THE OFFICIAL ENGLISH 2K3 VERSION IS OUT!

Posts

It actually makes me feel kinda stoked to see my code from old games looking all pretty with the colors. It makes me feel like I know what I'm doing. It makes me feel like I can finally work like a pro.

This is another thing that I am very thankful for in the official version. Being able to copy/paste eventing as text is also very helpful for writing tutorials, so I'm very thankful for that as well. The official version of the engine is a massive improvement on illegally translated versions of the engine, and people who don't stump up the (very small, at least in my eyes) amount of money needed to purchase it are massively missing out.

On the legal/illegal thing, that the engine was used illegally for such a long time (and the developer only have themselves to blame for that if we're being 100% honest with ourselves, because RM2K should've made it very clear that the demand was there) means that I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference whether or not people choose to support the official version over a decade after the Japanese version was released. If they don't then, like I said above, they're missing out on a vastly superior product. That's their problem, leave them to it.
author=Liberty
The only ones losing credibility are idiots who think that calling things by another name makes it a-okay, especially when at the core it is taking something that you have no right to have - aka THEFT.

Trying to break it down into other areas just to excuse the theft of something is stupidity at it's finest because anyone with half a brain knows that taking something you do not own or have the right to own is stealing.

See, that's the problem with the whole idea, though: "taking something." If we're going to get into moralistic arguments, let's at least be honest enough to use the complete phrase: taking something away.

If I stole your car, that would be a severe injustice. Everyone agrees with that. But why would it be a severe injustice? Because I suddenly have a car? Is there something inherently wrong with me having a car? Of course not. The problem is that you suddenly don't have it. From your perspective, the only difference between me stealing your car and me destroying your car is that if I stole it, the possibility exists that you might get it back.

If I were to make a copy of your car, on the other hand, what injustice has been done to you?

Anyone who doesn't understand the change that the 21st Century has had on the word probably needs to go back to the 1900s when the concept of "non-rivalrous goods" was not yet a thing.
author=Liberty
It's about stealing and distribution, and yes, stealing it is theft. Distribution is part of that and only came up because the mind of Bulma goes off on crazy tangents.

Anyone who doesn't understand the change that the 21st Century has had on the word probably needs to go back to the 1900s when it only dealt with taking physical things.

You can steal ideas, you can steal corporeal things that are not physical. That is a theft. The only ones losing credibility are idiots who think that calling things by another name makes it a-okay, especially when at the core it is taking something that you have no right to have - aka THEFT.

Trying to break it down into other areas just to excuse the theft of something is stupidity at it's finest because anyone with half a brain knows that taking something you do not own or have the right to own is stealing.


No, copying is not stealing. But yes, it's illegal without question.

All this preaching is quite rich coming from someone who for many years was complicit in this practice, which your aggressiveness and constant insults suggest is some kind of irredeemable evil. Get off your high horse.

Then again, you previously stated that you had a part in the product's release, so you might have a financial stake in this, I don't know.
author=Mobh
Then again, you previously stated that you had a part in the product's release, so you might have a financial stake in this, I don't know.

Good point.

author=Upton Sinclair
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
I'm 99.9999999999% sure Libby doesn't have a monetary stake in RM2K3.
kentona
I am tired of Earth. These people. I am tired of being caught in the tangle of their lives.
20832
Look, guys, just like I have to explain to my 3 year old, taking something that is not yours is not okay.
author=Mason_Wheeler
See, that's the problem with the whole idea, though: "taking something." If we're going to get into moralistic arguments, let's at least be honest enough to use the complete phrase: taking something away.

I really shouldn't have to repeat myself like that...
And this is essentially fine for three year-old morality. Which is fine 99% of the time.

When you grow up, you learn that things aren't that simple.

If you are poor, and it's steal or die, you often steal.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_the_law

The implication being that yes, theft is wrong. But in a case where the item in question was abandoned, if someone has been using it in the interim, and no lease can be found, the only proof of ownership is that the person is using it. You use it. Someday someone might tell you to return the thing. But it's tricky in cases on abandon.

The Wikipedia article above asserts that if you were not the original thief (I wasn't) and are using the product, you are the de facto owner unless a counterclaim is made. They made one. It's called retail. As in, I justify fully the right to use abandoned software.

But the point is MOOT. They have a paid version and you should buy the paid version. On the other hand, repeated buying, not so much.

I have paid for XP, possibly VX Ace (never use) and 2003. Once. But enterbrain has an extremely crappy model of copyright. When I have a paid for copy of the 2003, and I use it at the library (this is not a new copy, this is me opening it from flash drive and having the license not get that I am using the same product on a different computer) it asks me for license again. Am I supposed to buy a new copy for every area I go to? That ceases to be stealing at my end, and becomes exploitation at theirs.
kentona
I am tired of Earth. These people. I am tired of being caught in the tangle of their lives.
20832
Yeah, don't worry bulma. My 3 year old has difficulty with the concept sometimes, too.
Okay, liberty. The thing went down this way on my end. I used the version on 2003. Then I bought XP a bit later. Then after working on a game for roughly 5-7 years and having it trashed by critics, I went back to using in 2010.

You can claim like some hypocrite that I'm a thief while I used a product that was at time of reuse 7 years old, but as far as I can see from websites, by the time I got to it, they had moved on. An already niche market had been saturated years ago, it was increasingly difficult to find this product legally, and for that matter even forum where they asked nobody would tell you where to go to get a copy. Meanwhile, we had peopple offering it for free. If you have one shred of evidence that it was still being sold as late as 2010, I would concede the point, but I'm fairly certain it wasn't. So yes, this may still be sketchy, but the only one who did any theft here was you. I'm just a person who downloaded a shared program.

What I'm trying to say is that while you don't go around stealing blindly, there is a difference between having a market, and having a market in your area.

If the US decided a desired good (say Nike shoes) was not for use in China, what do you think happens? Oh noes, theft is wrong? Or sellers at best make Mike shoes, and at worst are engaged in smuggling?



China broadcasts a steamroller crushing pirated goods. But they still happen. And they happen because there are no provisions for a legal market. Unless the real good is widely available, you are confusing piracy (where buyers are unable to do otherwise if they want the product) with theft, actually taking profits from the buyer (who in the case where piracy exists, isn't selling).
kentona
I am tired of Earth. These people. I am tired of being caught in the tangle of their lives.
20832
I think you are confusing stealing with not-stealing.
Maybe so.

They're pretty tricky.

I was so sure "downloading a product in a country where it is not sold, but distributed for free" constituted not stealing.

And I was so sure that adverse ownership was the actual law of the land. Maybe because, well it is?

Ask your three year old what finders keepers means. Bet he knows.
unity
You're magical to me.
12399
author=bulmabriefs144
Ask your three year old what finders keepers means. Bet he knows.

I really don't think anyone has used "Finders Keepers" as either a legal or moral high ground! XD That's hilarious.

I'm pretty sure that's an attitude that kentona's trying to discourage in his child.
You seem to have the logic comprehension of a fetus so let me break this down into cell-sized factoids for you.
- a thing was made
- you wanted the thing
- you took the thing
- you did not do so legally
- you thus stole the thing
- that was bad

Let's not bullshit around any more. It was stolen - theft in the broadest term of the word but still theft. It was something that was made to be paid for, you didn't pay, thus it is stealing.

As for the argument about copying - bullshit. You're all talking out of your collective arses. Why? Because when someone copies another persons numbers and then uses them to pretend to be the other person, it is Identity THEFT.

When someone copies information from someone else that they have no right to, it is THEFT.

When someone takes someone else's life it is murder, however the terms 'you stole their life' show that it is also a kind of theft.

Fuck off with the bullshit about 'copying isn't theft' because it is a type of theft and only complete fucking morons think that such an argument would hold up in the court of law.

As I have said many times, I don't fucking care if you pirate the program (pirates being associated with stealing, hence why that term is used, ffs) - could not give two shits (well, I do really, but what you do is up to you and you have to live with that like the responsible adults spoiled non-genderedbabies you are proving yourselves to be.

What I take issue with is how you're trying to convince everyone that you're in the right, that you deserved to own that program, that it was a-okay and peachy-keen for you to fucking steal it. Let's not kid ourselves, we were in the wrong to do so - we stole.

If you can't deal with that fact then perhaps you need to grow the fuck up, because part of being mature is learning to take responsibility for the things you do - both in the past, present and future.

You might not care about what you did, fair enough, but you are always going to be in the wrong to deny that it was a bad thing by the moral code that most of civilisation lives by, because it was - at the core of its being - stealing.

I don't care if you were 7, 17 or 77, you know what is right and wrong and hindsight should tell you straight up that the act of taking the program was wrong. You don't have to feel guilt or anything over it - it's quite apparent you don't - but you at least should say 'yeah, I stole that shit. Don't care, had fun'. Own up to what you did wrong instead of trying to hide behind excuses that don't wash. Or just shut up.




Good, now that I've said that I can finally sleep off this migraine that coincidentally popped up from having to deal with the fuckwittery that has been the last page of self-justification over doing the wrong fucking thing.
Adverse possession is basically squatters rights. Five to seven years of inactivity by the original owner (more, depending on the state) allows the squatter to claim the property.

Finders keepers is valid for sunken ships or discarded treasure, provided you assert a legal claim on the item (sign forms and the like).

And there are numerous actual laws on the practice of using abandonware to similar extent.

If the product is not made available, if enough time passes, if the product in question is not sold anymore any of these is a reason to question ownership.

If I found an object on the street, I could look at the nearby house. If the item looked ratty, I could literally pick it off the street. No cop car would pull me over for this, because I did not enter a person's property to take their whatever. I am salvaging an item that another person left.

Was that the case here? Maybe not, but it looks that way.

I think the reason Enterbrain took the retail approach is because they realized they were about to lose ownership on their own product since enough time had passed.
Actually, having contacts, I know that it was planned for quite a while. The ball for the localisation started rolling years ago, on this site even. So, once again, wrong.


- yes because we're talking about sunken booty that is hundreds of years old and whose owners can't be traced (oh wait we're not. another bad anecdote rears it's uninformed head)

- again, never was abandonware so said laws do not apply

- i'll be happy to let squaresoft know that since they haven't touched CT in over five years that means anyone can just set up camp and use it as their own. OH WAIT WE AREN'T TALKING ABOUT HOUSES. ANOTHER BAD ANECDOTE
author=Liberty
You seem to have the logic comprehension of a fetus so let me break this down into cell-sized factoids for you.
- a thing was made
- you wanted the thing
- you took the thing
- you did not do so legally
- you thus stole the thing
- that was bad
More like

-a thing was made
-someone made a copy of the thing and gave copies of the copy away for free
-you took a copy of the thing

As I said, piracy is illegal without question. You just seem to be obsessed with word definitions and that's not terribly interesting to me. It's either black or white, it seems. Funny how you talk about being a responsible adult while acting like a complete asshole. I'm done here.
I find people trying to justify using the illegal translation strange.

I knew that what I was doing was technically illegal, but I also didn't give a shit because there wasn't a legal channel through which I could obtain an English version of the program. If there was then I wouldn't have pirated it, but it is what it is. I don't know why people don't just admit that because I'm pretty sure this applies to most of the people who used RM2K3 back when it was originally translated.
The Titanic was less than 100 years old if memory serves when they mounted a salvage operation.

If I saw someone discard something on the street in front of me, statute of limitations on that item is hours without permission, and instant if I ask to use it.

If it legitimately was planned, that is another matter. If you're just saying that to shut me up, well my point stands. The claimed it was illegal, but people used it anyway cuz nothing else available, they didn't own the modified version and didn't ask for a cease and desist. That is why we can use the free version, because nobody did anything. Copyright claims are valid only if they are enforced, by royalties or whatever. It isn't that they condone this, it is that an unenforced law is tantamount to cops saying nothing when people go five miles over the limit. We know it should be wrong, but apparently it's small in the scheme of things.

Again, you seem to fail both in knowledge of laws (most of which agree that there is in fact a set of conditions that would render even an illegal claim absurd) and knowledge of what the word moot means. It means it is useless to argue this.

Those who use the free version will use the free version. And whether or not it WAS illegal is now irrelevant, the only thing is what you do NOW since the copy is available for purchase.
kentona
I am tired of Earth. These people. I am tired of being caught in the tangle of their lives.
20832
bulma's ability to rationalize theft knows no bounds, apparently.