If you have something to accuse me of (without evidence), accuse me. Don't be spineless now.
"i'd bet" is speculative.
But I got you where I wanted you, defensive

EDIT:
Piracy also is a form of marketing.

OK, I'm done.
If you have something to accuse me of (without evidence), accuse me. Don't be spineless now.
Piracy also is a form of marketing.
I'm pretty sure if you call them about one localized incident of internet piracy, the front desk will tell you the entire FBI is in the shower and will call you back later.
"i'd bet" is speculative.
But I got you where I wanted you, defensive![]()
Whoa there, apples and oranges.
Are you serious ?
Accessing a world known public website to listen to a song is not the same as acquiring a pirated copy, installing it and playing it to completion.
Record companies themselves put the songs up, youtube ad money goes to VEVO and in turn to the record company.
![]()
OK, I'm done.
This one, please. Minus the grenade.Get a SWAT uniform and bust up into his house at 3AM, trash the computer, and flee. It would help if you could also get a flash grenade.
Hahaha.
OK, you're a very thick one. Attacking the avatar. It seemed that way.
A logo is not something that is sold to generate revenue.
Putting that logo in my avatar is actually a form of marketing that spreads awareness about a product, resulting in a potentially non-significant increase in sales.
Given you're a fervent defender of the thing, I'd bet hard cash that a quick search on your hard-drive would give hilarious results.
Let him borrow your games if you're on a console or send him any spare Steam keys if you're on PC or give him a DRM-free copy from GOG or Humblestore. You are entitled to share games you own, this isnt piracy by any means.
It's not all that hard to find music videos put up on youtube without permission of VEVO or whoever. Just add "Lyrics" to whatever song you're searching for and you'll find plenty. The reason people put these videos up in the first place is because many youtube-to-mp3 conversions sites have their requests blocked by youtube if they try to access a VEVO video file, so people mirror them under the guise of being lyrics so people can rip the audio out of the video onto their phones or whatever.
You're sort of avoiding the argument.
Er, this was the takeaway from many of Valve's discussions at Steam Dev Days. There is a ton of evidence to support this theory.
Are you being sarcastic or serious?No he does not...
Maybe it is annoying that he is bragging about it, which he shouldn't because it can get him into trouble, but that is still not enough of a reason for him to tell him something. Perhaps explain that he needs to keep his mouth shut but other than that he has no right to explain anything to him.
Yes, it is.
Someone designed that logo and someone else paid for it and owns the rights to it. I can't for eg, open a shop and use that logo as my logo because I don't have the rights to use it, and neither do you.
There isn't some middle fudge which says "hey, you can break this law but not that law".
That's an easy one.
Still user choice.
VEVO provides annotations for the lyrics, the user can choose to watch it on the artist' VEVO or not.
That's why VEVO exists in the first place.
Keyword here is "theory".
However you guys try to bend it, piracy is bad. It's not difficult to get that.
You wouldn't download a car ...
Agreed, that sounds like a good approach."You pirated that? Why? It's from an 8 man team that needs anything they can get, and it only costs like 15 bucks anyway." Something like that.
What's with all the silly false equivalences in this thread? Jesus.Did Mikami or Bethesda give you their permission to use The Evil Within logo in your avatar? I think you better pay for that.
"Lose a friend", what? If his friend is that butthurt about being mildly criticized over this, he's probably such a douche that he's not a friend worth keeping.Why lose a friend over how they consume media?
that's not addressing what I said. Your claim was to the tune that listening to music on youtube isn't piracy, because VEVO exists. Clearly, youtube still has pirated material on board. Unless you were meant to imply that your family or whatever has only ever watched content from VEVO, which I find pretty dubious.
Yes, it is.
Someone designed that logo and someone else paid for it and owns the rights to it. I can't for eg, open a shop and use that logo as my logo because I don't have the rights to use it, and neither do you.
There isn't some middle fudge which says "hey, you can break this law but not that law".
So I broached the topic and he said he doesn't feel bad because of all the shit developers pull with DLC. I laughed and basically told him I didn't agree with what he was doing, especially with pirating indie games, and that shitty DLC doesn't justify it. He said there wasn't a difference in big/indie developers, so I brought up the indie movie we recently watched, and he then laughed and said that he usually will buy the game when it's cheap on steam to support the indie developer, but they were currently asking too much for it. He said this particular developer was going to hit it big anyway so it wasn't a big deal.
We then moved onto something else.
We then moved onto something else.
Haha, he sounds like an asshole to be honest. He knows what he's doing is wrong and that his justification is asinine, but instead of admitting "yeah, I just don't want to pay for it", he's still making up excuses. Kinda sad really.After reading the majority of your guys' posts, I broached the topic and he said he doesn't feel bad because of all the shit developers pull with DLC. I laughed and basically told him I didn't agree with what he was doing, especially with pirating indie games, and that shitty DLC doesn't justify it. He said there wasn't a difference in big/indie developers, so I brought up the indie movie we recently watched, and he then laughed and said that he usually will buy the game when it's cheap on steam to support the indie developer, but they were currently asking too much for it. He said this particular developer was going to hit it big anyway so it wasn't a big deal.
We then moved onto something else.
Yeah, and? What's your point exactly? OP never said he was trying to change the world, FFS.As if it would go any other way. And the world will keep spinning because your friend being a video game pirate doesn't affect anything actually important.
So I broached the topic and he said he doesn't feel bad because of all the shit developers pull with DLC. I laughed and basically told him I didn't agree with what he was doing, especially with pirating indie games, and that shitty DLC doesn't justify it. He said there wasn't a difference in big/indie developers, so I brought up the indie movie we recently watched, and he then laughed and said that he usually will buy the game when it's cheap on steam to support the indie developer, but they were currently asking too much for it. He said this particular developer was going to hit it big anyway so it wasn't a big deal.
We then moved onto something else.
After reading the majority of your guys' posts, I broached the topic and he said he doesn't feel bad because of all the shit developers pull with DLC. I laughed and basically told him I didn't agree with what he was doing, especially with pirating indie games, and that shitty DLC doesn't justify it. He said there wasn't a difference in big/indie developers, so I brought up the indie movie we recently watched, and he then laughed and said that he usually will buy the game when it's cheap on steam to support the indie developer, but they were currently asking too much for it. He said this particular developer was going to hit it big anyway so it wasn't a big deal.
We then moved onto something else.
Yeah, and? What's your point exactly? OP never said he was trying to change the world, FFS.
that's not addressing what I said. Your claim was to the tune that listening to music on youtube isn't piracy, because VEVO exists. Clearly, youtube still has pirated material on board. Unless you were meant to imply that your family or whatever has only ever watched content from VEVO, which I find pretty dubious.
Do you know what the word "theory" means?
Still user choice, however you try to wrestle with it.
youtube-to-mp3 is explicit user choice.
The valve talk slides were one use-case, yet you see it as a general unconditional truth.
I should be asking you that question.
Good lord where do you guys get these examples from ?
Using a logo in an avatar !=opening a shop with it to *generate revenue*.
The correct term is fair-use.
Just like fan website can use official art.
I'm not making money with that logo, get it ?
Still user choice, however you try to wrestle with it.
youtube-to-mp3 is explicit user choice.
The valve talk slides were one use-case, yet you see it as a general unconditional truth.
I should be asking you that question.
![]()
OK, I'm done.
No. You using that logo is not fair use. Fair use requires you to link to the author and mention whoever has copyright.
No. You using that logo is not fair use. Fair use requires you to link to the author and mention whoever has copyright.
A good friend of mine just started illegally downloading torrented games on his PC. It's really not any of my business so I just changed the subject when it came up, but lately he has started to brag about it. And to make things even worse, he has moved past AAA titles and into indie game territory. Today he mentioned how awesome a high profile indie title was and that he torrented it. At that point I realized that I had to say something because it would be morally wrong not to. This is a eight person team that I'm sure they could use as much money as possible.
But I don't know how to approach it. I think if I brought it to his attention in how this was wrong and I disapproved, he might consider stopping. But I don't know how to approach the subject without sounding like an ass and damaging our friendship. Have any of you dealt with this before?
Edit: to my knowledge he only started doing this a week ago.
How old is your friend?
In my experience most who "heavily" pirate are young and can't afford games and/or go on a binge when they discover it and at some point simply stop because they don't play anything they download.
If he plays a lot he'll get a steam account sooner or later anyway and if he doesn't play a lot - he wouldn't have bought those games anyway.
Implied license wouldn't require him to do that.
http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1470&context=chtlj
No. You using that logo is not fair use. Fair use requires you to link to the author and mention whoever has copyright.
Its very obvious you have no idea what you're talking about. You think valve are the only developers who have realized this? Its far from being a one sided discussion.
Oddly enough, the OP's post kinda supports this. His friend bragging about an indie game he pirated and how great it is actually functions as marketing, where otherwise the friend might not have even bought it. Not saying it's OK to pirate from a 8 person studio, it's morally wrong, but it does make more people aware of the game than there would be otherwise.
I see you looked it up, good boy.
but it still makes your comparison irrelevant.
I'm not damaging the product.
But OK I should hold on to my butt because there's a lawsuit incoming, I get your point.
The last post answers the lesser one.
Piracy spreads awareness about a product OK.
But accepting is as a general truth that is always helps the product in a positive way (sales, quality, whatever ...) is ridiculous.
My point is, it's NOT OK to pirate whatever satellite benefit there is.
so baphomet, if you ever work on a game, I'd really like you to share your feelings when someone you know pirates it because "it's OK as marketing".
If he's really your friend, you can tell him he's being an ass and you won't stop being friends just because you dropped a truth bomb on him.
Err, thanks for posting a 52 page PDF, but would you care to point out the section I'm to read?
3. Field v. Google
The recent district court opinion Field v. Google, -Inc.18 7 is a
harbinger of the adoption of the implied license doctrine as a means
of infusing reasonableness into copyright law, and in particular as a
means of establishing the opt-out mechanism as a workable concept
within the framework of copyright law. The court held that Field had
granted Google an implied license to copy and distribute Field's
copyrighted works by caching them. 88 Field had created a website
publishing his copyrighted works, and he did not include on his site
any notice instructing Google not to cache his web pages.' 89 Field
sued Google for copyright infringement, and when Google learned
about Field's complaint, it promptly removed the cached links to all
the site's pages.190 It is clear from the facts that Field's complaint was
intended to test the opt-out mechanism.
Xpliskin, I think you're being trolled. No one genuinely believes that using a logo as avatar is equivalent to pirating a game, I'm sure.