Entertainment is a reward when you pay for it. It also gives a sense of contribution to something greater than one personal egocentric self-sufficient arrogance against society in general.

I can't afford more than what i'm working for. Youth doesn't yet understand that much. Toddlers suck a bottle of milk. Adults *MUST* live.

It's not that having fun in life should be a privilege but that it has to be earned. Tough & rough as it is.

Everything i own, everything i achieved was a direct result of hard work... in schools, at multiple working places for someone else and myself. I gained success by seeking it for reasons; drove cars, put rings on wife fingers, better shoes and HDTeeVees, arcade & cinema visits, etc.

Do you have kids? If you do, you know exactly what it means to be responsible for their own future including your present - you provide for them; you even must STAY poor and forget entertainment altogether as parents when the going gets tougher.

That's the struggle, that's the nature of the beast.

1) Free-Market Capitalism.

2) See #1.

Do you remember your "Earth -- today" thread?  I don't have to claim anything, you wrote it.  Anyone that thinks the rest of the world is made poor by consumption in a particular country, if applying views logically, should be overjoyed that those poor people can get our products for free.  When I look at that last reply you made, a gold plated endorsement of hard work and self reliance, it's hilarious.  I'm sitting here grinning like an idiot just thinking about it.

Thanks though, I'd have been terribly sad if my smartass comment had gone unnoticed.  You shouldn't tempt someone who obviously likes to argue with promises of another conflict.

Edit:  There is no false dichotomy.  Having them in the first place is the whole equation, a distraction is just something to do.  You can prove this to yourself by spending a few hours sitting on your ass doing absolutely nothing with a friend, then compare it to how lousy life is when you're lonely no matter what you do with the time.

I agree - money is not merit, it is a rough approximation of merit. It has many flaws, but I can't think of a beter system, unfortunately.

--

There are two points that are rarely mentioned, but they're fundamental and worth mentioning.

- people like to share with each other. They are taught from childhood that you should help each other, even if it's minor thing. Everyone ends up better this way. People also like to share experiences (going to a party together, eating together...). They're especially likely to do so it it doesn't cost them a lot. Demonizing piracy aggravates pirates because it's telling them it's wrong to share, it's wrong to be altruistic, do each other favours etc.  If you've ever been to a forum where pirates share stuff, you could observe they do that for free, without any obvious reason other than to share with each other. They're doing each other favours. It's been a loong time (before the internet) since I've seen pirates who earn anything by pirating. Actually, i'ts not even sharing in the strict sense, because sharing implies finite resources. There's no finite resource in case in case of copying. It's almost as if - oh, I know that one ! - if copying was spreading information and not stealing.

"Then copyright infringement is spreading information that causes lost sales !". This road leads to madness. What should we do about movie critics ? Reviews ? If I tell my friend they can buy better and cheaper stuff in another shop, is that wrong ? If I tell someone there's a cheaper medicine with the same effect, is that wrong ?  If I tell someone how to do X instead of paying someone to do that...

- people like to learn do things themselves. I can pay for a complete PC, but I can also buy parts and assemble one myself (IT degree). I can pay for Windows, or I can install Linux, because I know the difference and are capable of doing this myself. I can paint walls in my flat or pay someone to do that. This one is not too hard. But when I want to have old windows replaced, I'd rather pay someone to do that instead of spending some time and effort learning what I think is boring stuff.  I'm also not too keen to learn cooking. I prefer to pay extra and save a lot of time each day, to eat regularly and have a broader choice. Think what would happen if room painters started to complain I owe them money because I painted rooms myself instead of hiring them. Bar owners revolt because people can cook food themselves ! Proffesional translators protest because people learn languages ! Software publishers protest because people can copy faster and cheaper ! Oh, wait.

Suddenly it becomes wrong to be able to do something yourself, and you don't take anything from anyone or hurt anyone. People can do their job faster and easier, provide too good service and that's bad for profits ! As a software publisher, I'm entitled to be the only one who can copy software. People should come to me and pay me, free market protects inefficiency. Or planned economy ? I'm so confused.

You can reach a startling conclusion. Giving copyright select few people smells a lot like planned economy.

------------------

I think focusing too much on whether Russians can pay for games is missing the point. The old system isn't working anymore, and it's in poorer countries that it becomes apparent faster. Poor countries are not the problem - they merely highlight the problem that is bad business model. Having less money just makes it easier to question the old system.

I'd also like to point out something interesting I've noticed. In my previous post, I quoted (WSJ) an attempt to create an essentially decentralized patronage system for game developers, with hardcore fans who buy anything instead of a single entity. This sounds a lot like Stardock's (or Brad Wardell's ) idea of "focus on customers, don't worry about piracy". Although both Blurst and Brad Wardell/Stardock may not realize that, they're aiming for the same goal, but they approach it from opposite sides. Stardock from fully proprietary, Blurst from fully free. If this approach works, they're likely to meet somewhere in the middle and will end up with the same busines model. Interesting.

Gotcha, but the process is public. We both are solidly "attached" to our personal opinions and_or prides.

I prefer meeting a person eye to eye when discussing serious subjects. I respect intelligence but not insults. Anyone has a right to "judge" other people... but within a valid perspective. Forums limit us, you, me.

I have enough guts to admit when being wrong or flawed in my reasonings...  i have yet to witness such fairplay behavior from you, psychoak.

Besides, i hate speaking with 2009 years old "virtual" geeks or nut cases who aren't at least considered close friends (by proof) or family (by life).

There's MUCH more to GC2 members than what they type online. That tricky comment may even include you as a real "Pirate" to spin this messy argument back to topic, right... IIRC?

Well, I just checked and I'm 2008 years old, so there!

That's actually a server oops, I'm too lazy to bother with fixing it.  At some point they switched the age with the year.  I am a nutcase though.

I'm still trying to parse the rest of that post, I think I get the general drift but it's not quite computing.  The only conclusion I've worked out is that you're telling me you don't like arguing with someone you don't know.  Since that means you should just stop posting in online arguments between idiots, I'm going to assume I'm wrong and it's just that damned Canadian language barrier.

I still say you can't possibly come to a logical resolution between your work ethic and market preferences and your presumed cause for international wealth distribution.

Québec barrier, you mean. I should go back to school and add some 50,000+ more english words to my limited vocabulary... but that won't help me either, since i still don't get the gist of what you or anyone else writes -- AT TIMES. There's also the civil manners of our different societies; example, it's okay for a bunch of youngsters to yell f**k in public... but to some elders it may "seem" insulting -- that sort of thinking.

Work allows to buy anything within "budget", AFAIC.

Say, i'm paid 35,000$ in a job *here* and you do the same exact stuff for 50,000$ in the US.

You must rent an apartment downtown wherever you are for 12,000$ and i bunk in a similar place for 8,000$... you pay 75¢ for bread, i stack 1.25$... you fuel the car 2$/Gal, i fill my tank at 1.15$/Liter... etc.

The market is not preferential for both of us, it's the reality.

Your wealth & mine (and as a result, purchasing/consuming power) are directly proportional to *LOCAL* economic conditions.

It's an highly complex set of variables.

That makes two of us, only.

The standards of livings are calculated by *unbalanced* distribution(s) of resources, accessibility to goods & services.

Another "concept" of such situations;

Chinese made Adidas+Nike shoes; Why in hell do you think corporation choose to manufacture stuff overthere?

Cuz, my 35 and your 50 above are NO match for their yuans (1 Chinese yuan = 0.146671 U.S. dollars). And these inferior salaries translate into US profits, magic wand in hands. But we both buy the items on store shelves here **FULL** price.

Drive a Nissan 300ZX or a GM Corvette or a Chrysler Viper or a Porsche... the reasoning is the same.

I wouldn't say it's flawed in the "there's something wrong with it" manner, but rather there are simple facts about how the world works:

• The world has finite, very unevenly distributed, and always changing resources.
• Our power to distribute those resources is very limited.
• Our power to distribute those resources are effected by politics, economics, ethics, culture, and many other things.
• Frankly, no system we have devised is perfect, and with the sheer number variables involved on many levels, no system ever will be.

Except that economic status shouldn't be (and often isn't) determined by culture. Sadly, enough, in some courties, yes, they may still have class system, but in places like the USA, the class mobility can often be amazing. My own family has gone from borderline poor to upper middle class.

One thing I'd like to do is to point out is the difference between being poor temporarily and being poor permanently.

Because most of the time, "poor" people are only poor for a short period of time. They're between jobs or had unexpected expenses or something similar in nature. They're "poor" but only temporarily, and they can afford to cut back on entertainment expenses temporarily while they resolve their situation.

I'd also like to point out that "poor" often becomes rather blurry when you're talking about people who have good incomes but also have large debts. They may not have a lot of money when the number are crunched, but they have a lot of purchasing power. I would put myself into this category: When I graduate from college, I'll literally have huge education debts. But with the degree I'm getting, I'll be able to maintain a job that pays quite a bit and will have decent purchasing power. So I'm "poor" in the sense that I owe more than I have, but not poor in the sense that I can't afford much.

When you're talking about truly poor people - people who are poor permanently and don't have access to much purchasing power - I find that most of the time, the reason is not because of free market economics. It's often legal issues or corruption issues.

When my family was poor we lived in a place where there were huge corruption issues, where the wealthy hoarded and did not give much back to the economy, and where there wasn't much access to global economics (or frankly even national economics). Luckily, we were able to leave that area and my father found a new job. The condition of being poor was tied to the area, and could be overcome simply by moving.

I also know of a friend where he has huge expenses and where he loses his disability payments if he maintains a real job. He's poor because of some very backwards laws that forces him into a position where he cannot get a job because he'd need an extremely well paying job pay for his medications. He can't even get a job to supplement his own fixed income. He's not poor because of free market economics - he's poor because of a very backwards legal system that prevents him from exploring the job market freely, and maximizes the risks of looking for and having a job.

. . . and oh, yeah, talking about maximizing stuff - the drug system we have does something very interesting. It increases innovation at the expense of cost. Our drugs could be much cheaper - just get rid of patenting drugs. It's the temporary monopoly of the patent that makes them so expensive.

Anyways, I guess my point is that being "poor" isn't as cut and dry as some may think, and IMHO the truly, truly poor people are not poor because of free market economics. They are poor because some other system is preventing free market economics and capitalism from working.

The best way to think about economics IMHO is in a "checks and balances" sort of way, using feedback loops. This is called "Adam Smith's invisible hand" in economics books, and is frequently poorly interpreted. Adam Smith himself probably didn't fully understand the nature of the "invisible hand."

The idea is not to have truly "free" economics, but to have economics with a minimal set of rules that promote a healthy economic system.

One of the primary principles of economics is the integrity of the transaction - that a good or a service is exchanged for money (or something of equivalent value). So we need a set of rules to ensure the integrity of the transaction.

If the integrity of that transaction is broken via theft, then trust is lost and the seller is forced to do one or two things:  Either increase the price to offset the loss, or close the business.

You know what I fear? I fear that we're going to have a depression in the software bisuness. We're going to see a growing trend of developers simply closing shop, and those who don't will turn into vertical markets, with prices reaching astronomical levels. As in you may have to pay 10 to 100x as you do now for the software. I can see that happening, and I'm surprised it's lasted this long without collapsing.

No matter how you argue it, economics is economics. You need resources to create software. Lots of resources. Time, money, computers, humans, etc. It's not cheap by any means.

Money is simply a way of provinding those resources, because money is what allows the software company to buy the resources they need.

Think of money is a generic device. Forget that it's money. It's a resource-giving device. This device is given by many people to an entity that they want to provde them with a product. So they supply this resource-giving device to a company, and in exchange, the entity uses the resource-giving device to give them resources needed to create the product, which they then give back to the people.

Now, the entity needs more resource-giving devices in order to supply future products. So it needs to increase the number of resource-giving devices it is receiving.

So, how do we supply more resource-giving units to the entity? Well, there are two ways: The first way is to have each person who is already giving resource-giving units to the entity to send more resource-giving units to the entity. The second way is to increase the number of people giving resource-giving units to the entity.

So that's where we stand.

Software companies need more money. There are two ways to do this: Increase price, or increase the number of people paying. I don't see a third option, and if you think there is, feel free to discuss it.

Say it like it is, please. Piracy.

They planned server support based on the number of preorders and physical units shipped. Had those numbers increased the planned server availability would have been increased. It was the massive influx of unexpected connections that screwed the system.

The numbers I've heard were 18k legit connections on a system designed for 50k, but actually got closer to 140k.

Edit: Nevermind.

Dod you contact Stardock support? Have you tried a recent version of Impulse? It seems to handle downloads very well in recent versions.

Somolia has some issues at the shore line, but is not a waste dump as an entire country. Japan had it much worse (being the only nation ever attacked by nuclear weapons) and did not resort to such measures.

False dilemma. They have plenty of agriculture in their nation, even exporting a major portion of it. In addition, many nations with poor resources have done stuff like tourism and technology with great success.

I could teach them, but would they listen? Last I checked, they're still in a state of war. They don't even have a functioning government. That's where their major problems lie right now.

I'm not asking for perfection. I'm just asking that it be reasonable. This is so far from being reasonable that a simple "nothing's perfect" explanation simply isn't a good explanation. Software piracy isn't a minor annoyance - it's a major problem.

Yes, I would normally expect a small number of pirates even in a fully functioning system, but this isn't a small number you can wave off as a result of imperfection. This is an overwhelmingly large amount, enough for game companies to consider radically shifting the way they function at a base level.