StarCraft 2 Pirated 2.3 Million Times

According to data gathered by TorrentFreak earlier this month, StarCraft II is the most pirated game of 2010 – to date, anyways. StarCraft II: The Wings of Liberty has been downloaded more than 2.3 million times since the game released in July. According to TorrentFreak, the total number of data downloaded as it relates to StarCraft II is a staggering 15.77 Petabytes. This data is based on torrent downloads, and does not take into account downloads from other non-file-sharing sources.

Around 3 million legitimate copies of the game have been sold to date. Of course, those 2.3 million copies can’t be used to play online, so that’s something.

Source: Softpedia

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    Nerd42 says:

    I do not agree with you, greevar. I do support the idea of a comprehensive copyright, patent and trademark reform together with tort reform to fix how these laws and institutions have been warped out of their original purposes and functions. But I do not agree with the idea of eliminating copyright completely. I only want to reduce it to a reasonable scope and time period.

    I think the American Founding Fathers were wise in providing for the federal government to grant limited exclusive rights to authors and inventors as incentive to create. The problem is that the government has exceeded it’s Constitutional authority on a massive scale, so that the current problems with copyright law are only a symptom of a much bigger disease. Copyright isn’t the disease, the abuse and illegitimate expansion of federal power is.

  2. 0
    greevar says:

    I’m glad I’m not the only one here that sees the difference between ingringement and theft. That said, copyright is not a legitimately helpful nor reasonable law in the least. You are aware of the Statute of Anne, so you must be aware why it was established. For those that don’t know, it was to censor seditious books from being printed. After the law granted the stationers the exclusive power of publishing, they became greedy from the wealth it gave them. They claimed it was for the good of the authors, so they would be able to earn a living. That was an out and out lie. People who create do not need copyright. People who want to sell creative works through retail need copyright.

    The laws of economics do not support a retail model for creative works as ideas are abundant goods and anyone who knows basic economics, knows abundant goods have a price of zero. Nevertheless, there are ways to make money on abundant goods, by selling scarce goods and services that are related to the abundant goods. There is also the "fund and release" model. People may pledge some money to a project. When enough people pledge enough money, the project gets done and the creators get paid. The results of that project can be shared, modified, and distributed freely because the creators already earned their pay and the uninhibited sharing of that work serves as free publicity for their services.

    Such a model is similar to that of a contractor. They estimate a job, give the customer a price for the job, the customer agrees to pay, and the contractor does the work. The contractor doesn’t have a right to demand payment every time someone new lives in that house nor do they have a right to be paid every time someone looks at it. They did their job and they were paid for it. It now belongs to the customer. The same goes for the arts. The natural state of works is to be in the public domain, but copyright delays that in the assumption that it will promote creation of more works with the incentive to the artist that they will earn money from the exclusive rights to that work. The truth of the matter is, with the "copyright by default" model, that there are fewer works entering the public domain today than ever before. With all of the copyright lawsuits going hog wild in the courts, people are avoiding creating works out of fear of litigation.

    Copyright is a backwards law that should never have been, simply because it doesn’t serve its purpose nor is it necessary for artists to earn a living. If nothing else, it is a censorship law and it does more harm than good.


  3. 0
    Nerd42 says:

    You can only consider file sharing "stealing" if you accept the premise that an idea, not a physical object but an idea, can be someone’s property and that therefore copying someone else’s idea is stealing someone else’s idea. That’s actually a fairly complex, developed and abstract philisophical position on ethics which not everyone agrees with.

    When Moses brought the Seventh Commandment ("Thou Shalt Not Steal") down from Mount Sinai, the Statute of Anne (the first copyright legislation) was millenia in the future. Was the Statute of Anne really addressing the exact same thing that the commandment presented to the ancient Hebrews by Moses was addressing? If you think so, it should be supported by argument, not just assumed. Unless you think it self-evident. But many do not. I do not.

    I think it is reasonable for the government to grant, in order to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, exclusive rights to copy creative works to their creators for a limited time. And I think the copyright on StarCraft II is a legitimate one and therefore the law is justified and the people breaking it are guilty of copyright infringement. But not of theft. Nothing has been stolen. A limited exclusive right granted by the government for a limited time has been violated but nothing has been stolen.

    I also think the perspective that the content industry has taken of the law is stupid and self-destructive. Culture always builds on the past and if you want lots of building going on, a healthy public domain and reasonable fair use protections are obviously necessary. In addition, they really ought to be changing their business models to fit the market instead of trying to use the hammer of government to play "whack-a-mole" with the freeloading moochers among their customers and fans, often missing and hitting the innocent by mistake. This is worse than violating abstract legal rights – it is simple naked evil, spun by the media into good. That’s just horrible and despicable. No, they ought to be thinking about ways to get people involved, not to shut people out of their products. The capitalistic approach would be to charge for services that the pirates just can’t duplicate, like the creator of Minecraft is doing. The looting approach is what they’re taking so far, unleashing hoards of zombie lawyers to prey on the possibly innocent by inflicting punishment out of proportion to any offense and with no regard to any conception of justice but only a mere pretense of it which is assumed but never justified.

    Let’s get sane and 21st century and address sacred inalienable individual physical private property rights first. Then we can talk about abstract limited exclusive legal rights.

  4. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    Held within media is inspiration, information and education. One can not choose what information may or may not be spread just cause one is beholdant to antiquated ideals.

    Copyright was and is growing even more so into a draconian form of thought, idea enslavement to monopolies, they hold most of the rights and they can throw one into the quagmire of the legal system, so you can simplify this as a individual greed issue or you can see it for what it really is a slow and endless fight against da I mean  the system…er no wait!!11 😛

    Seriously tho if you are happy with how things are keep on following the law keep on ignoring the truth, they will come for you last but they will come because the rest of us will be put under the new authoritarian state.

    I have a dream, break the chains of copy right oppression!

  5. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:


    Because there is direct damage in breaking an entering to remove a "unique" item, and no tangible direct damage or harm when you copy a copy.

    As for being whats wrong with humanity, your a sheep. Inherently there is nothing wrong with it but you neither add to or subtract from the greater advancement of humanity, you are merely grease for the gears.

    Those of us who have stepped outside it are more broken redundant cogs in the current system than anything else, we neither do direct harm nor can we change things. But we are sure as hell are noisy buggers :P.

     And if you still do not get it this is about the free distribution of information(as media is information you can not cherry pick what may or may not be locked away and protected by questionable forms of censorship because people do not have the ability to pay) not mere entertainment or profit, it goes beyond such petty concepts.


    I have a dream, break the chains of copy right oppression!

  6. 0
    SeanB says:

    Go back and read the comment I made at the beginning of this whole mess, then tell me that it’s ME who missed the point, when he’s telling me that I AM WHAT IS WRONG WITH HUMANITY.

    Please explain to me how break and enter, and home invasion, equates to me downloading a VIDEO GAME to find out if i liked it or not. I’ve faithfully purchased every blizzard game ever made (with exception to diablo hellfire), but had a feeling that maybe SC2 wasn’t for me. So I downloaded it check. Turned out i was right.

    And that leads him to sum me up as "What is wrong with humanity"

    Please, use your expert wisdom and explain that to me. That is the comment i was replying to, nothing else. 

  7. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    Programmers, writers, musicians, joe public anyone who has the ability to be creative is hurt and anyone seeking betterment or mere knowledge is hurt. I am not saying that one should get rid of the current system but rather make it so distribution and dissemination can be done freely by anyone as long as they make nothing from it. Follow the money as it where and make it so only the licensed info broker has a right to make money off it an the rest may not.

    I have a dream, break the chains of copy right oppression!

  8. 0
    SeanB says:

    What a crock of shit. I’m what’s wrong with humanity, because i didn’t shell out $60 to find out i didn’t like a VIDEO GAME. Wow, your world view must be pretty damned narrow.

  9. 0
    DorthLous says:

    You didn’t rest anything.


    Look, I work in the game industry, even worked for EA through some of the meanest rush ever, I legally own over 500 games on my PC alone, I don’t pirate games and I don’t agree 100% with what Zerodash said. Even though all of this, I still can spot a fallacy and my friend, if your debate is "you are wrong because you take an opposing view to ‘common’ knowledge and anything you say to justify it makes you more wrong", boy are you a weak debater.


    The thing is, copyright as it stands today HURTS a lot of people IN the industry. Ask around, it’ll be confirmed by nearly everyone, even those opposing piracy. It locks concept down for a near eternity. It stiffles innovation by making you afraid of copyright sharks. And then some.


    Then again, simply pirating out of a sense of entitlement DOESN’T HELP CHANGE THAT! All it does is kill popular IP and give munition to some of the most money-hungry people of the industry.


    This could go on for a while, but the fact of the matter is that this isn’t a clear cut case. Arguments can be made and even though one side can be or is wrong, you could hardly prove it with 3 sentences.


    So please, debate, respect and hopefully something new and productive can come out of those forums.

  10. 0
    coderjcronin says:


    While it’s true very few programmers get royalties from their work when working on a "big budget" game (they are usually either contract workers paid based on development stage/completion or reguraly employed salary workers; neither get overtime which saves money in the long run… another arguement for another day), someone has put up the money to pay them in advance of sales. While this money usually comes from other sources (sales of previous titles, personal wealth, etc) it is expected to be returned in the form of profit from sales of the title being developed. This money is a loss to whomever invested it, be it corporation or group of individuals, until the title brings in a profit. If the title brings in no profit or very little profit, it is unlikely to be invested again (poor rate of return; every investors phobia). If no more money is being put up to develop a title, be it new or in production, a studio has no choice but to start laying off employees and putting a freeze on new contracts (which now puts a strain on the government to supply unemployment benefits to the laid off workers).

    If the developer is small one, or independent, most likely they have gotten no compensation at all until the title is either sold to a publisher or distributed by themselves. Some contracts for publishing are one-time (especially with the recent explosion of indie hits; publishers want to keep that massive profit) however there are publishing agreements out there that keep funneling money to the developers in addition to the developers the publish/distribute titles on their own in hope of having a direct return. That is their compensation for working hard and giving up their own personal lives.

    The "chain" you refer to is obviously the cycle some programmers are trapped in working contract or salary for little return, losing often home and family and friends just to help a large publisher make more money. Unfortunately, piracy only makes that chain barbed; as I said, when less money is returned from the investment, less people are hired. This means harsher deadlines with less help and more "mandatory" overtime. If you want to break the chain, buy indie games that are self published or published by a group that is known to play nice with developers. Much like Fair Trade products are starting to spread to larger grocery distributers (where farmers and help are paid fair wage), such actions show large publishers that consumers prefer those that treat their developers fairly without the studio having to be almost celebrity status to do so.

  11. 0
    vellocet says:

    As I said… 

    "… have to put up with – not just people taking it without your consent – but also coming up with all kinds of rationalizations for why they are "entitled" to."

    I rest my case.


    Morality has always been in decline. As you get older, you notice it. When you were younger, you enjoyed it.

  12. 0
    vellocet says:

    I’m with Zerodash on this one.  People work very hard on these games.  The hours in the industry are notoriously horrendous.

    People arguing that it’s their "right" to pirate these games because they’re not "stealing" is insulting.  More so than what Zerodash has said.

    You try putting your heart, soul, blood, sweat and tears into a product and have to put up with – not just people taking it without your consent – but also coming up with all kinds of rationalizations for why they are "entitled" to.


    Morality has always been in decline. As you get older, you notice it. When you were younger, you enjoyed it.

  13. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    I always thought copy right was more a profit right, the creator sells the interested party the right to make a profit off it(which should time out and be limtied to 5 year sets but thats just my opioin). Essentially thats what copyright should be about, none of this vague limiting distribution or copies but contracting out who’s allowed to make a profit of X or Y. I think that is a much better balance of stifling greed and freedom to be creative.

    I have a dream, break the chains of copy right oppression!

  14. 0
    greevar says:

    Insulting someone is not the proper means to persuade someone to consider your point of view as the correct one. Have you ever considered another’s opinion because they insulted you? You also make the erroneous assumption that copyright infringement is exactly the same as theft. It’s not. Copyright is the exclusive right to distribute works. It is not a property right. An idea is not your property simply because you thought of it. That which you create is not your property. The canvas and the paint you used is your property, but the image that those items represent is not yours. What if I claim that a red balloon on a blue sky was my property? Is that even fair? It’s very vague and it prohibits eveyone from creating similar works and by extension, anyone who does so is a thief. Do you see how that would conflict with the concept of real property? Define red and define blue. There are many interpretations of those colors and all would fall under the blanket of being "my property". By treating an idea as property, I have just locked out a huge swath of creative works that can no longer be made.

    The original poster didn’t steal anything. That implies that he/she took something from another and they are now without that thing. That is not the case. They copied it. Now there is one more copy in existence, not the opposite. The only thing they are guilty of (if it can even be proven) is that they violated the authors’ rights to choose who gets a copy of said work. If I break into your house and take your TV, you have no TV. If I copy your music, you still have your music. Furthermore, copyright is also not a right to payment. It only gives you the right to choose whom may have a copy of your works.


  15. 0
    gamegod25 says:

    All pirating games does (for whatever reason) is take money away from devs who could use that money to keep making games and give companies an excuse to add more and harsher DRM.

    If you’re not sure if you’ll like the game then play a demo or if one isn’t available go to a friends house and try it there. And if you can’t afford full price then you can wait for a sale or a price drop.

    I hate DRM and paying a lot for games as much as anyone, but when you pirate games you really are just hurting the industry and fellow gamers who legitimately pay for them. No amount or excuses or rationalization will change that.

    Don’t be a douche, don’t pirate games.

  16. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    MMmmmmmmmm I can agree to disagree with some of what you say.

    Thats odd…. censorship was the norm for the times so the printing press would not inherently change things as the government could shut down any questionable printing. Perhaps they used copyright as a backdoor method(decrying the poor creator and his quassi rights when they never had rights to begin with) to control it as a under the radar means, but either way the government would block it regardless so saying it was founded on a absolute negative and is worthless is a cop out and just plain weak thought processing.


    As time goes on like most things copyright is pushed and geared to those with the most power and influence. Looking at pre industrial age and current times copyright has become WORSE than what it was.

    Again you are ignoring simple human societal processes, the media industry is multi national and has more money thus power than most modern nations.


    Is it bad yes, is it worse than or as nearly bad a say a authoritarian  state, no.

    Its the kinda like the difference as you said of breaking and entering to steal something and copying a copy. 


    Yet you refuse to see this and declare that it must be destroyed. One can declare the current US government invalid and war against it, it dose not mean you will win or become nothing more than a maryter to the intellectually inept.

    Tho I suppose if you take this train of thought to extremes I would be for slavery but demand fair and equal treatment of them creating a "better" form of indentured servitude or contract law(one person selling themselfs to another for X time or money) .

    But at the end of the day the enslavement of humans is much worse than that of ideas, as once an idea finds it way out of the box it spreads quickly beyond it. Those with influence and power will try to contain it but that’s an impossibility just as destroying the box is an impossibility. Instead of trying to destroy or contain it I and trying to think of a less absolute path, one that limits their ability to contain it.

    PS:Refuse reality  you are , strawmen arguments,  fial is made of(so is bad yoda speak but you gotta luv it LOL).


    I have a dream, break the chains of copy right oppression!

  17. 0
    greevar says:

    Copyright has not become a bad thing, it was always a bad thing that has just became worse over time. It was created out of the worst of intentions. Do you even know why copyright was created in the first place? It was because of the printing press. Suddenly, anyone could publish a book if they so desired. The King and the church (this is England we’re talking about) didn’t like that, because it meant that people could write whatever they pleased, even if it was seditous against the church and the crown. So, they enacted the Statute of Anne. The law required that registered stationers be the only ones permitted to print books and even then, they had to be reviewed and approved by the king and the church. It was out of censorship that the first copyright law was birthed. Years later, the stationers had become wealthy from this censorship law, but parliament was looking to repeal the it. The stationers trotted their wives and children in for sympathy and claimed that without this law, authors could not make living, knowing full-well they could. The lawmakers fell for it. The copyright laws the founders crafted were based on the Statute of Anne.

    I am not ignoring the idea of amending copyright. I’m outright rejecting the idea. As long as such a law exists, those whom benefit from it will try to expand its power. They already did this several times (copyright act of 1978 and the DMCA for example), we know this for a fact and that’s why I am debating it.

    You persist in claiming that what I argue is a fantasy and not possible in any real sense, yet you don’t have one lick of practical evidence or logical reasoning to counter my argument. You continually claim I’m wrong and your amendment solution is the cure without any logical reasoning to back it up. You also claim I said things I did not. The majority of your arguments are full of non sequiturs and incoherent rambling. What I say may be radical and largely untested, but I back my arguments with reason, logic, history, and fact. All I’ve seen from you is this "I have the solution, but I can’t explain why it’s right".

    Here’s what I think. You’re not who you claim to be. I think you’re a spook. You’re an IP maximist pretending to be a copyright reformist in order to sway those that oppose copyright protections to maintain the status quo while creating the appearance of reform. That, or you’re just not a very good critical thinker. In any case, I’m finished arguing with you.


  18. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    You miss the point that you can place abstract physical concepts on intangible goods, the problem then becomes do you make it so you block every instance of it afterwords or just a few instances of it(and your perfect world scenario is still highly unrealistic). And you are right copyright HAS BECOME a monstrous thing , but remember one of the core tenets of copy right is the distrobusion of copyrighted items, you change its focus from ALL to what is only trying to make money and you have drastically changed the system.

    The solution is what I said, you change amend copy right to ignore distribution,circumvention and possession. Focusing only on what is trying to make money.

     A fantasy it is. . . making real a perfect world.

    Copyright is to long(frankly I would prefer it to last in 10 year maxim sets that default to the copy right creator, then are passed into public domain no more than ten years after the death of the creator or when the copyright profiter makes all their money back o the item in question which ever comes frist) but I doubt you will change that, rather you will be lucky to them to concseed to free dissemination of information(IE all media).

    Meh you are ignoring amending copy right to allow free trade,circumvention and possession. . .

    Your previous analogy is flawed, the public will always "buy" thus the majority will  never see a choice we have choices now but they are too afraid or ignorant to bother with thinking thus allowing free trade,circumvention and possession will not make a huge dent in the system but it will give us more options and choice even if the drones fail to see it. Or rather modern main stream society is stuck in a idealistic fantasy world or mendacity, the are told what to buy what to think what to do how to live and for the most part they follow, those not stuck in the rut or those that want freedom from it can at least gain a sense of freedom by not giving up their hard earned funds for information. But some do that now anyway damn the laws that are bought and sold.

    You have a choice copyright as it is or with free distribution,circumvention and possession, these are the only choices you have(well there are 2 more ignore and consume legally or just break the law which is ignore it but consume it and damn the consequence).

    There is no real functional option beyond these 2 points, either you bow down to the malevolent system or you change it to be more benevolent, to get rid of it means you destroy mankind or just wipe them off the face of the earth because they will not let go of it it can not be let go of its a nation within a nation that has its tentacles in everything, you can either change it little or destroy humanity to the point they have something better to do than support it and its many heads. 

    I have a dream, break the chains of copy right oppression!

  19. 0
    locopuyo says:

    Only 3 million copies sold so far?  That has to be wrong considering how frequent there are around 1,000,000 people playing StarCraft II simultaneously on  I guess it is possible everyone who bought it just loves it that much.  

    People that didn’t buy it because there is no LAN weren’t going to buy it anyways.  

    Pwnage of Empires Xbox 360 Indie RTS

  20. 0
    greevar says:

    Controlling of ideas in any form is never good. Shaping, directing and focusing ideas is good, but controlling is not. To your explaination of why it is bad and yet it is not, I have no idea what you are tyring to get across. The reason that controlling ideas is bad for progress is simple. All art is derivative. If one cannot derive ideas from ideas that preceeded them, it is nigh impossible to create new ideas. Furthermore, many people can come to think of the same idea at the time independently. Who has the right to exploit that idea more than the other? How can one possibly determine which is of more merit to possess exclusive rights? When you limit or diminish the usablity of previous ideas for the sake of exclusive rights to said idea, you limit the creation and progress of new ideas. If the goal of copyright is to promote the creation of new ideas (which it is), then it fails at its own primary directive by its very nature.

    Once the monopoly genie is out of the bottle, those that depend on it want more power to maintain their monopolies. By that measure, copyright is a self-destructive concept. Those that create art and wish to make a living creating art will find a way to do so without copyright. There is no "balance" when a monopoly is involved. The people want choice and the creators/publishers/whathaveyou want control. These are two mutually exclusive concepts and cannot be balanced nor blended.

    If I presented you with an assortment of toys that each had its own distintive color (let’s say for argument’s sake the colors of the rainbow (i.e. "roygbiv")) and I said you could only choose red or green. Is that a choice or control? Obviously, that is not choice because there are clearly more options than red or green, but I have limited your options to those two colors. Therefore, that is control to the negation of choice. You may think that the option of red or green is still the appearnce of choice, but what if it was something else? What if I said I was going to kill you and you could only choose to die by impalement or poison? Is that a choice or control? If there was any actual choice in the matter you’d have the option to not be killed. So, since we can’t "balance" the two concepts, then we have to eliminate one in favor of the other. Which is the more imperative concept? Well, if the goal is still to promote progress, then the obvious choice would be no control. Without true freedom to create uninhibited, progress is diminished.


  21. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    The "authors" tend to be beholdant and dependent on the middle man whose made a dark empire out of distribution and dissemination of information based on slavery of ideas and indentured servitude of creative people. Bootleggers, downloaders, piracy, infringement/infringers and whatever catch phrase sound bite they make up is created by that fact, but is the system that is founded on the ideal of thought and idea control inherently bad. I suppose you could say in short yes but the long answer is no.

    Its yes because in this modern age they the mega corporate multi copyright super owner will do everything it can to stifle things they can not control.

    Its no because if you shift its focus IE infringement of any kind must be linked with direct "money"(not profit as that means you are making above what you are spending) making.

    Now I understand that it would be great if you got rid of the copy/idea/thought control "copyright" notion but much like ethnic group, religion, nationality, regional grouping, greed, and a crap load of other things that can easily lead to BAD and NEGATIVE things due to arrogance, ignorance, intolerance, greed,ect.

    We are only human and our systems can only be bent so far until they collapse upon themselves, the media industry is going through a second childhood with the invention of easy mass distribution of information what we need is for them to realize they can make more money not less by allow the free trade of information(as long as no money or value is exchanged). That there is no longer a niche region to sell to as the world market has been opened for everyone to sell media too.

    That they should focus on these goals and allow anyone to easily sell their branded media for a cut of whatever the lowest price can sell it at(the thought here is if you sell something thats worth 50$ normally for 1$ whatever infrastructure you use, that is approved by the CP/IP owner, will be swamped and thus you need to riase the price in order to afford to sell it if they take a 60% or so cut.) We can have he current system as antiquated as it is work and work well for all, least until man invents another gilded thing that only time can fix. . . or destory.

    I have a dream, break the chains of copy right oppression!

  22. 0
    greevar says:

    You miss the fact that we’re talking about ideas and you can’t apply physical property concepts to ideas as you are attempting. Copyright has no place in the world as it is today. Economics and the internet have deemed it so. Supply and demand determine price. Ideas are abundant in supply and so is the art that is distributable over the internet. Where the abundant supply and demand meet, the price is zero. The only function of copyright today is to bypass this basic rule by giving creators the power to create artificial scarcity. Unfortunately for them, this scarcity is not absolute and it’s flawed no matter how you try to apply it.

    So what’s the solution? For starters, stop selling copies. You can’t restrict, no matter what DRM you try or what laws you pass, people from copying. Every part of a computer is a copying device. The RAM copies the data for the CPU to use. The hard disk copies it for storage. The network copies it for transmission. So you need to stop relying on the sale of copies for your business model. Instead, focus on selling what can never be copied: your time and effort into creating works. Take this for example. A landscaper doesn’t sell copies of premade landscapes to they? No, they sell their time, effort, and resources to transform your property into what you want to it be. Do they demand payment for every person who views this landscape? No. Do they demand payment when someone else becomes owner of the landscape? No. They were hired to do a job and they were paid for it. They didn’t need to rely on selling instances of the the work they created.

    This is what the digital media world needs to embrace, because the old ways of doing things are dead and inferior. Embracing this new model would actually benefit everyone far more than the old way. The old way encouraged hoarding and controlling ideas. Whereas the new way would do the opposite. If artists were paid to do a job rather than sell copies of their work, it wouldn’t matter if people were sharing it without paying the artist for each instance, because the artist would already be earning a living just creating what people pay him to make while the sharing of that work would serve to advertise his skills to new potential customers. Thanks to the internet and the wonderful invention of BitTorrent, distribution is easy and nearly without cost. It’s a win for everyone. The artist gets payment and free publicity/distribution, the fans get their art and feel connected to the creators of their favorite works.

    Why should anyone deserve payment for work they did up to a lifetime and 70 years ago? If I demanded that my employer pay me residually for work I did when I was first hired, they would laugh in my face or possibly fire me. Copyright isn’t about protecting profits and it never was. Continuing to argue from that viewpoint is futile as copyright does not empower nor restrict an artists’ ability to make money from their works.

    Also, you are ignoring the underlying rules of my color analogy by applying your own. There is no alternative source to access (legally or otherwise) the other colors except from me. I have these toys and no one else does. If I don’t offer them to you as an option, you cannot acquire them. Furthermore, this was not an argument about how to acquire them, it was an analogy to exhibit the difference between choice and control.

    Your ISP scenario only appears plausible because it focuses on the appearance that profit is protected which you crafted out of fear of losing control of something you never had control of in the first place and a balance is struck between control and choice which my previous analogy describes is impossible. Just because my scenario goes against the colloquial methods of business models doesn’t mean it’s unrealistic. It merely applies the rules of other business models to create a method of earning revenue from scarce goods like time and skill rather than abundant goods that do not diminish in supply.

    Your signature line implies that you wish to emancipate the people from the restrictive nature of copyright yet your arguments imply that you care more for the protection of intellectual property rights (a concept dreamed up by the industry to legitimize their protections) of those that don’t need it in order to accomplish that goal. This seems to me a bit conflicted because you can’t have both.


  23. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    My brain wanders mid sentence half the time, lulz. My point is its not effectively controlled when you seek to control only certain types of profit flow derived from it.

    What you seek in not controlling it is a perfect world scenario humanity is incapable of creating much less maintain, perhaps when energy is easy enough to create and matter can be manipulated or created from it as easy as creating the energy to make stuff maybe then you can have a system where no form of copy right can exist, but until then you have to have a system that limits greed and corruption, which is nearly impossible as is .

     My ideal is simple enough to follow CP/IP even patents and trade marks and other thought construct "locks" can be freely distributed/disseminated and used as long as whatever venture using it is not making anything from it(meaning you could pad data or extra unlicensed hardware with whatever you make as long as its not the main reason its being sold, or market value is worth more than the item you are selling of course the courts will keep it to a minim but there is onyl so much they can sue befor the the cost is not worth the price of the lawsuit). This allows a lot more freedom and creativity than the current system that wants to stifle and control every aspect of things they do and do not own.

    Under your color analogy you can gain access to and share any color you want as long as you or the web/net/site,ect(not ISP mind you) provider used is not making money off it.

    This creates a market scenario where server(not ISPs) bandwidth and storage become more costly limiting what can be freely traded but at the same time allowing for more growth in both what is free and normal CP/IP offerings, this is the best realistic scenario my rotted wandering brain can up with, your scenario is highly unrealistic. Mine is plausible at best, but at least still plausible.

    I have a dream, break the chains of copy right oppression!

  24. 0
    greevar says:

    The problem is not that people are making copies that the authors are not getting paid for nor is it people selling works they do not have the right to sell. The problem lies in the fact that this industry continues to perpetuate the retail model in an environment that has proven that such a method is no longer viable. Bootleggers are a problem because they can undercut the authors. File sharers are a problem because the authors depend on people to buy as many copies as possible. Do you see the problem here? It’s not that there are "pirates" and bootleggers, it’s that they refuse to give up on a failed business model. If they were to use another model wherein they sell other goods and/or services that tie in to these works of art, then the sharing of copies would not affect their bottom line and bootleggers would be nullified because if it’s already "free" to be had, they can’t undercut the authors. Abandoning retail is the only way that the issue with "piracy" and bootleggers can be solved.


  25. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    I didn’t buy it either I might pick it up if I can tag it for new under 20$ It was a nice game but not worth the trouble of big brother.

    Also it shows piracy is one part popularity, meaning the IP dose well and is pirated,shared, freely made available and is not negatively effected by it

    We really need to grow up and see the difference in sharing that raises up everyone. And profiteering which stagnates and de evolves us into instinctual beasts…. The difference under the ideals of this era or modern age hinge’s upon whos profiting off the IP/CP in question, if its unlicensed and trying to get money it should be illegal if it is not taking in any money then it’s distribution has no business being blocked by anyone less one wishes to stifle the dissemination of information, inspiration, education and free thought.

    I have a dream, break the chains of copy right oppression!

  26. 0
    greevar says:

    Piracy is bad. The violent assualt of a tranport carrying goods to another location is a terrible thing. Murdering people and to take property that doesn’t belong to you is a heinous act. That said, copying a game that you didn’t pay the author for is not as vicious an offense as piracy. There is no law that says you must pay for copyrighted works nor does it define such an act as theft. What you are implying by your statement is that the only proper way to distribute and consume games is by retail sales and one-to-one financial transactions. Why does it have to be that way? Can’t authors disseminate their works to the public by other methods and still earn a living? Does it really have to be "one copy, one sale"? My response would be, "no, it doesn’t". There are many ways money can be made from works that have nothing to do with selling copies to consumers.

    Also, what’s wrong with those 2.3 million people that won’t have access to Can you be certain that they even want access to If SC2 is such a great game, maybe the campaign is enough for those people? The law states that authors have the right to choose who gets a copy of their work, it doesn’t mandate that they be paid for every copy in existence. Copyright doesn’t say anything about paying for those copies. Those people did break the law, but it’s a broken law that doesn’t fit the circumstances of reality.


  27. 0
    Thomas P. says:

    But none of those 2.3 million copies of Starcraft II can play on  You can play the campaign, but thats about it.  I bought Starcraft II and never regretted it for one second.

    By the way, there is an option to try Starcraft II that doesn’t involve piracy.  Find a friend who has the game.  Blizzard included two 14-day (or 7 hour) trial codes to give it a spin for free before buying.  There are alot of online forums you can post on that if you ask nicely someone will give you a code, and perhaps in the near future Blizzard will extend this to everyone (sort of like the WoW trial).

    If you don’t like RTS games, Starcraft II isn’t for you.  Starcraft II is built with a specific audiance in mind, and if you don’t fit that audience, then find something that is for you.

    Piracy is bad, mmmkay.

  28. 0
    Zerodash says:

     Good on you for speaking with your wallet.  However, do you seriously still do LAN parties?  When was the last time you hosted/attended a LAN party?  Please be honest.

  29. 0
    paketep says:

    Same here.

    I went from automatically preordering every game Blizz announced, to cancelling and never buying from them again.

    I blame Kotick. And Pardo.

  30. 0
    Nerd42 says:

    I didn’t buy StarCraft II and I’m not going to, ever, because they took out LAN support. They took it out in order to control people, which I do not respect. I’m not buying a game like that which is missing an essential feature like LAN support that’s been ommited only in order to control people. I’m not pirating it either, I’m boycotting it completely. I occasionally still play StarCraft 1; it was a masterpiece; a LAN party staple and I’m sickened at how Blizzard has turned it’s back on it’s most devoted customers.

  31. 0
    Zerodash says:

     I hope someone steals something you worked on. Hell, I hope someone breaks into your house and steals shit and then tells you how justified they are in doing so- because they did not like the things they took.


    You are what is wrong with humanity.  With your world-view, why even get a job in the first place?  you have every moral right to take whatever you want.  Scumbag.

  32. 0
    SeanB says:

    Glad i pirated my copy. I played it for a couple hours the day it came out, haven’t touched it since.

    If i’d payed full retail price for it, i’d be feeling pretty shitty.

    Piracy is not always about getting something for nothing, and it’s rarely about stealing.

Leave a Reply