Gabe Newell was/is right about piracy.

[76561198269428786]

He made a comment years ago saying piracy isn't a money issue - but a service issue. People who spend thousands on a gaming-rig who choose to pirate aren't doing so for money-related reasons. Tonight I discovered he is right.

In addition to Steam - I'm on Game Pass (for PC). Been there for a long time. There is a game I wanted to mod - called Crackdown 3. I was able to find the game's location on my hard drive - which is WAY more obscure than the simple Steam where you just go to Steamapps and choose the game.

Anyway - so I find folders for the game's videos which I actually enjoyed a lot and I thought wow that's so cool I don't even need a tool to extract them they're just all sitting right there in two folders.

Turns out those folders are 100% locked for any kind of editing - so even though I'm admin on my computer - and even though I pay for Game Pass.....I can't access the files. That blows my mind - and it also proves what he said years ago is true - because now I'm thinking about sailing the black seas in hope of finding someone who found a way around this issue. Again - not for money reasons - but for service reasons.

[kilésengati]

Publicado originalmente por 016R35:

It's funny, whereas Steam is a platform that grants simple "right to use" licenses for games and doesn't really give you ownership of those games you buy.

You can't call it "piracy" to get a game by your own means which if you pay for it you don't really get it. Piracy will cease to be a problem when DRM and other ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ ceases to exist, like on the GOG shop where no game has DRM and what you buy is a copy of the game that is 100% yours.

Technically, GOG and physical media usually also only grants non-commercial, non-transferable, single-use licences. However, there's no reasonable way to enforce those and the files once downloaded are stored on hardware you own (I suppose), giving you at least defacto ownership over these copies.
There are also a fair bunch of games on Steam that come DRM-free. Unfortunately, Steam doesn't offer offline installers for those.

[permanent name]

Publicado originalmente por kilésengati:

Publicado originalmente por 016R35:

It's funny, whereas Steam is a platform that grants simple "right to use" licenses for games and doesn't really give you ownership of those games you buy.

You can't call it "piracy" to get a game by your own means which if you pay for it you don't really get it. Piracy will cease to be a problem when DRM and other ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ ceases to exist, like on the GOG shop where no game has DRM and what you buy is a copy of the game that is 100% yours.

Technically, GOG and physical media usually also only grants non-commercial, non-transferable, single-use licences. However, there's no reasonable way to enforce those and the files once downloaded are stored on hardware you own (I suppose), giving you at least defacto ownership over these copies.
There are also a fair bunch of games on Steam that come DRM-free. Unfortunately, Steam doesn't offer offline installers for those.

Microsoft automatically backs up all of your files onto their servers for you and has executive control over your os install and the harddrive it's installed on, and by default extension the system itself including other harddrives (has been legally tested, is true in precedent,) so technically those files aren't 'owned' by you. They're just copies of something someone else owns. Either that or microsoft owns everything on every computer.

Thus either microsoft is guilty of piracy or there's a legal gray area where your license is only valid relative to the eula, which itself cannot be enforced in court and is thus enforced through extralegal means.

Meaning piracy itself is a second class crime, something only poor people can be charged with and which large swathes of society are categorically exempt from.

[kilésengati]

Publicado originalmente por permanent name:

Publicado originalmente por kilésengati:

Technically, GOG and physical media usually also only grants non-commercial, non-transferable, single-use licences. However, there's no reasonable way to enforce those and the files once downloaded are stored on hardware you own (I suppose), giving you at least defacto ownership over these copies.
There are also a fair bunch of games on Steam that come DRM-free. Unfortunately, Steam doesn't offer offline installers for those.

Microsoft automatically backs up all of your files onto their servers for you and has executive control over your os install and the harddrive it's installed on, and by default extension the system itself including other harddrives (has been legally tested, is true in precedent,) so technically those files aren't 'owned' by you. They're just copies of something someone else owns. Either that or microsoft owns everything on every computer.

Thus either microsoft is guilty of piracy or there's a legal gray area where your license is only valid relative to the eula, which itself cannot be enforced in court and is thus enforced through extralegal means.

Meaning piracy itself is a second class crime, something only poor people can be charged with and which large swathes of society are categorically exempt from.

Oh, sorry, I forgot to tell you: I use Arch, btw. ;P

But of course, in practice, large corporations and their chiefs are usually above the law.

[76561198269428786]

Publicado originalmente por permanent name:

Publicado originalmente por kilésengati:

Technically, GOG and physical media usually also only grants non-commercial, non-transferable, single-use licences. However, there's no reasonable way to enforce those and the files once downloaded are stored on hardware you own (I suppose), giving you at least defacto ownership over these copies.
There are also a fair bunch of games on Steam that come DRM-free. Unfortunately, Steam doesn't offer offline installers for those.

Microsoft automatically backs up all of your files onto their servers for you and has executive control over your os install and the harddrive it's installed on, and by default extension the system itself including other harddrives (has been legally tested, is true in precedent,) so technically those files aren't 'owned' by you. They're just copies of something someone else owns. Either that or microsoft owns everything on every computer.

Thus either microsoft is guilty of piracy or there's a legal gray area where your license is only valid relative to the eula, which itself cannot be enforced in court and is thus enforced through extralegal means.

Meaning piracy itself is a second class crime, something only poor people can be charged with and which large swathes of society are categorically exempt from.

theyve made it basically impossible it seems to copy the game files....i spent like 2 hours in the middle of the night looking at tutorials to "take ownership" of the game files folders - and none of those tutorials worked so they must really really really really not want anyone to tamper with these files :((((

[permanent name]

Publicado originalmente por kilésengati:

Publicado originalmente por permanent name:

Microsoft automatically backs up all of your files onto their servers for you and has executive control over your os install and the harddrive it's installed on, and by default extension the system itself including other harddrives (has been legally tested, is true in precedent,) so technically those files aren't 'owned' by you. They're just copies of something someone else owns. Either that or microsoft owns everything on every computer.

Thus either microsoft is guilty of piracy or there's a legal gray area where your license is only valid relative to the eula, which itself cannot be enforced in court and is thus enforced through extralegal means.

Meaning piracy itself is a second class crime, something only poor people can be charged with and which large swathes of society are categorically exempt from.

Oh, sorry, I forgot to tell you: I use Arch, btw. ;P

But of course, in practice, large corporations and their chiefs are usually above the law.

The same systems have been a part of the linux package since gnu 10. people have even discovered instances of inferred code which does the same thing, and which has been embedded into common respositories.

this is allowed because linux itself is proprietary, and not technically owned by the community.

arch itself was started as a false flag meant to corral interest in gnu10 alternatives, and the people who had the (illegally obtained) emails to prove it were sent to jail and given gag orders.

[InfamousBozo]

It makes no sense that someone would spend thousands on a graphics card but won't spot $70 for a game. You can sugarcoat it all you want but it makes no sense in principle.

[kilésengati]

Publicado originalmente por permanent name:

Publicado originalmente por kilésengati:

Oh, sorry, I forgot to tell you: I use Arch, btw. ;P

But of course, in practice, large corporations and their chiefs are usually above the law.

The same systems have been a part of the linux package since gnu 10. people have even discovered instances of inferred code which does the same thing, and which has been embedded into common respositories.

this is allowed because linux itself is proprietary, and not technically owned by the community.

arch itself was started as a false flag meant to corral interest in gnu10 alternatives, and the people who had the (illegally obtained) emails to prove it were sent to jail and given gag orders.

That's news to me. Got a source?

Linux is not proprietary. Certain distros might contain proprietary blobs, but the Linux kernel itself is licenced under GPLv2.

[permanent name]

Publicado originalmente por InfamousBozo:

It makes no sense that someone would spend thousands on a graphics card but won't spot $70 for a game. You can sugarcoat it all you want but it makes no sense in principle.

the game companies make their money from investments and investing those investments in the stock market. realistically they don't need or want your money, they just want sales figures. most of which they doctor themselves using intermediaries. raising the price from $60 to $70 is meant to scare people away, not to extract more profit.

the hardware market is different. the money actually goes towards companies and actually pays for more and better hardware.

[permanent name]

Publicado originalmente por kilésengati:

Publicado originalmente por permanent name:

The same systems have been a part of the linux package since gnu 10. people have even discovered instances of inferred code which does the same thing, and which has been embedded into common respositories.

this is allowed because linux itself is proprietary, and not technically owned by the community.

arch itself was started as a false flag meant to corral interest in gnu10 alternatives, and the people who had the (illegally obtained) emails to prove it were sent to jail and given gag orders.

That's news to me. Got a source?

Linux is not proprietary. Certain distros might contain proprietary blobs, but the Linux kernel itself is licenced under GPLv2.

yeah a proprietary licensing format. people are always talking about these licenses but never have any idea how they actually work. GPL has a backdoor for a certain group of corporations who act as license holders for alternative software built into it. tons of people have had their programs stolen under it

the source was scrubbed off the net 10 or 15 years ago when it happened. your google is as good as mine at this point.

[Daemo]

why pay 60 dollars a year to get a bunch of games from old systems trickled down to you when cartdumping and retroarch on steam exists

[Boblin the Goblin]

Publicado originalmente por permanent name:

Publicado originalmente por kilésengati:

That's news to me. Got a source?

Linux is not proprietary. Certain distros might contain proprietary blobs, but the Linux kernel itself is licenced under GPLv2.

yeah a proprietary licensing format. people are always talking about these licenses but never have any idea how they actually work. GPL has a backdoor for a certain group of corporations who act as license holders for alternative software built into it. tons of people have had their programs stolen under it

the source was scrubbed off the net 10 or 15 years ago when it happened. your google is as good as mine at this point.

Oh, the classic "there was a source but it's gone now".

Happens every time for some reason.

[76561199521118219]

i think its irrelevant, ofc its bad, but nothing magically turns to good if it ends, for example companies would not magically get better because for them its like a grain in the sand when someone votes with their "dollar" because of that its a hypocritical statement to evoke the audience and for that matter if there was 0 piracy we still would get crap software most of the time due to human factor where incompetent developers release mediocre software and consider it ok to use since i think most developers dont play their own games, i mean its their product, doesnt mean its any good, its just a way to make money for them and product quality often has little to do with how it sells as people often fall for the worst things possible like the way coca cola originally was a drug beverage which had to be modified by law to not include drugs in it and if we look into the future i am pretty sure there would be similar laws for software. i think media changes with if society for example get into ai based mind control and if further advances increase we probably would take away media altogether since in my mind its a form of mind control rather than entertainment, like i often feel worse after playing a game o watching a movie and often wonder why its called entertainment if it often corces you into a certain worldview or opinion, that is a tool of control tbh.

[Ulfrinn]

Publicado originalmente por kilésengati:

Publicado originalmente por permanent name:

The same systems have been a part of the linux package since gnu 10. people have even discovered instances of inferred code which does the same thing, and which has been embedded into common respositories.

this is allowed because linux itself is proprietary, and not technically owned by the community.

arch itself was started as a false flag meant to corral interest in gnu10 alternatives, and the people who had the (illegally obtained) emails to prove it were sent to jail and given gag orders.

That's news to me. Got a source?

Linux is not proprietary. Certain distros might contain proprietary blobs, but the Linux kernel itself is licenced under GPLv2.

I'm curious as well since I've used Arch for about a decade now. The code has always been completely open.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Publicado originalmente por Ulfrinn:

Publicado originalmente por kilésengati:

That's news to me. Got a source?

Linux is not proprietary. Certain distros might contain proprietary blobs, but the Linux kernel itself is licenced under GPLv2.

I'm curious as well since I've used Arch for about a decade now. The code has always been completely open.

There isn't one.

I did this dance last time(multiple times) and it's always "there used to be a source but powers that be scrubbed it off the internet" which is very convenient.

[gugnihr]

Publicado originalmente por moo:

He made a comment years ago saying piracy isn't a money issue - but a service issue. People who spend thousands on a gaming-rig who choose to pirate aren't doing so for money-related reasons. Tonight I discovered he is right.

In addition to Steam - I'm on Game Pass (for PC). Been there for a long time. There is a game I wanted to mod - called Crackdown 3. I was able to find the game's location on my hard drive - which is WAY more obscure than the simple Steam where you just go to Steamapps and choose the game.

Anyway - so I find folders for the game's videos which I actually enjoyed a lot and I thought wow that's so cool I don't even need a tool to extract them they're just all sitting right there in two folders.

Turns out those folders are 100% locked for any kind of editing - so even though I'm admin on my computer - and even though I pay for Game Pass.....I can't access the files. That blows my mind - and it also proves what he said years ago is true - because now I'm thinking about sailing the black seas in hope of finding someone who found a way around this issue. Again - not for money reasons - but for service reasons.

Today you are absolutely right, in the past when I started playing games in 1990 I would say it was a problem of ignorance.
My parents bought me an Amiga and simply did not even consider the possibility of buying a copy of a game that was much more expensive when they could just buy me a copied one because they did not even know what games and computers were, videogames were so completely outside of their world that they could not understand there could be something valuable in them.
I managed to make them buy me a few original games but then when the PS1 came out (and even a little earlier, on PC) and when stores started to sell only original games and no pirated games anymore and you only saw pirated games sold from shady people in the streets they got used to buying original games rather soon (I mean my mom, my father is just too dumb to understand anything, he was never even able to tell the difference when I bought an original game or a pirated one, the only thing he maybe was able to understand was "cost less money" but not the reason why)

...and by the way now that I think about it I remember that on the Amiga there were a few games that had SO MANY discs that the cost of a pirate copy was the same of the original lol