It's somewhat disheartening that despite a big multi-year push from Valve, Linux still sits behind MacOS at less 1.5% market share.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Mountain Man

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Mountain ManBut here is something to think about: countless works of art have been lost throughout human history, and will continue to be lost. Are we worse off as a species because of it?

Yes, we bloody well are. You know that old question, what would you do if you had a time machine and could use it just once? You have no idea how many people answer that question, "Would go and rescue the books from the Library of Alexandria"; although my mother leans towards "Would go stop the fire that burned down the building that held all the Anglo Saxon literature that was ever written down".

You say that we're worse off as a species because the Library of Alexandria was destroyed. I'm curious in what way you think we're worse off, and what your basis is for claiming so.

Getting into deep philosophy here. In what way or for what reasons can you say any person, let alone the species, is "better off"? Any basis you propose can be readily disputed.

I personally think it is better to have wisdom than lack it, better to have knowledge than lack it, better to have stories than lack them. Being better off is not just about how many calories you consume. Many works of great philosophers, many accounts of history and mythology, were lost. Just having the missing Aristotle stuff would probably make a surprising difference to our thinking, considering how foundational the stuff we do have is. And as I recall, we know there is missing Aristotle stuff because other people's commentaries have referred to it. It's not just in physics where new thinkers stand on the shoulders of giants; philosophical and political thought also builds on the ideas of the past, and if we'd had more of them to build on, our whole intellectual tradition would be richer.

The only reason I asked is because you can't possibly answer without begging the question. :happy:

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Mountain ManBut here is something to think about: countless works of art have been lost throughout human history, and will continue to be lost. Are we worse off as a species because of it?

Yes, we bloody well are. You know that old question, what would you do if you had a time machine and could use it just once? You have no idea how many people answer that question, "Would go and rescue the books from the Library of Alexandria"; although my mother leans towards "Would go stop the fire that burned down the building that held all the Anglo Saxon literature that was ever written down".

You say that we're worse off as a species because the Library of Alexandria was destroyed. I'm curious in what way you think we're worse off, and what your basis is for claiming so.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: poiuz

Quoting: GuestEmulation =/= Piracy
Stop trying to equate it.
I've even given the most common reason for emulation: convenience.
Whether it be traveling or just wanting to quickly experience an old classic, emulation makes it much easier to do.

A download from a random source is always "piracy". The source is not allowed to provide the download. That's a fact.

/edit: Added quotes

That's a valid point, and I think it is almost a certainty that every single person using Dolphin to play Nintendo games has taken advantage of warez sites with the justification "I already own the disk, so why can't I download the game?" That's where this debate gets messy.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: JordanPlayz158

Quoting: Mountain ManBut here is something to think about: countless works of art have been lost throughout human history, and will continue to be lost. Are we worse off as a species because of it?

I mean there is definitely a reason that archaeologists and museums exist, to find, showcase, and preserve old history that were previously lost to human history before discovery.

Yes, I understand that. My point is that losing art is not the cataclysmic event that some people make it out to be. Mainly, I'm talking about people who justify piracy and emulation for the purpose of "game preservation".

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: pleasereadthemanual

Quoting: Mountain ManBut here is something to think about: countless works of art have been lost throughout human history, and will continue to be lost. Are we worse off as a species because of it? No, I don't think so. It's just stuff, and there are more important things in life.

I think it's sad that the same laws meant to protect a copyright holder's works are the same laws which prevented archival of many 20th century films where the studio went bankrupt, the copyright holders disappeared, and the orphaned films were thus damned them to the ether. Copyright lasted just long enough for nobody to be able to archive the film stock, and by the time they were in the public domain (back when we had reasonable copyright periods), the film stock had faded away.

On the subject of video games, I found this documentary from Noclip about GOG's archival of old games very interesting. [External Link] There are some games where it's completely unclear who holds the copyright anymore, so even though the studios which helped create the game would love to publish it again, they can't because they don't know who owns it, really. GOG goes through weeks and months of investigation for some of these games, where everyone thinks someone else owns it, and in the end they might find out for sure...or they may not.

While we can argue about the value of art and its loss, I would say copyright is doing a bad job protecting these works and a great job lowering the value of our public domain. One way to fix this is to go back to reasonable copyright terms. Even though there is some support for this among publishers and copyright lawyers, it's doubtful this will happen.

I see no reason to disagree. I admit that there are numerous grey areas that crop up when discussing this topic.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: Mountain ManTo put it another way, when you're 90, is it really going to matter to you whether or not you can still play Super Mario Bros.? As I said, it helps to keep these things in perspective.

No, but as a consumer, we have the right to keep a copy of a game we've purchased, and that's what we're fighting for. It doesn't matter that games are simply for leisure, it's something we own, and something we'll want to play again.

And anyway, having Super Mario Bros. available for people in the future would be important for history (the main theme was added to the library of congress [External Link]. Saying that game preservation doesn't matter, is like saying that Art Museums are useless because it's a bunch of dusty old paintings.

I'm not saying there's no value in preservation, but that value is often greatly exaggerated by those looking to justify illegal acquisition -- whether it's games, music, or movies, the argument is typically the same, but the fact remains, you don't have a moral right to any of it, so there is no justification.

But here is something to think about: countless works of art have been lost throughout human history, and will continue to be lost. Are we worse off as a species because of it? No, I don't think so. It's just stuff, and there are more important things in life.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Smoke39

Quoting: Mountain Man

Quoting: JordanPlayz158

Quoting: Mountain Man

Quoting: JordanPlayz158

Quoting: Mountain ManYes, let's pretend that the overwhelming majority of people using emulators aren't also playing pirated software.

Let's say that is the case, is that wrong? If so why is it wrong? Pirating games that are no longer officially produced or sold on consoles that are no longer officially produced or sold, is that wrong? The only argument that makes sense for copyright law that I've seen is to protect sales, but what sales are there left to protect?

Whether or not you agree with the law as it stands is irrelevant.

Ah, so to you it is irrelevant if it is morally correct or not (or the actual purpose of the law), but whether it is legal or not. I hope you will reflect on how you gauge what is wrong if the law ever tries to outlaw something like End-to-End Encryption (they have a few times and thankfully failed)

Oh, come off it. We're not fighting some moral crusade here. We're talking about video games. Let's try and keep things in perspective.

So when it comes to enforcing copyright it's serious business and the law is absolute, but when it comes to keeping art alive and accessible it's "just video games" and so not eligible even for consideration. What a convenient double standard.

What the hell are you talking about? There's no double standard here. Only thing I've said is that whether or not you agree with it, downloading pirated games is illegal. That's not debatable. And Nintendo is doing nothing immoral or unethical by taking steps to maintain commercial control of their products. Yes, that includes choosing to make some of their games inaccessible for whatever reason. You do not have a moral right to their games, so there is no justification for breaking the law to download them. It's as simple as that.

Of course the most common counterargument to this unassailable line of reasoning is, "But- but game preservation!" which, let's be honest, is nothing more than a hollow rationalisation for breaking the law. For one thing, Nintendo is already preserving the games themselves in their own company archives, so there's nothing more that needs to be done. For another, yes, they're just games as opposed to something necessary for your survival. If Nintendo HQ burned down to the ground tomorrow and took their entire archive with it, humanity, as a whole, would be no worse off. To put it another way, when you're 90, is it really going to matter to you whether or not you can still play Super Mario Bros.? As I said, it helps to keep these things in perspective.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: JordanPlayz158

Quoting: Mountain Man

Quoting: JordanPlayz158

Quoting: Mountain ManYes, let's pretend that the overwhelming majority of people using emulators aren't also playing pirated software.

Let's say that is the case, is that wrong? If so why is it wrong? Pirating games that are no longer officially produced or sold on consoles that are no longer officially produced or sold, is that wrong? The only argument that makes sense for copyright law that I've seen is to protect sales, but what sales are there left to protect?

Whether or not you agree with the law as it stands is irrelevant.

Ah, so to you it is irrelevant if it is morally correct or not (or the actual purpose of the law), but whether it is legal or not. I hope you will reflect on how you gauge what is wrong if the law ever tries to outlaw something like End-to-End Encryption (they have a few times and thankfully failed)

Oh, come off it. We're not fighting some moral crusade here. We're talking about video games. Let's try and keep things in perspective.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: JordanPlayz158

Quoting: Mountain ManYes, let's pretend that the overwhelming majority of people using emulators aren't also playing pirated software.

Let's say that is the case, is that wrong? If so why is it wrong? Pirating games that are no longer officially produced or sold on consoles that are no longer officially produced or sold, is that wrong? The only argument that makes sense for copyright law that I've seen is to protect sales, but what sales are there left to protect?

Whether or not you agree with the law as it stands is irrelevant.

View this comment - View article - View full comments