Minecraft creator says "Piracy" isn't theft

[Harrison]

http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-is-th...reator-110303/

I agree entirely.

[quellren]

He's stupid. Just like his opposition, he subtly twists his case to make his point.
The copying != piracy argument really only works in a limited manner.

What 'Notch' seems to overlook is that music, stand-alone games, (modded Xbox and PS3, hacked PSP's etc.) and digital 'stuff' that isn't growing, is a final product.
Say I saw a friend playing Morrowind. I really like it and want to give it a spin. I don't want to pay for it, so I torrent it from the net.
Notch says I just 'made more' of what already existed, so it isn't theft.
I say I now own every line of coding that would be on the install disc in the box at Game Stop. I, however, got it and never paid for it. Getting a full operation of a product, without Bethesda getting money for it is theft.
I want some more Metallica on my iPod, so I just torrent it and poof. Enter Sandman all day. Aside from the agreement (or not) that Metallica has enough money and they can shove it. I now can rock out and I never paid them for the product they produce. That's theft.
It doesn't matter that no one lost property in the act, it matters that I now possess something that is sold in stores, but I didn't pay for.

If Notch is happy that 30% of the people who have registered to play have actually downloaded the game from him, then good for him.
I will admit, that I DL'd minecraft during the famous 'free-play week' a few months back where his registration server crashed (or something) but I never really did much with it. I've played it maybe 6 hours total.
From the quick research I did, there doesn't seem to be any way to log onto a public server without the stamp of approval from Notch, which you have to pay for. So all this talk about how he's OK with people pirating his game is fine because those that do and then don't pay him to play online are like me, literally alone in an empty, under-developed world. essentially what he's doing is allowing the pirated stuff to be his demo, and then counting on the appeal to draw in sales.
It's not much different than the F2P games, DL for free, play all you want, but you can't have a horse, a house, or get into that ultra-cool endgame dragon raid unless you pony up some cash.

[guineapig]

"Copying" sounds more like "plagiarism" than theft if you want to get technical... but I know that this word doesn't really apply either. Plagiarism is only an issue if you are making money off another persons work.

For instance any band can play a cover tune of any other band at a live concert and not ask permission to do so (because the fans paid for the show, not for a particular song). However they can't put a cover song on an album without getting permission. So here you have a playing (with) another persons work versus selling another person's work.

In EQ terms I think "dupe-ing" would be the most appropriate term which is a banable offense.

Not sure what I'm getting at here. I like Minecraft and now I wish I was working on my castle instead of sitting here at work.

[Massive Marc]

On the article: Talking to someone who is part of the Pirate Party about copyright seems redundant. I wonder what line he's going to toe?

Originally Posted by quellren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

essentially what he's doing is allowing the pirated stuff to be his demo, and then counting on the appeal to draw in sales.

I don't see anything wrong with this. Seems smart.

Originally Posted by quellren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's not much different than the F2P games, DL for free, play all you want, but you can't have a horse, a house, or get into that ultra-cool endgame dragon raid unless you pony up some cash.

I really like this business model. It's working well with League of Legends and a few other popular games. You just can't sell POWER (anything that gives another player an advantage) or else your whole game is gonna shit the bed and be unbalanced.

I really don't know where to draw the line with copyrighting or pirating. I do so much of it now. It's common place for me to just go download the newest movie or music via torrent. I think at the end of the day companies will adapt with tricks and loopholes so pirating isn't as beneficial (not sure how you do it).

[Omnimorph]

Well fact is, piracy is such a widespread thing now, that the gaming industry has to adapt it's model. Being inelligible for DLC, online play etc. is incentive for people to buy it.

I mean there's a crap load of games i've paid for, played once or twice and then left them. Waste of money. Then there's a bunch of games i've initially downloaded, and liked so much i've gone and bought them (mass effect!)

I have no problem paying for games, but i'm in a position where i won't pay for a game i won't get my money's worth out of.

[Messianic]

Originally Posted by Massive Marc [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I really don't know where to draw the line with copyrighting or pirating.

I guess this is how I feel, too. I feel like protecting people's livelihoods who make something that can be replicated so easily is a waste of time, like fighting against technology or nature.

It's true that people who use duped copies of stuff are acquiring something they would have had to pay for. But it's questionable whether any property rights are violated because someone didn't have to pay for your product and got it from someone else. Property rights only deal with negative liberties - i.e. I can't physically steal something from you, destroy your property, and a portion of that is intellectual property - I can't take your product and re-sell it and make a profit off your intellectual property.

But I just don't see where property rights themselves are violated. If doing something which does not physically steal something from someone else nor earn a monetary reward based on someone else's intellectual property is unlawful because it harms the creator of the product - is offering completely free medical services unlawful because it harms hospitals and private practices' ability to maintain employees, etc? Because offering such services for a prolonged period of time would harm that industry.

Is offering free food unlawful because it hurts farms, supermarket retailers, etc?

If something can be replicated (after creation) at no cost, I have trouble seeing why it deserves protection, as long as the first generation audience/customers had to make a purchase to acquire it.

But i'm torn. These are just my thoughts, not necessarily my hardened view...

[Harrison]

Originally Posted by quellren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

He's stupid.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Jealousy is a stinky cologne.

A software dev himself, amongst uncountable others, believes that this witch hunt the MPAA and others are out on is fucking retarded...and he's stupid because you disagree? ...right.

[quellren]

Originally Posted by Harrison [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Jealousy is a stinky cologne.

A software dev himself, amongst uncountable others, believes that this witch hunt the MPAA and others are out on is fucking retarded...and he's stupid because you disagree? ...right.

Yep, you got me. I'm jealous.

Remind me what I'm jealous of?

[Massive Marc]

Originally Posted by quellren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yep, you got me. I'm jealous.

Remind me what I'm jealous of?

Not having access to a litre of cola.

[jcbbjjttt]

You're stealing someones product when you pirate software / music. It is 1 thing if the software is free to torrent it. But, it should not be stolen in this way...