"Square-Enix expecting big losses due to Chrono Trigger leak"

[BROJ]

Honestly, I don't think this is much of a leak. It would have been a big deal if it had been leaked two or three weeks before release, but this is just a matter of days. A lot of the "lost sales" stuff really doesn't pan out, and the MPAA is one of the most guilty parties in the bogus statistics business (claiming billions of dollars in losses for piracy without noticing that half of all movies these days totally suck or are half-baked remakes of old material).

While I agree fundamentally with you on this, I can't support this assertion. The reported damages may be quite off, but I'm logically obligated to assert that a crime is still a crime─no matter the magnitude, and that any illegitimate copies made are only hurting Square Enix, even if only minusculy. Whether it's an outright crime, or simply civil disobedience against a corrupt norm or law, those who break the law should be willing to accept the implications. By that logic, I, myself, am a criminal many times over.

Nevertheless, I think I'll buy two copies, though. One for my friend, and one for me.

[placidchap]

The hacker more than likely won't be punished for his exploit, and honestly, should he? What he did could easily be construed as civil disobedience─"hacktivism", as it were. Put simply, it's our fault(excluding I, of course; I haven't downloaded the ROM, but I will share the blame)─the downloaders. Like it or not, your individual actions(as in those who download, but don't buy) are what's actually to blame. Would you blame Smith & Wesson for making a gun that killed someone dear to you? No. You'd blame the shooter. All the same, no raindrop ever thinks it's responsible for the flood.

It is reasonably foreseeable that when someone comes into possession of a gun, that someone or something will be shot.  Shooting bullets is a guns sole purpose.  Since that is the sole purpose, a gun manufacturer is jointly liable in the situation you mention, along with the shooter.  Ideally, the shooter does the jail time and Big Gun pays the hefty damages.  People buy guns with the intent to shoot.  There is a “choice” of shooting, but why would you buy a gun other than to shoot?  A company that makes this product is or should be jointly liable.  This reasoning concurs with my feelings that if someone shot a loved one of mine, I would be angry towards both parties.

It is not reasonably foreseeable when someone comes into possession of a computer, that they will hack or illegally download.  A computer is a multi-purpose machine.  The specific act of illegal downloading is a choice.  The downloaders should be the ones paying damages with the "hacktivist" doing the jail time.  People buy computers for multiple reasons.  A person who downloads chooses to use an inherently non-harmful device for harmful purposes.  The person who downloads and the person who enables the downloading are also both liable.  This also comes from the feeling that if I made a digital product and some douche hacked/ripped it and allowed other turds to download it, I would be angry with both.

…but in reality, Capitalism wins out by hunting those that hurt the bottom line (downloaders) rather than those (Big Gun) who allow people to hurt or kill other human beings.  Profit > Life.

[mav]

A company that makes this product is or should be jointly liable.

While that assertion holds true, should a gun maker or a computer maker be held responsible if someone illegally provides their product with the intent to do damage? What I mean is, let's say you make a gun and you follow the law and provide it to people legally, but if someone comes along, takes your product and provides it to someone illegally, who then uses it illegally or improperly, should you be at fault?

People are trying to vilify Square for making CTDS, when it is ultimately the fault of both the hacker for providing the game illegally and player for playing the game illegally. Whether or not our intention is bad, whether it's illegally buying a gun for defense or illegally downloading a game to appease our curiosity, we have still chosen the illegal path when there is a legal path within our grasp.

[NaYA]

ROFL the day when CTDS US version got released, the ROM forums were full of pages and pages of "where is the piracy bypass patch, can we use the same save file as the Japanese version" posts.

Sad. Very sad.

[Jutty]

Most people who pirate aren't going to purchase the game anyway. I plan on buying a copy soonish, but holidays are coming up and money's gonna be tight anyway. Maybe I can get it as a gift.

[BROJ]

It is reasonably foreseeable that when someone comes into possession of a gun, that someone or something will be shot.  Shooting bullets is a guns sole purpose.  Since that is the sole purpose, a gun manufacturer is jointly liable in the situation you mention, along with the shooter.  Ideally, the shooter does the jail time and Big Gun pays the hefty damages.  People buy guns with the intent to shoot.  There is a “choice” of shooting, but why would you buy a gun other than to shoot?  A company that makes this product is or should be jointly liable.  This reasoning concurs with my feelings that if someone shot a loved one of mine, I would be angry towards both parties.

Certainly, I wouldn't buy a gun to use as a crutch(rifle) or as a hammer(handgun), but I think it's a little bit of a leap to imply that guns are sold intently to promote crime. All the same, the analogy is starting to turn into a red herring, so let's return to the discussion at hand.

It is not reasonably foreseeable when someone comes into possession of a computer, that they will hack or illegally download.  A computer is a multi-purpose machine.  The specific act of illegal downloading is a choice.  The downloaders should be the ones paying damages with the "hacktivist" doing the jail time.  People buy computers for multiple reasons.  A person who downloads chooses to use an inherently non-harmful device for harmful purposes.  The person who downloads and the person who enables the downloading are also both liable.  This also comes from the feeling that if I made a digital product and some douche hacked/ripped it and allowed other turds to download it, I would be angry with both.

True; what I am saying is that the hacker is ultimately the 'gunsmith', and the downloader is the one who 'pulls the trigger', but the downloader is ultimately the one who directly causes the gross majority of damage. I just think you're confusing emphasis with dichotomy.

…but in reality, Capitalism wins out by hunting those that hurt the bottom line (downloaders) rather than those (Big Gun) who allow people to hurt or kill other human beings.  Profit > Life.

That's a pretty tall order to attack Capitalism with the batch; I understand your point, and I think bringing that into the equation is simply asking for trouble. Nevertheless, if you study my previous posts, my point is uncannily similar to your latest post.