on the net and stuff), I think the copyright expires 70 years after the creators death. Dunno if the same applies to games.Originally posted by Cyberxion
I believe copyrites expire after something like 70 odd years, though I may be wrong. I know it's a pretty high number though, and considering gaming hasn't been around that long, every game out there would still be covered by a copyright.
If someone has the exact number, feel free to correct me.
Turn ∀ Turn
No i saw that..Originally posted by Cyberxion
Anyway GG, I agree that it's cool to look at things differently. However, you've seemed to have overlooked where I acknowledged the differing viewpoints, even while I was trying to establish my point of view.but i still wanted to show that there is no way to show that one illegal action is better then another illegal action through just the criteria of Legality... because thats a dead argument..
Well in general terms yes. In the terms of Emulation and copyright infrigment maby, but it's much harder to prove.Should a person be aloud to make a moral destinction between his illegal activities and those of others, regardless of the differing consequences those actions may bring about?
Generaly that depends upon the cercemstances, an example would be Killing Sadam in cold blood.
It would still be murder, however he could justify it through Utility(greatest good for the greatest number). Sure Sadam is dead but think of all the people's lives he saved by killing Sadam.
So in that way he can hold him self moraly higher then a common killer.
Last edited by GundamGuy; 17th-September-2003 at 20:06.
Skullfucked the ecosystem
Hmnn. My problem with your argument is that it asks us to ingore the law in favor of morals and consequences, when it's the law that is the determining factor in all of this.
Both forms of piracy come with equal consequences in the eyes of the law, but you've consistantly ignored that. Hmmn.
Your stance is that a person who engages in piracy of older systems is somehow morally above those who pirate newer systems, even though his actions are just as illegal.
Seeing as you've failed to address my point as to wether or not one who engages in illegal activities should even be allowed to differentiate between his actions and that of others, I would say that it's your argument that is dead.
Why should a person who pirates NES games be able to hold thier form of illegal piracy superiour to that of those who choose to pirate PS2 games? ONCE MORE, they are both engaging in illegal activities. Shouldn't a videogame pirate loose his right to judge once he's decided to engage in similar illegal activities? It's highly hypocritical for a criminal to shun the actions of another criminal who's engaging in similar activities, regardless of the ecomonic reprecussions. Illegal is illegal, and if you are going to break the law, then you really have no right putting down someone who's pretty much doing what you are doing....
This is yet another extreme example that hardly lends itself to the conversation at hand. Pirating games and murdering a dictator are hardly comparable. Sure, millions of people may be greateful to be rid of the bastard, but piracy is still illegal in all it's forms.Originally posted by GundamGuy
Generaly that depends upon the cercemstances, an example would be Killing Sadam in cold blood.
It would still be murder, however he could justify it through Utility(greatest good for the greatest number). Sure Sadam is dead but think of all the people's lives he saved by killing Sadam.
So in that way he can hold him self moraly higher then a common killer.
Last edited by Cyberxion; 17th-September-2003 at 21:20.
Posting Permissions
knowitman|
