While you're here, please consider supporting GamingOnLinux on:
Reward Tiers: Patreon. Plain Donations: PayPal.
This ensures all of our main content remains totally free for everyone! Patreon supporters can also remove all adverts and sponsors! Supporting us helps bring good, fresh content. Without your continued support, we simply could not continue!
You can find even more ways to support us on this dedicated page any time. If you already are, thank you!
Reward Tiers: Patreon. Plain Donations: PayPal.
This ensures all of our main content remains totally free for everyone! Patreon supporters can also remove all adverts and sponsors! Supporting us helps bring good, fresh content. Without your continued support, we simply could not continue!
You can find even more ways to support us on this dedicated page any time. If you already are, thank you!
Login / Register
- KDE Plasma 6.3 will have much better fractional scaling
- New Linux kernel patch submitted to improve Lenovo Legion series support including Lenovo Legion Go
- The Steam Deck Stars Bundle on Steam has some top Deck Verified games for cheap
- Horror scavenging game KLETKA is like Lethal Company but an elevator wants to eat you
- Xfce 4.20 desktop released with experimental Wayland support
- > See more over 30 days here
I've pirated various versions of Windows to downgrade it to attempt to get a computer working.
The computer I was working with has a full Windows license. Windows just refused to work.
It's also really useful for obtaining compatibility, but that's a much weaker argument, because one could see the incompatibility as part of the price.
Often unintentional pirated versions have a wider platform support than non-pirated versions.
I used it to test ms office on Linux and discovered that while the office installer doesn't work, the important software behind it(Word, Powerpoint, Outlook, etc.) does.(I don't even use ms office, but I wanted to learn how to use winetricks)
Same is true for Photoshop(although there is a non-piracy workaround involving a windows vm)
Also according to Sam Altman it's justifiable when you use it to make cool stuff.
Last edited by Mezron on 8 October 2024 at 6:29 pm UTC
In the second case, I think there is a gray zone when it is understood that you can use a pirated version of a software (with a ten of thousand of euro pricetag) while finalizing the buying of the license because de company in the receiving end of 50 000 bucks will not complain.
View PC info
Shift away from "purchasing" and "owning" to "paying for something you enjoyed" and so-called pirates become dicks who don't want to contribute, as opposed to clever consumers going for the superior products at lower prices.
On the flip side, any developer/publisher that claims the right to restrict how we peruse the various media is a filthy cultural pirate that deserves to have every bit of their production "stolen".
Disclaimer: this is neither legal nor ethical advice. If you get into trouble for acting according to this philosophy, that's on you.
Last edited by emphy on 9 October 2024 at 2:45 am UTC
Great way of selectively quoting out of context, I applaud your great righteous misreading skills. ^_~
Last edited by emphy on 10 October 2024 at 6:21 am UTC
View PC info
Same counts for some games which require activation via internet or phone.
But to be honest, I often grab the GOG version as it is convenient that way.
But it is comical that physical PS3 games often have a better chance of working than their PC counterparts.
View PC info
Of course the bigger publishers would rather that you didn't know that.
So you're saying if you make something that took you hundreds of hours using your talent that not many people have you should be obliged to give it away for everyone to benefit from?
Copyright is totally justified, it should be fully up to the creator how it's to be used. And it mostly is.
However, in the western world, these protections are occasionaly taken way too far, with creators (or rather companies that stand in for them) profiting way too much and having way too much power over individuals who don't adhere to the rules they set.
No, I'm absolutely not saying that, do not fabricate stuff and attribute to me in bad faith. As a good practice don't even start arguments with "so you are saying", because unless you are directly quoting it is not true. Ask if I agree with your conclusions, or state what you think are the conclusions from my points.
Pirate copies are not generally "given away by creators", they are shared by others, generally after the author charged money from it at least once. Despite the existence of free pirate copies, authors continue to charge money for their work. The creator isn't "obliged" to do anything; I just don't think they should be given rights that severely detract from public interest (and that as a matter of fact are insufficient and ineffective at their stated purpose: few creators can actually sue violators, it does not block exploitation by publishers, and creators aren't well supported during the process of creation).
Copyright is very much not the same as the moral rights of the author, and in fact is often in direct conflict with those: the ability to completely sell your rights to your creation is extremely vile, and helps nothing but the exploitation of creators.
I believe in the public good of public libraries, the public domain, archiving initiatives, fan creations, derived works, and other ways to make culture and knowledge widely available to all, even if they don't directly reward the original creator. Sharing copies is, as has been widely repeated, not the same as "stealing": the creator loses nothing, they just don't gain something that maybe they should have, but was never actually theirs.
I believe what is called "piracy", a vague concept defined solely by it's opposite (piracy is that which violates copyright), is not substantially different from fundamental rights that everyone enjoys: sharing information with their friends and family, free access to knowledge, active participation in their culture by debating and building upon what they experience. Restricting these freedoms, enclosing the cultural commons, is an unacceptable compromise.
Thus, I believe that starting from the premise that violation of copyright (piracy) is fundamentally wrong, even though copyright is known to be unfair, is a flawed assumption. Searching for justifications for copyright violation, rather than looking for flaws in copyright, is an inversion of logic: rather than a law being created and then followed, it assumes the law just is, and anything not covered by the law is exceptional.
Edit: typos and grammar mistakes
Last edited by eldaking on 24 October 2024 at 5:03 pm UTC
View PC info
But in terms of ethics, questioning the law should be the less controversial stance; neither condoning crimes (that should not be illegal, but are) nor condone unjust laws.
View PC info