To People who Pirated Bishoujo Games on IRC

Visual Novel Community Archive, 2000-2009
#61
quote:
Originally posted by unknown:
Next in reference to the posts calling downloading morally wrong, I think we should consider why we see theft as immoral. It causes damage to the one it is stolen from in one of two ways by the loss of the item , or the loss of potential income. the former is not applicable as downloaded games a copies of an orignal the latter may or may not apply ... surely it only applies if the downloader would have possibly bought the game, Im sure for many this just would never have happened thus if they download it and it enriches their life I see no problem as long as they are aware of what they are doing and that it is not something to relish or take pride in (Ill admit for many this is not the case).

Why is theft wrong? I'm a little at a loss to explain it, if you don't already know. In essence it is wrong because it is taking something that doesn't belong to you. In the case of b-games, it is taking something without paying for it, without any intention of paying for it. Whatever "rules" you devise to legitimize the act, don't matter. You are knowingly taking something without compensating the owner. The owner in this case is the publisher who has established very clear criteria for usage. You exchange funds for the product. They exchange rights to play the game as much as you wish - no time limit, no constraints on where you install it or how you enjoy it. Seems like a pretty simple arrangement to me.

quote:
Originally posted by unknown:
As for why piraters pirate, I think some of your comments are a little cold my experience with 99.9% of people involved with cracking/distributing software is that they do it for a spirit of community, they help people get software, videos,music,etc that they want in the knowledge that other members of the community will help them do the same. I can think of no serious "piraters" who come close to the childish thrill seekers some of you describe.
Im not trying to say this justifies their actions but keep in mind they are human and have their own motives which are rarely so black and white.

On the contrary, "unknown". Pirates are thieves who have elected to trade their ethics and integrity for the price of a game. They didn't have to steal the game to begin with. They might have chosen to save their money and buy it later or not buy it at all, but spend their money on other goods. Instead, they saw the opportunity to steal it without getting caught and they went for it. Quit trying to rationalize thievery. It's not for any spirit of community. It's for their own selfish motives, pure and simple. They've crossed the line and they must live with it. As far as "helping" people, they are helping them to sink to the same unethical standards they have chosen for themselves. That's about the most backward form of "help" someone could devise.

As far as reselling or giving away software once you buy it, the terms for that are usually spelled out in a EULA (end user license agreement) and normally there's nothing wrong with the practice. Once you purchase the title to a product it's yours to do with as you see fit, including transfering that title to someone else. This usually implies deleting your own copy so that multiple copies don't exist. The specific terms of any purchase may differ, but this is the usual contractual arrangement that pertains to you and the seller. You are not free to distribute multiple copies after purchase. Let new buyers contract their own agreements with the original seller. I'm tired of the fallacious reasoning of those who would justify theft.

#62

Downloading a game and lending it from a friend are two different things because:

1)In the case of downloading the game, the original owner of the copy still has the game, and now you have a copy of it at the same time, which shouldn’t be possible. You never paid for that copy.

2)If you lend a game from your friend, your friend doesn’t have the game anymore for some time, but you do. In this way there is no multiplying and the copy you have was paid for.


To put it simply, a game has to be treated like a book. Meaning that the book can’t be at two places at once (not YOUR copy anyway).

#63

Nandemonai and perigee’s statements to Unknown’s post have certainly won my applause.

I too am tired of the fallacious reasoning of those who would justify the act of online piracy.

It does NOT matter what the excuses are. Piracy is wrong and illegal. The only difference between theft and online piracy is… oh wait… there is NO difference. Online piracy IS theft. It is that simple.

#64

ok firstly to make it clear most of what I say is as a devils advocate I dont really indulge in online piracy anymore … although Ill admit its how I first got into bgames.

in responce to perigee’s I think perhaps you missed my point … or just avidly disagreed with it which is fine. The reason stealing is considered morally wrong is because it damages in some way the person being stolen from. If that person was not harmed and the person conducting the “theft” benefits the only effect is positive, for example Ill admit that I have in the past owned a number of unliscenced pieces of software listed on my computing course as required. I just plain couldnt have afforded them all short of liquidising everything I own these companies were never going to receive my money the only difference my “piracy” made was me being able to benefit from the course choices I wanted, while I have the money to do so I will by all liscenced copies of what I need but faced with the same situation again with the option of committing “victimless crime” I’d do it in a second.
For those people who would under no circumstance be realistically able to buy a piece of software surely their piracy is just as victimless.

The suggestion that because the owner only wants paid customers no others are allowed without any other justification is well … over-capitalist in my opinion, there are plenty of good reasons to justify an anti-internet piracy stance but using this alone seems greedy and spiteful to me…

quote:
On the contrary, “unknown”. Pirates are thieves who have elected to trade their ethics and integrity for the price of a game. They didn’t have to steal the game to begin with. They might have chosen to save their money and buy it later or not buy it at all, but spend their money on other goods. Instead, they saw the opportunity to steal it without getting caught and they went for it. Quit trying to rationalize thievery. It’s not for any spirit of community. It’s for their own selfish motives, pure and simple. They’ve crossed the line and they must live with it. As far as “helping” people, they are helping them to sink to the same unethical standards they have chosen for themselves. That’s about the most backward form of “help” someone could devise.

This is just … well wrong, Ill admit I somewhat question the validity of pirating bgames as the industry is so fragile and I truly believe the games are priced at a level needed to insure the survival of th genre. However in general software is priced disproporionately to the making costs at such a degree software of similar production costs can range from ¬£20 to ¬£3000 (sorry im at a loss for ¬£to$ conversion but you get the picture) the reason for this is because the software market is full of monopolies the most obvious example being chairman bill himself another less complicated one is with high end graphics packages there are certain features in certain specilaist packages which are just required to some people particularly students doing computer graphics courses who can barely afford their text books are expected to use the likes of maya which can encroach upon the ¬£8k mark. the warez community allows people to have all the software,videos,games,you name it they need (and yes you can need videos and games) without plunging into hopeless debt moat people taking advantage of such systems still regularly put the money they can afford into software, gaming, videos, etc while not constantly being restricted by their usually unaviodable lack of funds.

“piracy” provides a necessary service to people who usually due to little fault of their own would otherwise be forced to sacrifice not only thier immediate quality of life but their future potential.

I dont like to admit it but without piracy I wouldnt have gotten into a beacon(good) school nor university nor completed my degree with a first and thus gone on to be in the position to buy such luxury items as bishoujo games without resorting to piracy.

Please proceed to tear that apart … thankyou

[This message has been edited by unknown (edited 03-28-2004).]

#65
quote:
Originally posted by unknown:
If that person was not harmed and the person conducting the "theft" benefits the only effect is positive, for example Ill admit that I have in the past owned a number of unliscenced pieces of software listed on my computing course as required. I just plain couldnt have afforded them all short of liquidising everything I own these companies were never going to receive my money the only difference my "piracy" made was me being able to benefit from the course choices I wanted, while I have the money to do so I will by all liscenced copies of what I need but faced with the same situation again with the option of committing "victimless crime" I'd do it in a second.
For those people who would under no circumstance be realistically able to buy a piece of software surely their piracy is just as victimless.

Please notice the following:

1) Are b-games a necessity? You admit you pirated programs out of necessity for your courses, however do you HAVE to play b-games? (Those who have been here enough, please, don't answer that!) There are other forms of entertainment, like watching TV, reading a book, taking a walk, etc. etc. etc.

2) Are you sure there is no victim? That game somebody downloaded means income that won't reach the pockets of the publisher/creator. Sure, if I play on somebody else's computer (and I mean a legal copy), the company won't get the money either, however, the difference is that I will be playing on that person's computer. (Similar to the book analogy). Borrowing a (legal) copy have the same constrain, only the one who holds the (legal) CD can play the game.

#66
quote:
Originally posted by Benoit:
Downloading a game and lending it from a friend are two different things because:

1)In the case of downloading the game, the original owner of the copy still has the game, and now you have a copy of it at the same time, which shouldn't be possible. You never paid for that copy.

2)If you lend a game from your friend, your friend doesn't have the game anymore for some time, but you do. In this way there is no multiplying and the copy you have was paid for.


To put it simply, a game has to be treated like a book. Meaning that the book can't be at two places at once (not YOUR copy anyway).

This is true. And, in fact, you have a very good answer as to why you should not offer bootleg downloads. There is the flip side, though. Neither of those points make things different for the downloader. Either way he only has a temporary copy - the source of that copy is, arguably, irrelevant. Yet we call borrowing OK and the downloading wrong and illegal. Why?

... of course, then you're in the very odd position of claiming "well, it's unethical for you to offer it - but using the unethically-offered products is perfectly fine" - this defies common sense.

(Again, this is only talking about temporary copies - downloading and keeping forever as if you purchased it is still very clearly out of bounds.)

#67
quote:
Originally posted by Noirbo:
Nandemonai and perigee's statements to Unknown's post have certainly won my applause.

I too am tired of the fallacious reasoning of those who would justify the act of online piracy.

It does NOT matter what the excuses are. Piracy is wrong and illegal. The only difference between theft and online piracy is... oh wait... there is NO difference. Online piracy IS theft. It is that simple.

I don't know that "theft" is quite the word I would use. You have not stolen anything that belonged to them - they still possess all the property they had. This is compared to stealing physical media, which is very cut and dried.

I am not sure I would extend the definiton of "theft" to cover violating people's rights. In that case you would have to call all kinds of things "theft", such as censorship and discrimination and false imprisonment.

Of course, English doesn't really have a good word to use instead, which is probably why most people just use "theft".

#68

Oh boy. The first rant on this BBS I get to do.

Unknown, it seem to me that you’re stating that because something is because you want something, and cannot afford it, you have a right to pirate such software. This raises the question of right and wrong and the question of “Who cares?” Let’s leave the question of right and wrong to your conscious, or, if you’re an evil Libertarian Conservative like me, we’ll assume that the world is a throughly wicked place, and that noone has a conscience. Let’s leave the question of right and wrong to be settled between you and the bodyguards of Sean “Puffy” Combs after Puffy discovered that you’ve been using MP3s to rip him off for royalties.

The more interesting question is “Who cares?” Possibly you. If information is free for the taking, avaible to the masses without cost or risk, then information becomes public property. "All information is public property has a plummy utopian sound. But how would the fact of information being public affect the quality of that public information? Let us think of other things that are public. Public Education. Public Housing. Public Transportation. All things public tend to be slipshod, disguating, or dangerous. The ultimate example of this is the Public Toilet, which is pretty much all three at once. And, if information is to be public, by what means will the public manage it’s information? Who’ll be in charge? Will a completely open web promote idealitic anarchism? That is, will the plots of novels and the casting of movies be decided by rioting in Seattle? Or will representative democracy obtain? I offer, for your imagination, the hip-hop stylings of future group Bone Thugs 'N House of Representatives.

You may resist the idea of propety rights because it reminds you of the crabby neighbors with the “Keep Off The Grass” sign, who come out and yell at the kids when they cut across the lawn with their bikes. Property rights, however, mean more than untrampled flowerbeds. You have property rights in what you do. You own your efforts. And there’s the rub in the age of information. You don’t do anything. Well, that’s not true. But eventually, most of us get a career where we don’t do anything. I know I don’t. Hardly anyone today in the Western World has a job where they actually MAKE stuff. Most of us don’t even provide a service in the traditional sense. Information Technology means that what we do is think. And what we think is the information that information technology runs on. Do we own our own thoughts? If we don’t, it’s back to screaming at the neighborhood brats for doing wheelies. And if we do have property rights in the information, then we’re sneaking up behind ourselves, and stealing our own wallets.

#69
quote:
Originally posted by unknown:
The reason stealing is considered morally wrong is because it damages in some way the person being stolen from.

You are half right. There are other reasons - see below.

quote:
Originally posted by unknown:
If that person was not harmed and the person conducting the "theft" benefits the only effect is positive

Not true. Someone who owns a piece of property has the right to do with it as he sees fit. By usurping those rights for yourself, you commit a wrong against him by virtue of doing it at all.

Let's say you're on vacation. Your house is empty for a week. Suppose I were to pick the lock on your front door, without damaging it at all, and sneak into your house while you were away. Then suppose I vacuumed the whole house while I was in there. As I'm leaving, I tack a note on the bathroom mirror that reads "KILROY WAS HERE - P.S. Aren't you glad your locks suck?". I make sure to lock the door when I'm gone, so no one else can break in.

There. I haven't hurt you in any way; I caused no damage and I took nothing. The house was as secure as I left as when I arrived. In fact, I did a fair amount of cleaning while I was in there!

Is this OK? Well ... no. It's very much NOT okay, to the tune of "breaking and entering" - a felony in most places that will get you at least a few years should they catch you. You never told me I could do this - in fact most people would be absolutely terrified if this happened. Even though I ostensibly did no harm, I invaded your privacy when I opened the lock by the very nature of lock picking.


quote:
Originally posted by unknown:
for example Ill admit that I have in the past owned a number of unliscenced pieces of software listed on my computing course as required. I just plain couldnt have afforded them all short of liquidising everything I own these companies were never going to receive my money the only difference my "piracy" made was me being able to benefit from the course choices I wanted, while I have the money to do so I will by all liscenced copies of what I need but faced with the same situation again with the option of committing "victimless crime" I'd do it in a second.
For those people who would under no circumstance be realistically able to buy a piece of software surely their piracy is just as victimless.

The suggestion that because the owner only wants paid customers no others are allowed without any other justification is well ... over-capitalist in my opinion, there are plenty of good reasons to justify an anti-internet piracy stance but using this alone seems greedy and spiteful to me...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by unknown:
[B]This is just ... well wrong, Ill admit I somewhat question the validity of pirating bgames as the industry is so fragile and I truly believe the games are priced at a level needed to insure the survival of th genre.

It is good that you acknowledge this. The market was very close to death when Peach Princess showed up. Exactly how close is a matter of some debate (confounded by the fact that some people who used to be here deliberately lied about it), but Peach Princess was one of the only companies still chugging along - most of the rest had died. If PeaPri had failed there is a very real chance that G-collections wouldn't have opened up - and instead of being on a growth path we'd be on a road to nowhere.

quote:
Originally posted by unknown:
However in general software is priced disproporionately to the making costs at such a degree software of similar production costs can range from £20 to £3000 (sorry im at a loss for £to$ conversion but you get the picture)

I am sorry. You are very much mistaken. I am a professional software developer and I moonlight in the gaming industry - I happen to know for a fact that you are mistaken.

You aren't really talking about commercial software like OSes and whatnot - and I'm not connected to that kind of thing anyway, but to internal software dev for a large conglomerate. So I'll stick to the gaming industry.

Games take teams of about 100 people to make now. They have for years. Even ten years ago a group of a dozen or less could make a decent game. Not anymore. Now you need far more than just a dozen people merely for art.

Now, the average development cycle for a game is one year. Some more, some less - we'll average it out. A year is a good ballpark. Also average salaries in the gaming business are going to be about $40K. At LEAST. Probably quite a bit more. So in reality this is an underestimation.

So. 40K/year * 1 year * 100 people = 4 million dollars.

Yes - 4. Million. Dollars. This is what it is going to cost you just to pay your employees, which is not the only expense. There are all kinds of other things you have to pay for. Marketing, for instance, isn't cheap.

Neither are the license fees. Every console since the NES has operated according to the following scheme: you sell the hardware at a loss, because if you charged what it was worth no one will be able to afford it, you'll have crappy sales, and everyone will go make games for some other system. So how do you make money? You charge a royalty on every game sold. Typically it's $5-$10. Then - the recent games are DVD-ROM titles. There are fees you have to pay to the DVD consortium in order to press DVDs. That's like $1.

Then there are the costs entailed by creating a physical product and shipping it around the globe and whatnot. I don't know much about those so I'll take a blind stab in the dark and say, from creating a disc to stocking it in a store, it costs you $5 a game.

So, the costs for making a physical copy are around $12-$15. Now you have to factor in that the retailer has to make a profit - we'll round that to $20. Now, you have to make something like $4-$5 million dollars off of your game. ($4 mil for the creators, plus some for everyone else involved and marketing.)

If the game does well it'll sell something like 100K copies. To make back your $4 million dollars, you need to make $40 per unit sold. Now, $20 of the purchase price is taken up in costs. So the game has to retail for around $60.


...now, that isn't quite right because I'm not using real numbers. I just estimated. But that's the way it is. Games cost a LOT of money to make nowadays. They're like Hollywood blockbuster films now, and they didn't used to be. The consequence of this is that the price has to go up. But they're NOT gouging.


quote:
Originally posted by unknown:
the reason for this is because the software market is full of monopolies the most obvious example being chairman bill himself another less complicated one is with high end graphics packages there are certain features in certain specilaist packages which are just required to some people particularly students doing computer graphics courses who can barely afford their text books are expected to use the likes of maya which can encroach upon the £8k mark.

This is your best point. It is in fact true that education has been officially recognized as an interest that justified carving out exceptions to copyright laws. See the provisions related to public libraries.

However. This is not a very good point, for a few reasons.

One - any university worth going to is going to have a computer lab that will have the programs installed you need. It is not necessary for you to have them installed on your own machine.

Two - every developer out there knows about this and will make accomodations. You can get amazingly large discounts of like 90% or more on software for learning purposes. The software has some additional licensing restrictions (designed to prevent people from, say, buying the student's version and deploying it across their company) but generally works well enough for you to get your stuff done. After all - if the program is too expensive for new users to be able to try it out, then no one will ever buy it at all. Companies don't like it when that happens.

quote:
Originally posted by unknown:
the warez community allows people to have all the software,videos,games,you name it they need (and yes you can need videos and games) without plunging into hopeless debt

As for claiming you can NEED videos and games - I'm sorry, but here is my only response:

You should stop lying to yourself.

And also - so what? Mugging lets people get all the necessities they need without plunging into hopeless debt. What does that have to do with anything? You cannot justify anything simply by saying "well it's good for ME" - you have to consider more broadly its effects IN GENERAL.

quote:
Originally posted by unknown:
moat people taking advantage of such systems still regularly put the money they can afford into software, gaming, videos, etc

How do you know? Did you ask people? If you did, how many? Besides which, even people who NEVER do will lie when you ask them this question because they are embarrased.

quote:
Originally posted by unknown:
Please proceed to tear that apart .. thankyou

As you wish ;)

#70
quote:
Originally posted by unknown:
The reason stealing is considered morally wrong is because it damages in some way the person being stolen from. If that person was not harmed and the person conducting the "theft" benefits the only effect is positive,
With a wave of the hand you've dismissed the concept of intellectual property. The value of a work of software, literature, music - any form of art - is not the media used to distribute it, it's the ideas and creativity embodied in the work itself. To use the book analogy, you aren't just paying for the paper, ink and binding. You're compensating the author for the effort it took to produce the work and the publisher for the cost of producing it. Piracy harms a game companies in the same way that uploading a book to a website harms an author.
quote:
Originally posted by unknown:
for example Ill admit that I have in the past owned a number of unliscenced pieces of software listed on my computing course as required. I just plain couldnt have afforded them all short of liquidising everything I own these companies were never going to receive my money the only difference my "piracy" made was me being able to benefit from the course choices I wanted,

Sorry, but just plain couldnt have afforded doesn't cut it. There are lots of things in life we just plain can't afford. We learn to do without them or budget our resources so we can afford them. Stealing software for coursework is no more justifiable than stealing textbooks from a bookstore or money from a bank for tuition. Were you raised on the street by Fagin, by any chance?
quote:
Originally posted by unknown:
while I have the money to do so I will by all liscenced copies of what I need but faced with the same situation again with the option of committing "victimless crime" I'd do it in a second.
For those people who would under no circumstance be realistically able to buy a piece of software surely their piracy is just as victimless.
All I can say to that is I am glad I will never be in a position where I might have to employ you or do business with you. Your definition of "victimless crime" seems to cover stealing anything you could not otherwise afford to own.
quote:
Originally posted by unknown:
The suggestion that because the owner only wants paid customers no others are allowed without any other justification is well ... over-capitalist in my opinion, there are plenty of good reasons to justify an anti-internet piracy stance but using this alone seems greedy and spiteful to me...
Over-capitalist? What kind of Socialist claptrap is that? Stealing is wrong whether the victim is a pauper or industrialist. Perhaps you advocate a society where government bureaucrats resdistribute wealth for the supposed benefit of the masses? No thanks.
quote:
Originally posted by unknown:
However in general software is priced disproporionately to the making

Fine. When you come up with a way of producing and selling software cheaper than Chairman Bill, go for it. Until then, you're just whining about the cost of something you want but don't want to pay for.
#71

Hmm just a few points Id like to argue against a little.

quote:
Not true. Someone who owns a piece of property has the right to do with it as he sees fit. By usurping those rights for yourself, you commit a wrong against him by virtue of doing it at all.

Let’s say you’re on vacation. Your house is empty for a week. Suppose I were to pick the lock on your front door, without damaging it at all, and sneak into your house while you were away. Then suppose I vacuumed the whole house while I was in there. As I’m leaving, I tack a note on the bathroom mirror that reads “KILROY WAS HERE - P.S. Aren’t you glad your locks suck?”. I make sure to lock the door when I’m gone, so no one else can break in.

There. I haven’t hurt you in any way; I caused no damage and I took nothing. The house was as secure as I left as when I arrived. In fact, I did a fair amount of cleaning while I was in there!

Is this OK? Well … no. It’s very much NOT okay, to the tune of “breaking and entering” - a felony in most places that will get you at least a few years should they catch you. You never told me I could do this - in fact most people would be absolutely terrified if this happened. Even though I ostensibly did no harm, I invaded your privacy when I opened the lock by the very nature of lock picking.

There is a strong distinction between this and the example of software , I do not allow anyone regardless of status to enter my house etc providing they pay a fee . In your example I would indeed be damaged by the breech of my privacy whereas in the case of software this would not be true as any would be thief could achieve the same ends with a little cash. I would not let any bum off the street into my house in exchange for a flat fee.

Also as for your point about software prices not being disproportionate … well | wont fault you on games as I dont reall know much about the business side of that industry but I know my points are much closer to the truth in a lot of software sectors such as Operating systems and as I mentioned graphics design.

#72
quote:

Piracy harms a game companies in the same way that uploading a book to a website harms an author.

.. did I mention that I used to work in a LIBRARY? [img]http://princess.cybrmall.net/ubb/smile.gif[/img]

Libraries, where tons of people go and read books without paying for them.

Is this considered to harm the author?

Unfortunately, bishoujo games are a touchy, touchy case. The expense of creation is so high, the market pressures are so great, and the chance of folding is so great that most of the usual, quite reasonable, arguments in favor of piracy don't apply. On the other hand, that's somewhat unfair - people in bgames circles have been known to try and strongarm others into buying things they don't want "because the company will fail if you don't!"

(Ie, buying rape games or Water Closet.)

There are reasons for pirating incredibly expensive art programs that a lone individual cannot afford - the 'stolen' program can allow you to build the skills that will enable you to get the job where you will use a legal copy of the program. This obviously doesn't work for bishoujo.

There are 'policy protest' reasons for pirating the work of someone whose business policies, obviously, you are protesting. This is extremely unlikely in the case of bishoujo.

There are reasons that books should be made freely available, and yeah, I'm going to say on websites too. Books are art and/or information, they are educational, they are GOOD for people. We should always promote getting more knowledge into people's hands. Bishoujo games... don't really qualify, most of the time. [img]http://princess.cybrmall.net/ubb/smile.gif[/img]

There are legitimate reasons for trading copies of games that cannot be obtained legally (usually because they're long out of print). This clearly doesn't apply to a newly released bgame.

I'm such a middle of the roader, I go to hentai forums and chide everyone for asking for downloads, and then I come here and defend downloading. [img]http://princess.cybrmall.net/ubb/smile.gif[/img] But only when it's done with some sense of ethics and not just to get FREE GOODS!

About the only argument you can make in favor of downloading bishoujo games is that you can't get demos of them, so you don't know if the game will run on your system or if you will like it, and you want to be sure of those things before shelling out the dough.

To counter, that argument, if *I* were in charge of the world (I always have an answer, you see!) I'd make more downloadable demos - but NOT offer them for download from peachprincess directly (bandwidth, ouch). Instead, I'd make them available only to people who signed up as affiliate sellers. If I had the time and the programmers, I'd even make individual builds so each demo was tagged to the particular affiliate. Then those affiliates could host the demos for download and advertise them however they wanted, and get a cut of sales generated by them.

And since THEY would be trying to get attention for their personal demos, they would tend to make actual ripped versions harder to find.

#73

This has gotten to the point where I don’t even understand it anymore. All those special terms…

It’s simple. Copying is stealing. Stealing is wrong. Wrong is WRONG.

Can we please leave it at that? :confused:

#74

(Lamuness: added a few beep’s)

Man I’m gone for a few days and this sparks up all of a sudden? Damn. Well heres my 2 cents.

STEALING IS WRONG. If any of you beep that download are reading this then stop it you beep and get a job, suck dick, beg or do whatever to get money and buy this shit, not pirate it. If you beep bitches are truly fans of Bishoujo games then stop hurting them dumbasses. The more you pirate the less you get. Oh don’t get what I mean? Well here’s how it goes:

beep piraters (beep and such) go buy the game, rip it off and share, leeches download the game play it and the probably download some more.

Effect of this on the industry: you beep just fucked the industry. by stealing that shit the company loses money, thus they don’t have money to make or bring over more games cause they’ll probably get pirated as well. So as a result, companies will release fewer games, longer periods in which they release a new game, less diversity and variety because now the companies are afraid of losing money so they stick with the ones that are most likely sure sellers or tend to do the best thus making more difficult for newer and more various games to come out. And worst case scenerio, the companies stops producing games from either bankruptcy or they collect their loses and BAM, you beep just killed the Bishoujo game industry. Now all this may sound like senseless bitching but there are ppl out there doing something about this.

I got a friend thats buying the game, ripping it off, sharing them… and putting viruses in them. hahahahaha, that otta show those scurvy landlovers a thing or two when they have to pay around 200$ to get their computers fixed.

[This message has been edited by Lamuness (edited 03-28-2004).]

#75

By The Way, If you don’t know if a game is good or not. Go and read a review dumbass!!! thats what sites like animetric and hentaineko and possibly somethingawful are for.

#76

Well all reviews are subjective…and while they can give you stats and some basics in gameplay and even screenshots, like a car, you don’t always really know until you get inside it and try it out yourself.

Reviews can be helpful though.

#77
quote:
Originally posted by Benoit:
It's simple. Copying is stealing. Stealing is wrong. Wrong is WRONG.

Can we please leave it at that? :/

No, because copying is NOT stealing. There are some circumstances under which copying is legitimate - there are none where stealing is. Stealing is a bad word, precisely because it leads to overgeneralizations. Theft involves the illegitimate appropriation of a physical object. You take something that doesn't belong to you. Copying is unauthorized access - very similar, but not the same thing.

(I'm not even talking about pseudotheoretical cases like we're discussing - I'm talking about fair use.)

#78
quote:
Originally posted by tiger_of_the_wind2040:
*snip*

Lamuness, I think you need to edit this post. The swearing is across the line.

#79

Okay sorry about that, but um… I still see alot of swears

#80

Havn’t been around this board for a while, and I noticed this post is a bit outdated. Yet I want to have a few words about this topic.

First thing - don’t bother trying to shut the operation down. I knew a person (online) who is part of the “game ripping” community. The amount of talent they can muster is mindboggling. In “I’m Going to Serve You 4,” his group could even muster help from MAINSTREAM game ripping community (the folks who bring you those PS2 and CompUSA computer games) to crack the triple-layered encryption.

I’m not saying that the legit companies should allow its work to be pirated at will. Just be aware, under no illusion whatsoever, that the harder you try to fight this, the more difficult it will be for anyone (except the leechers/encoders) to monitor the entire operation. For a case study of this topic, look at the RIAA campaigns.

I’ll refrain from stating my involvement in this overall system. I will say this; I recently completed three j-games (Genrin no Kishougun II, Ikusa Megami II, and the Spirit Sword of Eternity [Eternal Aseria]). I’ll gladly dropped 80 bucks a piece for the English translation. How companies like PeaPri can release such titles is none of my concern. As things currently stand, there is a snowball chance in hell that I’ll fork over $50 for one of those g-collection cookie-cutter games.

PHI