AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Growing internet censorship in Western nations

88 22634
Avorne
offline
Avorne
3,085 posts
Nomad

I was inspired to make this thread with the recent (read: announced about an hour ago) British High Court decision to force ISPs to block The Pirate Bay in the UK.

But, the thing is, that's not the only example that has come to the fore in recent years and months. There's been SOPA, ACTA, CISPA and a variety of other pieces of legislation in different countries that seem to reflect a worrying trend - that being the control, filtering and censorship of the internet by the West. Now, as a collective, we've always been against the so-called 'Great Firewall of China' and the other forms of censoring that Eastern nations have used... yet now we seem to be employing them ourselves.

What are your views on such attempts to control the internet?
Are they overt assassinations of citizens freedom or merely a tool to help save and protect the industries which are being brutally stolen from by pirates?

  • 88 Replies
AnaLoGMunKy
offline
AnaLoGMunKy
1,573 posts
Blacksmith

Appealing to Freedom of speech and freedom of expression as a justification for uploading something like music to a file sharing site is somewhat erroneous logic...


While this is true, the real situation is, The Pirate Bay was blocked and THAT infringes on my rights.

[quote]downloading copyrighted, for- profit material always generates lost revenue for the company.


It is physically impossible to prove that the people who pirate anything would have paid money for it.
[/quote]

It really IS impossible to prove and in fact becomes easier to prove that the opposite is true. I download things. I try them. If I like, I buy them.

I could spit out a list of games as long as my arm that I tried and bought and an even longer list of games that I thought were guff and not worth my money. This is not inividual to me. All my friends do the same. I have games they didnt buy and vice versa, its called trying the product out to see what its REALLY like, not judge it by a tailored advert that most of the time shows NOTHING of the gameplay.
Also, I met a parent today who downloaded the new avengers movie for the kids to watch. This very same night they are seeing it in the cinema. They went to the cinema regardless of the download. I bought my games BECAUSE of the download. I guarantee I would not have bought it otherwise.
Avorne
offline
Avorne
3,085 posts
Nomad

I get your point, Sonata, but censorship is censorship is censorship - unless it's proven that something is harmful to the public then it shouldn't be taken away from them. At least not without a democratic vote of some kind.

Anyway, while I'm here, I thought I'd post these two articles for everyone to check out:

The first is about a study by the Swiss into piracy and casual downloaders.
And the second is a report commissioned by the Dutch government that suggests the economy actually profits from file sharing.

AnaLoGMunKy
offline
AnaLoGMunKy
1,573 posts
Blacksmith

Thanks for the links Avorne, I have to admit, Im surprised at the swedish governments decision. I believe its the right one because at the bottom of it all, it doesnt censor my right to choose.

Somewhat49
offline
Somewhat49
1,606 posts
Nomad

Well one use i have found for pirate bay is getting really old games like SeriousSam and Diablo 2 when the games are no longer inproduction and the only copies out there are about $100, here the government is not being hurt, and the companies are no longer holding that game in their posession.

314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

It is physically impossible to prove that the people who pirate anything would have paid money for it.


No, but it IS possible to prove if the companies are losing money on it. We just have to find what they where making and see the correlation between piracy and their money.

But of course that would only imply correlation, it still could be a dozen other things, for example if there was a correlation then it could easily be that piracy rises when the economy is poor or something, and entertainment makes less when said economy is poor. It would be nice if you had some evidence to back you up, however.

It really IS impossible to prove and in fact becomes easier to prove that the opposite is true. I download things. I try them. If I like, I buy them.


It is good to know what you do. And what about everyone else? It is hardly a legal argument to say "Well I do this, so everyone must". And what about all the things that you try and don't like? You just walk away, laughing? Last I checked you still had to pay for something if you didn't like it.

I could spit out a list of games as long as my arm that I tried and bought and an even longer list of games that I thought were guff and not worth my money. This is not inividual to me.


Great. So by this logic, it is OK to sneak into a movie theater, steal popcorn, and then come in and watch it again if you liked the movie. It really doesn't work like that. You don't go into a restaurant, steal a steak, and then only pay if you like it. If you do, your probably a horrible person. In what other situation does this logic work?

I have games they didnt buy and vice versa, its called trying the product out to see what its REALLY like, not judge it by a tailored advert that most of the time shows NOTHING of the gameplay.


So I can go over to Olive Garden, break into the kitchen and steal food, and then come back if I like it? It doesn't matter if you don't like it. That is completely irrelevant.

Does it harm someone else? If it doesn't, then it is of course OK. If it does, than that means it isn't OK in any situation. Not "Oh. It is OK. I am entitled to only pay for things that I like!"

Also, I met a parent today who downloaded the new avengers movie for the kids to watch. This very same night they are seeing it in the cinema. They went to the cinema regardless of the download. I bought my games BECAUSE of the download. I guarantee I would not have bought it otherwise.


Your starting to sound like a Christian. "Here, I had a personal experience with piracy. And everyone else has the same experience. There is no one who just pirates things. They are not true Scotsmen."

It would seem that many of you are not arguing that "Censorship is bad" and instead are arguing "Piracy is OK!".
AnaLoGMunKy
offline
AnaLoGMunKy
1,573 posts
Blacksmith

Last I checked you still had to pay for something if you didn't like it.


The human race wouldnt have gotten very far on trade if that were true, you should check again my friend.

Your corrolating steak with software and mixing entertainment with life and death and this is not what we are even talking about.

So by this logic, it is OK to sneak into a movie theater, steal popcorn, and then come in and watch it again if you liked the movie.


Your plain wrong on your logic there dude. They didnt actually lose anything when I ripped the game. If I buy it, they win. If I dont, they make crap games in my opinion and I wouldnt have bought the game anyway.

I feel like your playing devils advocate by using logic as a tool to rip apart sentence structure.


Are the corporations richer than ever? Yes.
Thats my logic.

The Corporations say they are losing out.
Then you see they are richer than ever and...
I wonder why you even question the kipper slapping you over the head... again and again and again.

Does logic not TELL you that something is amiss in what they are saying. This crud is coming from a bunch of people who have repeatedly shown they are greedy and dont care if they can get away with it.

It would seem that many of you are not arguing that "Censorship is bad" and instead are arguing "Piracy is OK!".


Since when did censorship ever work? And what will they censor next?
Remember, this is the same group of people who I just told you are greedy and dont care. They are easy to find, just look at what politicians sit on what boards of companies (here's some advice, start high in the chain of command, it will get you straight to the good stuff).

Since when was it a good idea to let corporations effectively start controlling what you see?
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

The human race wouldnt have gotten very far on trade if that were true, you should check again my friend.

Your corrolating steak with software and mixing entertainment with life and death and this is not what we are even talking about.


If you buy something, which you would have to do, you still have to buy it. You can ask for a refund, depending on what the item is, you can't just take it and pay for it if you feel like it.

And when is it life and death? I don't recall luxury foods being a life and death situation. Eating at a fancy restaurant is hardly life and death.

Your plain wrong on your logic there dude. They didnt actually lose anything when I ripped the game. If I buy it, they win. If I dont, they make crap games in my opinion and I wouldnt have bought the game anyway.


But if you break into a movie theater, they have not actually lost anything, did they? They just played the movie for free. Without them knowing it.

If they wanted to give you a trial, they would have. You can't just take one yourself. Or is paying optional now?

Are the corporations richer than ever? Yes.
Thats my logic.


Is Walmart rich? Yes. Therefore, I can take a flat screen, an Xbox, a chair, and shoes. If I like it, I will pay for it. If I don,t I won't. No one gets harmed since they are rich, right?

The Corporations say they are losing out.
Then you see they are richer than ever and...
I wonder why you even question the kipper slapping you over the head... again and again and again



So logically, it is OK to rob Bill Gates since he is rich? Of course rich people are OK to rob. Since if they where poor, it would be horrible to rob them?

Could I see where it says they are making more money than ever, or how that is relevant? I said earlier that it would be hardly be relevant if they where losing money, the same is true if they are gaining money. Does it matter if they are making money? That in no way suggests that piracy is not harmful, the same way a lowering would not suggest that it is harmful.

Does logic not TELL you that something is amiss in what they are saying. This crud is coming from a bunch of people who have repeatedly shown they are greedy and dont care if they can get away with it.


Since it is OK to rob greedy people? Amiss with what they are saying? You are saying that piracy doesn't lose them money. So why would they take all this time and money to stop you from pirating? If they are greedy, then they would not waste money on something that they know wouldn't get them any money.

I am confused. First you say they are not losing any money, then you turn around and call them rich and greedy who are just trying to make money. So are they losing money or not?

Since when did censorship ever work? And what will they censor next?


Soviet Russia? China? They are pretty effective with their censoring, Stalin managed to almost completely erase some people.

What will the censor next? First the censor illegal things, what next?

Remember, this is the same group of people who I just told you are greedy and dont care


If they are greedy and don't care, then they shouldn't care about your harmless actions. Right? But if you are losing them money, then it is morally wrong anyway, and if you are not, then they don't care. So why do they care if you are not losing them money?

Since when was it a good idea to let corporations effectively start controlling what you see?


They are not trying to control what you see, per say. They are trying to control what they made and get money from something that they put money into making. If someone makes something that you want to buy, then it makes since that they should be able to get money from all the work that they put into it. I know personally that if I go around doing my job and don't get payed for it, I would be pretty annoyed. Wouldn't you?
Moe
offline
Moe
1,714 posts
Blacksmith

It would be nice if you had some evidence to back you up, however.


I do, its called reality. There is no way to prove that someone who pirated something would have bought it if piracy wasn't an option. The closest you can get is AnaLoGMunKy's situation, where he basically pirated the games as a demo. That by the way is the key to reducing piracy in games, it won't totally stop it but it would reduce it.

Also everything you said about stealing food is irrelevant to piracy. By stealing food you are removing an actual product that could be sold, thats a significantly more direct loss of profit for the company. Piracy on the other is taking a digital copy and cannot be shown to be a loss of profit. And no matter what you say, AnaLoGMunKy is right in that many people pirate then buy if they like it. Its obvious to anyone who knows a large number of people who pirate games.

Is Walmart rich? Yes. Therefore, I can take a flat screen, an Xbox, a chair, and shoes. If I like it, I will pay for it. If I don,t I won't. No one gets harmed since they are rich, right?


Has nothing to do with his point, and once again you are actually taking profit from a company. The point was game companies complain that piracy is costing them money, while their profits are continually rising.

They are not trying to control what you see, per say. They are trying to control what they made and get money from something that they put money into making. If someone makes something that you want to buy, then it makes since that they should be able to get money from all the work that they put into it.


Then for games they should take an hour and make a demo so people can try the game before spending $60 on something they may or may not enjoy.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

I do, its called reality. There is no way to prove that someone who pirated something would have bought it if piracy wasn't an option. The closest you can get is AnaLoGMunKy's situation, where he basically pirated the games as a demo. That by the way is the key to reducing piracy in games, it won't totally stop it but it would reduce it.


So what evidence do you have? You just said you had some. But you didn't show any. So you are saying that all games should give demos, as well as all movies and everything else.....So that people don't pirate them as demos? If people are already paying for the ones that they like, then it wouldn't do anything.

Also everything you said about stealing food is irrelevant to piracy. By stealing food you are removing an actual product that could be sold, thats a significantly more direct loss of profit for the company.


So breaking in to see a movie theater or show then. Is that more accurate?

Piracy on the other is taking a digital copy and cannot be shown to be a loss of profit.


And why not?

You know how the market works, correct? How all the prices are controlled? Now lets say you set up a little burger stand. With no competition, you could charge whatever you want for a burger. But if course you have plenty of competition, so you keep your food reasonably priced and make a profit. Now lets say that the food is infinite and costs nothing, it is only the preparation that costs things. If the stall across from you starts stealing burgers (Which you only put money into producing) and giving them away from free, how would that effect your burger stand?

And no matter what you say, AnaLoGMunKy is right in that many people pirate then buy if they like it.


And how do you know that? I assume that you went around and did a servery? "Hello. I would like to ask you about your illegal actions."

It isn't like people who don't pay for anything are going to go out and say it. "Oh look at me, I steal cable! And watch magavedio for everything! And play bootlegged games". The only people who are going to admit it are the people who, for some insane reason, think that is morally OK to steal things if you maybe pay for it afterwords.

Has nothing to do with his point, and once again you are actually taking profit from a company. The point was game companies complain that piracy is costing them money, while their profits are continually rising.


Link? Last I checked everyone's prophet was slowly rising, after it just fell a lot. Like I said, even if it was a correct thing, it doesn't matter weather they are rising in profit or falling in profit. It only maters if they are losing money to piracy or not. Are they losing money to piracy?

Then for games they should take an hour and make a demo so people can try the game before spending $60 on something they may or may not enjoy.


Blaming the victim? "IT IS YOUR FAULT RICH GAME COMPANY! YOU SHOULD SATISFY MY EVERY WHEN OR YOU DON"T DESERVE MY HARD EARNED MONEY! IT IS NOT LIKE YOU SPENT THOUSANDS DEVELOPING THE GAMES AND HIRING PEOPLE!". Why should you get a free demo? It is not like you can just go to an ice cream store and take free samples randomly, they have to offer, or is is stealing.
Sonatavarius
offline
Sonatavarius
1,322 posts
Farmer

You're entitled to your own opinion, Avorne. I respect you for voicing it, but I humbly disagree.

Lets say that there is a website that showcases nothing but material that would make the jaw of pedobear himself drop, and the powers that be shut down the website. Even though the site was composed of nothing but illicit material, I'm sure everyone would be pissed because their right to choose to go to that site was robbed from them.

Are you of the frame of mind that censorship in whatever light is wrong? Are you telling me that there is no conceivable scenario in which censorship could be / would be justified? I tend to have a problem with absolutionist reasoning like that with most things. You would then counter with the child pr0n argument and my probable opinion of being absolutely against it. I can't think of a scenario in which it would be justified, but maybe you could. If there's ever a time when that sort of material is justified, then that particular case would warrant a defense... but that doesn't mean you defend that behavior all the time. Each scenario that arises should be assessed separately

Just because censorship is censorship is censorship is censorship doesn't mean that at one moment it's an atrocity when the next moment it's called for. I've only ever witnessed that sort of absolutionist argument from religious people... Are you sure that you're not a closet Christian, Avorne? ...or maybe you've just been talking to too many of them for too long

a dog is a dog is a dog, but one dog still is not the same thing as another dog(even when they're the same breed!)


Oh and Xzeno... I tend to think of the internet as just another part of the household like the living room, the foyer, and the kitchen. I don't tell women to get back in the Kitchen, so I won't be saying I'm on the Internet. I'll continue using the lower case version. K. Thanks. ;]

(not trying to actually be sexist...you just have to know Xzeno)

Avorne
offline
Avorne
3,085 posts
Nomad

HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE ME OF BEING A CHRISTIAN! MAY GOD STRIKE YOU DOWN! :P

N'aw, but anyways, the example you gave was of something that was directly harmful to individuals - or at least showcased material that was. As I said, it's fine to censor these sorts of things, things that are harmful to individuals in that they could lead to physical or mental harm of a person or group of persons. I do not, however, find it reasonable to censor material that does not cause such harm to people - at least not without consent on the part of the populace. Internet Piracy, casual illegal downloading and the like are not harmful to people and moreover have been shown in several studies to actually benefit the economy in the long-run or force change in a what some consider a very stale industry. I don't believe that out-and-out pirating of every piece of media one can get their hands on is reasonable but I'm aware that the vast majority of people will not take this approach - rather, they 'try before they buy' or 'not buy', as the case may be. It allows the product to reach a wider audience and then, amongst that audience, there are bound to be potential customers who would NEVER have even thought about buying the product (because they were unaware or uninterested in it) that then choose to go out and legally purchase whatever it is.

Moe
offline
Moe
1,714 posts
Blacksmith

Link? Last I checked everyone's prophet was slowly rising, after it just fell a lot. Like I said, even if it was a correct thing, it doesn't matter weather they are rising in profit or falling in profit. It only maters if they are losing money to piracy or not. Are they losing money to piracy?


Clearly a 55 billion dollar increase in value during a recession shows they are not losing money to piracy.

Why should you get a free demo? It is not like you can just go to an ice cream store and take free samples randomly, they have to offer, or is is stealing.


Many places actually do offer free samples, or the chance to try their product before buying. The entire furniture industry does it, pretty much all electronics can be tried in stores before you buy, you can see paint colors, your child can often play with toys in a store before you buy it, grocery stores often have people giving away food samples. A free sample or demo is extremely important to those who want to sell something, and should be extremely important to the entertainment industry. If you are selling a product and no one knows what it is why would they buy it? Game companies providing a demo stops everyone who pirates to test the game before buying, that is obviously a better solution that pissing off your entire customer base.
AnaLoGMunKy
offline
AnaLoGMunKy
1,573 posts
Blacksmith

Is Walmart rich? Yes. Therefore, I can take a flat screen, an Xbox, a chair, and shoes. If I like it, I will pay for it.


Yoknow, I cannot be bothered reading past this because I see where your flawed logic is taking this thread on a silly ride too.

WHY do you consistantly insist on likening this to stealing when what we are talking about is CENSORSHIP!

Please make future posts about censorship otherwise I cannot be bothered arguing moral values and it degrades into a rich vs poor thing, in which people who have never been poor simply do not get.

You have never been poor and if you had, you would not be arguing your pro-corporation stance which is thinly guised as "moral" argumants on stealing! You would also be unlikely to play devils advocate so strongly. So, yes, I judge you 314d1.


I dont want arguments to my previous points, I will ignore them.
Answer me this...
What will they censor next ?
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

Clearly a 55 billion dollar increase in value during a recession shows they are not losing money to piracy.


So an increase in Walmart's money means that stealing from it did nothing? As I said, the fact that it is getting more money means nothing. If I where to bring out a chart that said they where losing money, would you see it and say piracy was losing them money? I would assume not. So why would the opposite be true?

Many places actually do offer free samples, or the chance to try their product before buying. The entire furniture industry does it, pretty much all electronics can be tried in stores before you buy, you can see paint colors, your child can often play with toys in a store before you buy it, grocery stores often have people giving away food samples. A free sample or demo is extremely important to those who want to sell something, and should be extremely important to the entertainment industry. If you are selling a product and no one knows what it is why would they buy it? Game companies providing a demo stops everyone who pirates to test the game before buying, that is obviously a better solution that pissing off your entire customer base.


Just because everyone else does, and you would like a free sample, doesn't mean you can take one yourself. If one of the furniture stores doesn't offer free trials, it does not mean you can steal furniture and give it back if you don't like it.

Yoknow, I cannot be bothered reading past this because I see where your flawed logic is taking this thread on a silly ride too.


So you are not even reading what I am writing now? Good argument. "I don't respect your arguments enough to even read them!".

WHY do you consistantly insist on likening this to stealing when what we are talking about is CENSORSHIP!


It sure started out that way, didn't it? But as I said earlier, you have changed this thread from "Censorship is bad" (A true statement) to "Piracy is OK". It would be like if we where talking about censoring a Nazi hate rally, and arguing against its censorship, when you come along and agree with their views. A strange metaphor, but you are not even going to read it, right?

Please make future posts about censorship otherwise I cannot be bothered arguing moral values and it degrades into a rich vs poor thing, in which people who have never been poor simply do not get.


That is how capitalism works, comrade. Are you saying that it is OK to steal luxuries if you are poor?

You have never been poor and if you had, you would not be arguing your pro-corporation stance which is thinly guised as "moral" argumants on stealing!


Never been poor, never been rich. Always had everything I wanted, which really amounted to a half-decent computer and good food. But how is that relevant?

If your actions take something that someone else owns away from them, it is stealing. If the companies are losing money on piracy, it is stealing. Why wouldn't it be?

You would also be unlikely to play devils advocate so strongly. So, yes, I judge you 314d1.


Would I? Could you please inform me on what my actual views are, on any subject?

I dont want arguments to my previous points, I will ignore them.


I knew it. You could have put this at the top, so I could have read it before I wrote everything else, couldn't you?

What will they censor next ?


First they start off censoring illegal things, what is next? Child porn? I will probably have to go with child porn. Am I right?
AnaLoGMunKy
offline
AnaLoGMunKy
1,573 posts
Blacksmith

First they start off censoring illegal things, what is next? Child porn? I will probably have to go with child porn. Am I right?


Yep, so I skipped your argument because Im concentrating on the real thread here.

Was that statement meant to be funny?
Can you answer my question in a constructive way please.
Showing 16-30 of 88