Well, in some prehistoric countries, woman raped had to marry her rapist, and if she didn't want to do that, she was stoned to death (read the bible)

so no, not really. In some cultures and countries it depends on what kind of woman you're raping, too.

Not so long time ago, raping a whore was treated just like a silly joke, not an offence of any kind.

Rape isn't exception here. Murder is closer one, but even that wasn't that clear not so long time ago, when killing a slave wasn't that bad as killing the noble / free men. And again, nobody gave a damn about murdered whore.

You two are having the classic philosophical discussion. Cultural relativism VS. Universalism (I don't know the proper english terms).

I doubt you will end a century old discussion on this forum, however ;-).

I end this conversation by saiyng: I win!

:P

Only on the GOG forum does a thread about piracy turn into such a discussion. :P

You don't need to even download the game to see it. Case in point (can't provide direct link right now, sorry).

1) Go to Pirate Bay
2) Search for (recent?) SKIDROW release (e.g. Assassins Creed 3)
3) Read the description

They say something along the lines of "Please support the games you enjoyed playing!", which in my opinion, is better than saying "Buy the games you enjoy playing" because not everyone can afford buy, but most can support in some way. For example, telling people the game is worth the X asking price can lead to sales. Just like seeing the game works (or can be made to work) on Wine's AppDB leads to sales.

My two cents: This basically doesn't proove anything. It really doesn't matter which version has been circulated. Once the DRM is broken, both versions are equal. And how can anyone say that the fight against piracy has been won and at the same time admitting that there was piracy? It's beyond what I can understand. I think the article is complete rubbish.

Probably the best protection against piracy is too stream your data. If you cannot or want not to do this then the hope is that without DRM the situation doesn't get too bad and they kind of made it plausible that it did although they cannot know since we don't know how much piracy there was and how much more copies they could have sold. Nobody knows.

So summary line: In order to fight piracy you don't need copy protection, you need streaming.
The question would be how many pirates are following this advice. I guess a very small minorty only. So it's kind of useless to say it.

Not that you directly claimed so, but just clarifying something:

I'm pretty sure the people who crack, and who share, games are not usually the same people/groups. It is not Skidrow itself that is putting up and seeding torrent links in PBay, I believe, In fact I recall sometime reading some cracker group stating how it detests bittorrent networks, ie. open and unrestricted sharing of their "works" (which is kinda ironic, if you think about it :)).

So it is mainly just some unknown groups or individuals who want to take that release from a cracker group, maybe "enhance" it a bit, and start sharing it. Why they'd do that, there may be many reasons:

- They feel all information should be free and everyone should be able to enjoy it, even if they were too cheapskate to pay for it,

- They hope to get recognition from their virtual "friends" online for sharing stuff to them.

- They feel it is the most effective way to inject their keyloggers and trojans into people's PCs, when the latter willingly install and run their "cracks". After all, when you download a "Skidrow release" from some unknown torrent seeder, you probably don't even try to check whether it is the genuine Skidrow release and not modified in any way.

The really smart thing GOG did with piracy is not working against it. But working with it.

First, they created a service that combines all the advantages of piracy with non of the downsides (DRM free installers). They also used (for western world) very cheap prices. Then they started advertising their service at piracy sites (abadnonia or whatever they are called). And finally, knowing that their games will be pirated, they put advertisement in their installer.

IIRC, there was a thread that the installer has a minimum time build in, which means with every install, you see the ad. Bringing people, who didn't know GOG or what they had to offer, to the site and on the service.

Nowadays this tactic isn't as important anymore, as GOG has grown. But it was a stroke of genius as a marketing strategy when they started.

I can think of two other companies that used piracy to their advantage. Valve and Microsoft. And look where those two are now.

I'm not sure about this. There is not much evidence for it or against it. Why shouldn't they be the same...

But both still use DRM unlike GOG. DRM seems to not helping and not hurting, both at the same time.

Indeed. People want convenience and will pay for it. DRM fails when it hassles the consumer, which Steam does the opposite of. The movie industry suffers the worst piracy rates because they aren't paying attention.

The "DRM" on Steam is laughable. They us it so that you keep Steam running in a legit copy to get the aggravated data. Their games are easier to crack than most disc checks from ten years ago. With their cracked games, everything works except the stuff you need Steam for. And they can encrypt and "hard DRM" they stuff if they want to, but they have chosen not to. There is a direct correlation between piracy rates and commercial success. If there is also causation can be highly debated. But nobody is willing to find out, because the system is working.

And MS deliberately turned a blind eye on the massive piracy rates of Win 95 and later versions. Even providing free service without a cd key check. This helped Windows become the dominant OS on the planet. They even make offers from time to time to buy legit keys in bundle for something like 5$ a keys for areas with high piracy. It is more important for MS that you use Windows than that you pay for it.

Obviously, no company can ever officially admit to this, as the legal repercussions would be massive.
And what is incredibly successful in the movies industry?

Netflix, which is basically just like those streaming piracy sites only with more stable service.

Piracy is pretty much "crowd sourced consumer product", always aimed at providing the best service. Finding a way to use it in a way to make money is the key to being successful in this day and age with digital products.

Indeed. First company to make a Steam for movies will make a ton of money but I'm not even sure it's possible with their licensing messes. Also they are scared of competitive pricing.

As an interesting thought exercise, it is still possible to imagine (extremely unlikely) scenarios where your "standard rape" (and I feel really icky using the phrase, but...) may be a universally moral course of action. Of course, these scenarios will usually only exist in the realm of apocalyptic science-fiction or fantasy, (Or some sort of weird messed-up genetics-based thriller) and don't apply in any real way to any society that currently or ever has existed, but, y'know... Thought exercise.

Back on topic:

On the subject of piracy, I'd like to believe that GOG and associates have proved that you can go a lot further towards convincing people to buy your games with good will and respect for your customers than you can with destructive and ineffective DRM schemes.

Also, fair pricing helps.

Itunes is trying that, I think (although I never used it). But with movies, ebooks and especially music DRM free is the way to go. Unlike games, DRM has a massive impact with those files. Music, movies and ebooks people are constantly moving from tablet, to phone, to mp3 player, to pc, to microwave. Unlike games. Also, the market is so much bigger, that there is no "too low price". Therefore regional pricing isn't that important.

Licensing is indeed the key issue. Which might just gets never resolved ...

Like I said, I'm all for moral relativism. I just don't think sex could ever be a need that surpasses basic empathy enough to justify violent physical rape.