This is sort of a reply to the morality of piracy side of the topic, rather than how they get away with it.

I think piracy is okay in certain situations, though there should be a more honest way to go about it.

When a person has a true need for a piece of software, yet they don''t have the money to purchase it, they should be able to obtain a free copy. I have been in this situation in many cases. For example, for a programming class (I''m only in it for the fun of programming at school, the teacher doesn''t even know the language (C++)) at my school, the IDE they use is Borland C++. Several of the assignments we get require functionality that only BC++ can provide (BGI, OWL, etc.), and rather than port my source everyday when I get home from school, I had to get a pirated copy of BC++ from a friend. The reason I did this was because I didn''t have $300 to fork out to buy the program. Rambling a little bit, I''d like to mention that now that I''m getting into all the Windows-specific game programming technologies (which BC++ doesn''t support), I need a copy of Visual C++. Well, greedy Micro$oft charges a fortune for their bloated and buggy software (in general). Sorry Billy Boy, I don''t have $500 or whatever MSVC++ costs.

Anyway, sorry for the sidetracking there. Basically it proves what I''m trying to say: If a person has a legitimate need for software but they don''t have the financial means of obtaining it, they should be allowed to get a free copy (preferably from the developer, but, in reality, from a warez site). I know this doesn''t really apply to game pirating, which is quite difficult to prove a legitimate need for; though it could be argued that to meet some of the basic human needs like fun, one must have some games (or whatever entertains them).

Well, that''s my rant. A bit off-topic, but meaningful...

Fight "The Man"... hehe

I keep promising myself I''ll stay out of this thread, or at the very least, not write essays for responses. Oh well, maybe for the next post...

Anonymous Poster with pirate BC++:

First of all, as a student you are able to purchase software for student prices. Normally, this is a HUGE discount. I bought Visual C++ for $50, JBuilder 3.0 for $50, and Photoshop 5 for $200. All of these are available at my local campus bookstore for cheap cheap prices, provided I show my student card. There are websites that deal to the student cause, where you can pick up software a student prices. I don''t consider $50 for Visual C++ "too much", especially considering I''m paying a couple hundred for each class...and I''m getting a whole lot less for it. I''m guess from your post that you aren''t a college student, but you are at least a student and still get the discount prices.

Your teacher is indeed very poor if he requires Borland C++ to do the assignments, but that is besides the point. If you can''t buy it, it is at least available to use somewhere...or so I would assume. Maybe you can use the lab after school or something. At my college (and believe me when I say the computer science school is bad), they at least use UNIX for the operating system, and freely available programming tools such as gcc, perl, or even emacs. You need to know how to use the UNIX versions, but everyone can freely telnet in from anyplace in the world to do the homework.

I''m going to quote you here:

"I need a copy of Visual C++. Well, greedy Micro$oft charges a fortune for their bloated and buggy software (in general). Sorry Billy Boy, I don''t have $500 or whatever MSVC++ costs."

First, you don''t NEED Visual C++. You can program games using freely available tools, such as djgpp...a wonderful command line compiler. You don''t get the snazzy IDE, but it is free. Last I checked, it didn''t do windows too well, but hey, Quake was written in it...can''t be that bad.

Second, Microsoft is not being greedy. Visual C++ by itself is expensive, but it isn''t $500. That $500 will buy you Visual Studio with C++, Java, Fox Pro, and a bunch of crap I have no idea what it does. Microsoft charges a lot, but their prices are just as fair as their competitors. As a student, getting VC++ for $50 seems more than fair. When you take into account how many people worked on Visual Studio, the features (especially the MSDEV cd which is worth its weight in gold), and everything else, Microsoft has to be losing money. Also, Visual C++ is a great programming environment. Calling it bloated and buggy just shows how little you really know of the product. (maybe a little bloated).

Bill Gates is the richest man in America (the world?), but that doesn''t mean you have the right to not pay for a product. Microsoft offers a service. They set the price. You decide whether you want to buy it or not. If you don''t like Microsoft, don''t buy the products. If you don''t pay, you don''t play. That simple.

To sum up, if a person has a legitimate reason for owning software, yet can''t pay for it, he doesn''t get it. There are people all over the world who desperately need food, but they still get prosecuted and sent to prison when they steal. And believe me, their plight is not fictional like yours.

If we had no pirates, Half-Life wouldn''t try to connect to the authentication server. Monkey Island wouldn''t make you have to match faces on the protection wheel to play. The only people pirates aren''t hurting are themselves...and most of them are too self centered or shallow to care.

Saying that people who have a legitiment need for software should get it free is BS. The entire population of the Earth have a legitament (I realize I can''t seem to spell it) need for food, but don''t just get it for free.

And in a truly capitalist world, nothing at all would be free! wohoo!
So what I''m basically saying is that the way the system works, you have to pay people for work they do. How do you expect EA to pay the programmers? With pirated copies of other companies'' programs?

I agree with Squidi and the last anonymous poster. Although i did not write my big essay thing to be in an argument, I just wanted to know who the arguing "warez kiddies" were. That fact is that piracy is here, it will always be here, and if you are a developer you should not support it. How would you like spending all that time coding to find out that people are copying it for free and you can''t eat tomorrow (dramatized). Anyways, keep fit and have fun :-)

I guess i''ll drop my views into this mess as well.

I have downloaded pirated software before(games,apps,roms(Thue is it wrong to download roms to games that you once owned but where lossed by grey hound bus services?) ,here is a example I can think of star craft. I downloaded starcraft played it liked it and then bought it later when I had money to spare. Was there a demo of starcraft? Well at the time I would of said no there wasent now adays there is and it even lets you play on battle net something the warez version didn''t. I personaly can say I have used a warez version of quake(Because I lossed my version during a move ). However my point is that I think warez does have it purposes ,and can actully be good,if not exploited like it is. I myself would like to be able to download any software from the ppl who make the software if after I bought the cd for max for 3000$ got to the office slipped on a wet floor and broke it. But in most ways I agree that warez is wrong. Now emulation is a differnt story IMHO(or atleast for consoles/arcade that aernt around anymore.)

Another essay. Wish the Java dev forum was more active so I could spend my energies there...


Sordith:

I actually think a thread of this sort is useful. Most of the time, threads like these pop up. People yell. Some misinformation is spread in amongst the real information. Ultimately, no one wins, and everyone leaves angry. But there are a lot of people out there who think that X is ok, or Y isn''t, and they cite laws and information which are completely not true. If just one person gets in and turns the conversation away from "right" and "wrong" and instead into "legal" and "illegal", then the truth will surface. People may not agree with laws, but they will at least acknowledge that they are laws.

The MSDEV cd is amazing. It has tutorials, examples, and APIs for darn near everything. Want to program Direct X? It is all right there on the cd. Want to program WinCE for a palmtop machine? Want to write plug-ins for MS Word? The fact of the matter is that all this information IS available elsewhere, most of it free. When you DL the Direct X dev kit, it comes with all the Direct X tutorials and API references. There are books out there dedicated to Windows API calls. You don''t have to buy the MSDEV cd.

But the MSDEV cd is good stuff. It is always continually updated, hence the subscription. It would cost a whole lot of money to buy a new Windows API book every time a new module was added or updated. MSDEV can''t be free. Someone has to create the tutorials. Someone has to write everything down. Someone has to press the cds. I would be pleased as punch if the MSDEV cd was free, but I can see how much effort went into it. More importantly, buying Visual C++, or any Visual Dev Studio product will net you a fairly current version anyway. You don''t need to buy the subscription if you can get along with just that one version.

Let''s talk about software pricing. Most PC games that come out are around $40-$50 (depending on retailer). When they first come out, most retailers drop the price a little. I can buy both Nox and the Sims for $35. I could probably find them cheaper online. Hardly $50. If the game doesn''t do very well, you can find it for $20 or less in a few months in the bagin bin. Right now, Heavy Gear II is $20, Shogo $15, Tribes $15, Starcraft $10, Warcraft Battle.net edition $10, Diablo $10, Total Annihilation $10, Heretic 2 $10. All these games are old, but still an amazing amount of fun. Hell, I just bought a second copy of Diablo so that I could play networked between my two machines. Again, hardly $50.

Ok, some games are still $50. Planescape: Torment for example. But you get your $50 worth with that game. If you didn''t want to pay $50 for it, you don''t have to buy it. Fallout, which is $10, is just as good, older, and much cheaper. After you finish Fallout, and the $15 sequel, then Torment should probably be down to $30. A little smart shopping goes a long way.

There are few occasions where you pay more than $50 for a game. If the game is made by Working Designs, like Lunar was $65. If it is an import game (just ordered Dance Dance Revolution for the Dreamcast - $55 + shipping). Some N64 games, such as Harvest Moon, are $60. Of course, some, such as Rocket: Robot on Wheels, are only $20 at a local Walmart. Toys R Us has Turok 2 and SouthPark for $15.

And you are exaggerating with the $50 food bit. I don''t visit McDonalds, so I''ll use Wendys as an example. Everything on the Special Value menu is 99c, which means you could buy AT MOST, 50 of anything. Depending on your car, $50 could buy you several trips, or a single trip. It cost about $10 a week for gas in my 1990 Toyota stationwagon. A sports utility vehicle, especially the Yukon or Suburban, will net you between $30 and $40 a week in gas. But then they cost $30,000 in the first place, so what is an extra $30 a week? Certainly nothing compared to the 50 big macs, 50 fries, 50 sodas, and 1000 chicken mcnuggets you say you can get for $50.

I hope at your company, you aren''t the accountant or the lawyer...

I''m not going to touch your comments about the copyright laws with a 10 foot pole. I don''t know enough about it (not that you seem to). If I can find a document on copyright laws, then I will gladly engage in a conversation about such things.

One thing I do know is that I have a Yaroze, the hobbiest programmable playstation from Sony. They technically own parts of it, which means that I can''t sell them (not that I ever would) or use them in a non-appropriate manner. For all intents and purposes, they are mine. I use them, I keep them. It Sony ever asked for them back, I would have to give them back. Or if I tried to sell them, I could potentially open myself to lawsuit. But, as long as I use them the way they were meant to be used, and don''t break the contract, then they are mine.

hmmm... it seems as though I forgot to mention that games cost $50 CDN. I''m from the greatest country in the world you know :-) I also agree with everything Squidi said, just for the record.

Mithrandir: Are those Canadian or Australian dollars?

Starcraft was released in 3/98. That''s 2 years.