Thread: When Will It End?

Though copyright law is patently outdated, I don't share your view that people do this for some kind of anthropic reason: people do this because they don't want to pay for it. When you quiz teenagers about how much they'd be willing to pay for music, the vast majority say 'nothing at all', regardless of if it turns out they really like the product. I think it's pretty obvious that somebody who creates a good piece of entertainment, or even just any old piece of entertainment which most people turn out not to like, likely invested a lot of time and financial resources in it so it is not fair at all to distribute it for free. There was some kind of experiment recently where a video game (I think) was released by the publisher for which you could pay an arbitrary amount of money. Even then, most people deemed 1p an unfair price to pay, and pirated it; an affable publisher lets you pay what you want, and people are actually willing to disadvantage themselves even (the amount of time it takes to find and download a good torrent is certainly not less than a penny's worth) to make sure the developers earn nothing.

Copyright definitely needs to change but this whole 'any kind of non-physical content should be free for all' philosophy is even worse and would probably lead to the industry collapsing (given a few decades for the natural 'I will pay absolutely nothing in any circumstance' mindset to become well ingrained in the population) and no more new entertainment being made anyway.

Think about it: this whole thing has been tried on a much larger scale before. It was called communism and it sucked.

I don't think the people behind all these lawsuits and legislation give a shit about CD sales and the well-being of artists. What it comes down to is commercialism. The idealistic goal for the commercial music industry is to have just one artist that they can sell to the entire population. Its the business plan with the least amount of expense and the most income. And until piracy kicked off, they were not too far from achieving that goal. Even now they control the vast majority of the wealth in the music world what with radio hits and the exposure to a very large mainstream.

Piracy as a net result causes people to be more interested in a wider variety of music. Marketing to different groups like this is a bad business plan when the corporate manifesto is "money, money, money". Of course those interests want to crush these new means of distribution before they chip away more at the mainstream culture. They're not fighting against piracy, but for control of music distribution and the individual's interests on the internet. Luckily most of their attempts to claim control have failed, and piracy manages to keep getting bigger.

Originally Posted by Xei

Copyright definitely needs to change but this whole 'any kind of non-physical content should be free for all' philosophy is even worse and would probably lead to the industry collapsing (given a few decades for the natural 'I will pay absolutely nothing in any circumstance' mindset to become well ingrained in the population) and no more new entertainment being made anyway.

Think about it: this whole thing has been tried on a much larger scale before. It was called communism and it sucked.

True, but I doubt things will come to that. Music and movies (the two big mediums affected by piracy) always have an experience associated with them. People will always go to movie showings, and people will always buy concert tickets. Traditionally music artists make far more money from touring (which is largely self-reliant) than sales (which are contractually dominated by the labels). If a precedent is set where people stop paying for portable music, it would simply force the artists to invest more effort into their tours, and their merits would be judged on concerts. Which in my opinion is a very good thing.

I really disagree with that. Most home entertainment systems are completely sufficient for reproducing the cinema experience. I think the only exceptions currently are visually orientated films like Avatar, and still, with ever increasing technological development, it's only a matter of time before large 3D screens become ubiquitous as flat screens became, or colour TVs before that.

And what about musicians who create complex music which can't be played live (like Boards of Canada)? Musicians aren't obliged to tour because people can't be bothered to pay for their music.

Also of course this suggests that films no longer in the cinema and bands who are no longer together or able to tour should receive no money.

I have to call bullshit on that. People do not download games, then buy them afterwards. I am sure people say that, but how can you possibly believe that? I mean you download a game, you beat it, then you go to the store buy it for 50 dollars and never play it again? Yeah right.

After a person beats a game, chances are they are never going to play it again. So why on earth would they ever buy? They won't, we all know they won't and they never do.

The only exception, is if the game has a multiplayer version and you can't play multiplayer unless you have some code or a registered verson. In which case, their copy right protection actually worked in forcing someone to buy the game in order to play on their servers.

So some copy right protection stuff does actually work. Pirating does not help software or music companies even slightly. How much stuff that you download do you actually buy afterwards? Maybe 5 percent tops.

We all know the excuses people tell themself, so they feel better about stealing.

We should notify the proper authorities immediately.

The problem I have, more than anything else, is when I'm actually treated like a criminal for buying a legitimate product. It's utterly insane when you think about it. Brought a legitimate DVD? Well you're forced to deal with annoying menus, ads, and anti-piracy bullshit. Who would want to pay for that crap?

I have a very large DVD collection I've built up over the years. In the UK, by actually making a copy of them on my hard drive for personal use, I am breaking the law. If I download Top Gear instead of watching it on the TV (using my TV license I paid for) or recording it, I'm guilty of copyright infringement. Shows just how outdated and useless the laws are.

Originally Posted by Xei

but this whole 'any kind of non-physical content should be free for all' philosophy is even worse

Yeup, that's just what conceited and self-entitled fools believe. Whilst I despise how much of the entertainment industry acts and treats consumers, the simple fact is that the artists/programmers/developers should be paid for their work.

Originally Posted by Alric

I have to call bullshit on that. People do not download games, then buy them afterwards. I am sure people say that, but how can you possibly believe that? I mean you download a game, you beat it, then you go to the store buy it for 50 dollars and never play it again? Yeah right.

After a person beats a game, chances are they are never going to play it again. So why on earth would they ever buy? They won't, we all know they won't and they never do.

The only exception, is if the game has a multiplayer version and you can't play multiplayer unless you have some code or a registered verson. In which case, their copy right protection actually worked in forcing someone to buy the game in order to play on their servers.

Those are the games I'm referring to. And that is a bit of anti-piracy I actually support, believe it or not. It comes at little to no inconvenience for the paying player, which is what matters most.

So some copy right protection stuff does actually work. Pirating does not help software or music companies even slightly. How much stuff that you download do you actually buy afterwards? Maybe 5 percent tops.

That's 5% more than I ever would have. I don't care about 99% of video games out there, and half the time, the other 1% turns out to be crap, too. That kind of cynicism basically ensures I'll never buy a video game, unless I know it's good. And with music, what I find interesting is that there are dozens of online radio stations that freely stream fine-quality music, but media companies ignore them completely. I personally don't pirate music. I have no reason to. It's being handed to me on a legal silver platter. [/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Photolysis

The problem I have, more than anything else, is when I'm actually treated like a criminal for buying a legitimate product. It's utterly insane when you think about it. Brought a legitimate DVD? Well you're forced to deal with annoying menus, ads, and anti-piracy bullshit. Who would want to pay for that crap?

That is my main issue with all of this. The more people try to lock down their products, the more they alienate legitimate consumers. CD keys are things I can't stand. If you install something on one computer, then have it crash or get it replaced, you have to either buy the program again, or spend three hours talking to someone who will try to get it reset or help you lift it off the old comp. It's ridiculous. And the multiplayer DRM thing isn't perfect, either...Microsoft recently cut support for Halo and Halo 2. Everyone with a console version got screwed on that one.

Yeup, that's just conceited and self-entitled fools believe. Whilst I despise how much of the entertainment industry acts and treats consumers, the simple fact is that the artists should be paid for their work.

I agree fully that artists, designers, programmers, etc should be paid for their work. I don't agree with inconveniencing consumers more and more to achieve that goal. And really, when you look at it, most of the money is going to the recording industries, not the artists.

I agree with what others have said: there may be some group of people who goes out to buy music/movies/games after they've already downloaded them, but I've certainly never met any of them, and I'm quite sure they're a small minority.

Personally, the only music that I've spent my own money on in the last few years has been the Flaming Lips' last two albums, because they're my favorite modern band and I think they are highly underrated commercially (not critically, mind you). They've been the only recent case in which my respect for the artist has won over my wallet. It's an interesting moral dilemma really, because while I agree that all artists should be paid for their work, at the same time I can't shake the feeling that I'm a complete sucker every time I pay for something I could not only get for free, but that it's actually easier to get for free than to pay for.

The incentive structure in today's entertainment industry has become deeply flawed. The real problem is that I can't really think of a feasible everybody-wins alternative. Do any of you have any ideas?

I'd be interested to hear your responses to my points, Mario.

I'm especially interested to hear what you actually think copyright laws should actually look like.

The problem I have, more than anything else, is when I'm actually treated like a criminal for buying a legitimate product. It's utterly insane when you think about it. Brought a legitimate DVD? Well you're forced to deal with annoying menus, ads, and anti-piracy bullshit. Who would want to pay for that crap?

I have a very large DVD collection I've built up over the years. In the UK, by actually making a copy of them on my hard drive for personal use, I am breaking the law. If I download Top Gear instead of watching it on the TV (using my TV license I paid for) or recording it, I'm guilty of copyright infringement. Shows just how outdated and useless the laws are.

Yes, this is a good example of why copyright laws are outdated. I always find it bemusing when iPlayer says I can't watch something any more. I paid for it, for chrissakes.

Reform, I think, is the only way to really start changing the world. Pirate though I am, I don't like it. What I'm hung up about is the repeated futile efforts to build stronger and more elaborate DRM machines. Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed DRM was cracked, by the way. No DRM has been 100% effective at shutting down pirates. Even the multiplayer aspects now have cracked servers. It seems clear that simply adding increased layers and more hoops to jump through will only ever prolong the inevitable. An entirely different route must be explored. One thing I proposed was to open up alternatives that would decrease the need for piracy. Things like listening to an album all the way through, for example, lets a person decide if they like the music all the way through, rather than just 30-second segments taken from the best parts of the tracks. If you like the album, it really is easier and worth 10 bucks to just pay for the damn thing while you have it right there. Perhaps letting people test-drive video games would be a good idea to help boost sales, too. Some software already has free trials, but not every software has a good free trial. I want to know that when a trial expires I'll be able to keep using the files I've been using, and not have them stuck in some weird format that nothing else recognizes. That's holding files hostage, not letting a person demo the software, and that does spark rebellion (at least for me).



If we could get the first panel to actually happen, my argument evaporates. Legal consumers aren't inconvenienced, and piracy is put to an end. I will gladly start paying for things I enjoy. But, what this more recent legislation does is to go after individual pirates with greater ferocity. In reality, this just isn't realistic. I know people who will sooner retreat behind the nearly-impenetrable Tor network before giving up piracy. What we'd be more likely to see is piracy driven underground, where legitimate CD's are physically circulated and brute-force keygens built in private.

And believe me, Xel, I'm working on it.

Okay, I'm not saying that everything should be free. I'm not saying piracy is a good thing. I'm saying that these companies are putting far too much time and effort to try and keep pirates at bay, when in reality, pirates are some of the most talented hackers out there. Loopholes always exist. They have a right to protect their stuff, but they're so damn bad at it that it's hurting legitimate consumers. I want to see piracy dead as much as the next person, but it has gotten to the point where pirated versions are more appealing than the legal versions, and not just because of the price tag. That should tell you something.

And I don't want to see bands forced to go on tour across the nation, but the reality is, that's how most of them make anything substantial. Most artists get a final cut of 2 or 3% of the royalties, if they're lucky. The rest go to lawyers, record labels, and so on. It's ridiculous. There are bigger threats to musicians than pirates.

I agree with most of what you said but I don't think we've gone anywhere towards creating any kind of coherent legal framework.

How do you resolve the huge contradictions?

Interesting question that has occurred to me by the way: at the heart of this whole thing is how reproducing the physical representation of the non-physical object has become virtually free (when it was difficult and costly there was no issue). As this is the case, why do musicians need publishers? Why can't they just distribute it online?

I agree, Mario. A lot of my favorite YouTube concert videos keep getting taken down. It might be a surprise to the copyright owners if they found out that I have a concert DVD list a mile long because of what I have discovered on YouTube. I like watching the videos on that site, but I majorly prefer to watch those videos in totally clear visual and audio form on a big ass television. The copyright owners make money off me by having those videos on YouTube because that is where I discover them. I think that's probably a common situation.

However, I still think it should be up to the copyright owners. I value copyright ownership, but in some cases, copyright owners don't seem to be considering all of the major possibilities.

Originally Posted by Xei

I agree with most of what you said but I don't think we've gone anywhere towards creating any kind of coherent legal framework.

The bit I'm concerned about is that discussions are projected to end this year and nations are expected to begin signing on. The first draft has been released. It's got a bit to go, but it's surprisingly close. There will remain the issue of what is to become of nations that do not sign onto the agreement...I would assume they would continue to prosecute piracy by their own standards. But if a nation is incredibly lenient on piracy, that will leave a gaping loophole. I wouldn't be surprised if that nation's GDP rose sharply as it became the new hub of piracy.

Interesting question that has occurred to me by the way: at the heart of this whole thing is how reproducing the physical representation of the non-physical object has become virtually free (when it was difficult and costly there was no issue). As this is the case, why do musicians need publishers? Why can't they just distribute it online?

That is actually something I've considered greatly. In recent years, we've seen a huge increase in the popularity of sites that freely host independent artists (sound cloud, for example), and in exchange, the artists typically make their songs available for free. It would not take much to make a site where independent artists could host their work and make a profit off of it, either through donations or actually charging per song. I wouldn't be surprised if such a site already exists. The record company is steadily becoming obsolete...I really wouldn't be surprised if most artists in the future are self-published.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I agree, Mario. A lot of my favorite YouTube concert videos keep getting taken down. It might be a surprise to the copyright owners if they found out that I have a concert DVD list a mile long because of what I have discovered on YouTube. I like watching the videos on that site, but I majorly prefer to watch those videos in totally clear visual and audio form on a big ass television. The copyright owners make money off me by having those videos on YouTube because that is where I discover them. I think that's probably a common situation.

However, I still think it should be up to the copyright owners. I value copyright ownership, but in some cases, copyright owners don't seem to be considering all of the major possibilities.

I agree, it is still ultimately up to the copyright holders to make their own decisions, but their blockheadedness is maddening. I read an article recently that states most major companies would prefer to have their software pirated than to have people turn to competitors. Well, I tried MS Office, and then went out and bought the program. Open Office is fine in a pinch, but the regular office does a better job (once you've taken a class on it and know how the damn thing works, that is). And maybe I am in a minority. But, it is a minority that still goes out and buys the regular program instead of turning to competitors.

That is actually something I've considered greatly. In recent years, we've seen a huge increase in the popularity of sites that freely host independent artists (sound cloud, for example), and in exchange, the artists typically make their songs available for free. It would not take much to make a site where independent artists could host their work and make a profit off of it, either through donations or actually charging per song. I wouldn't be surprised if such a site already exists. The record company is steadily becoming obsolete...I really wouldn't be surprised if most artists in the future are self-published.

Thanks, that's interesting.

This makes me wonder about iTunes as well, who as I understand it take a reasonable chunk for doing very little in the same fashion as publishers. If bands simply allowed people to download mp3s from their own site, I can kind of see this philosophy causing iPods to fall out of favour, as the most irritating thing about them is that you don't have the ability to easily transfer files from the iPod to another device that you own. I could see people quickly switching to alternative mp3 players where the mp3 player is essentially a hard drive with speakers (as most of them are today), if Apple don't move.

The bit I'm concerned about is that discussions are projected to end this year and nations are expected to begin signing on. The first draft has been released. It's got a bit to go, but it's surprisingly close. There will remain the issue of what is to become of nations that do not sign onto the agreement...I would assume they would continue to prosecute piracy by their own standards. But if a nation is incredibly lenient on piracy, that will leave a gaping loophole. I wouldn't be surprised if that nation's GDP rose sharply as it became the new hub of piracy.

What is the overall picture of this first draft?

Originally Posted by Xei

Thanks, that's interesting.

This makes me wonder about iTunes as well, who as I understand it take a reasonable chunk for doing very little in the same fashion as publishers. If bands simply allowed people to download mp3s from their own site, I can kind of see this philosophy causing iPods to fall out of favour, as the most irritating thing about them is that you don't have the ability to easily transfer files from the iPod to another device that you own. I could see people quickly switching to alternative mp3 players where the mp3 player is essentially a hard drive with speakers (as most of them are today), if Apple don't move.

I don't even bother with the name-brand iPod, seeing as how regular mp3 players do the same thing at a fraction of the price, and can be used as a regular hard drive without any special software to boot. It's just not worth the messing around.

What is the overall picture of this first draft?

I actually don't know...I don't feel like slogging through a half dozen chapters of lawyer-speak to find out. :3 I'm sure the media will kindly inform us at some point. If it does what it claims to be doing, I'm slightly concerned. I would guess that they would increase prosecution against individual pirates...which would be sort of like sending a man with a garden hose to put out a forest fire. He might get a few trees, but he's not going to even come close to stopping the whole thing. Likely they'll make examples out of those they catch to discourage piracy worldwide. That would effectively drive it further underground. A few might drop out, but as long as the benefits outweigh the risks, it will definitely not go extinct.

But if, on the other hand, the legislation states that the universal punishment shall be to pay for whatever you downloaded plus damages, that I would be more kosher with. ^_^ It's discouraging piracy on some level, but at least its more fair to all involved. If a strike system is even developed, that would be great! I would probably hug this bill.

Once again, the world turns to Trent Reznor for guidance and leadership.

Originally Posted by Alric

I have to call bullshit on that. People do not download games, then buy them afterwards. I am sure people say that, but how can you possibly believe that? I mean you download a game, you beat it, then you go to the store buy it for 50 dollars and never play it again? Yeah right.

After a person beats a game, chances are they are never going to play it again. So why on earth would they ever buy? They won't, we all know they won't and they never do.

The only exception, is if the game has a multiplayer version and you can't play multiplayer unless you have some code or a registered verson. In which case, their copy right protection actually worked in forcing someone to buy the game in order to play on their servers.

So some copy right protection stuff does actually work. Pirating does not help software or music companies even slightly. How much stuff that you download do you actually buy afterwards? Maybe 5 percent tops.

We all know the excuses people tell themself, so they feel better about stealing.

Actually, I could go up to Wal-Mart and buy a multiplayer game, take the code out, then either tell them it didn't have a code or for some reason the disc is defective. Voila, they swap it out. Rinse and repeat. I could then take the codes and sell them on the internet or under-the-table for about ten dollars a pop.

By the way, I don't do these type of things though it would be sooo easy. All that is happening is that real customers are catching flak, which they will say "F" it and either not bother wasting their time/money or instead just resort to piracy.

The only thing I think that they can do is utilization of the internet and selling half the data directly to the customer's computer. In order to get the other half of the data, you have to purchase an account/code for $10.00 with a credit card, which the activation will be instant. Don't have the internet? Tough luck. This is probably the approach that the gaming industry will take, though I do not agree with it because you aren't buying the product and the gaming industry could get greedy and easily exploit it. It is highly prone to errors, such as what will happen if data download is interrupted, your computer dies, etc..

I think part of the problem with piracy/copyright is that the entertainment industry has been extremely slow to respond to consumer demand. Even with stuff like iTunes, it has taken them a very long time to remove the DRM. I'd speculate that for many it's become a habit to simply head over to the Pirate Bay because for a long time it wasn't worth bothering with alternative sources, in terms of the restrictions, or because the content in question wasn't available. Reversing such ingrained behaviours is not easy.

Even now, iTunes still has a lot of the more obscure music missing, whereas you can find it much more easily on bittorrent sites.



When it comes to copyright law, then if you have purchased a copy of something (or a license to view the content) then you should be able to freely transfer it in to whatever medium you want, and modify it for personal use as you see fit. If I buy a DVD for example, the ownership is of the copy of the content on the DVD, and the DVD is a means to an end to provide me with a copy. If I own that license, I should be free to obtain it in whatever medium I want by any means.

To use an example from above, I should be free to download Top Gear off bittorrent if have a right to that content with no legal repercussions (though people who do not have any right to the content would not be protected). Ideally the BBC would make Top Gear episodes downloadable for license players (instead of the crippling DRM on the license player which limits what you can do with it, and how long you keep the content for) and so people wouldn't need to resort to bittorrent. I would also distinguish between those using bittorrent to download something they want, which forces such users to share the content in return due to the tit-for-tat model, verses those making copies freely available to people who have no right to it of their own free will.

When it comes to sharing stuff though, that's very tricky; where do you draw the line. For example, I can invite a friend around to watch a DVD, or lend him that DVD myself so he can watch it as much as he wants. Is there really that much difference between that and giving him a digital copy to put on his hard drive to watch? The only fundamental difference I can think of is it allows 2 people separate use of 1 license. So providing you refused to watch the content whilst "lending" the license to a friend, and your friend instantly deleted the content upon revoking the license, nothing wrong would be done. Obviously enforcing this would be completely impractical.

One question I would like to ask everyone is where do you stand on film / game soundtracks, if you already own the film or game in question? In my mind, you've already paid for that content, though I am happy to provide additional support to certain artists on occasions. Also there's nothing to stop you from playing the appropriate part of the game, or watching the right part of the film to listen to the music you want. Having it in soundtrack form is really more a convenience than anything else.

Originally Posted by Xei

And what about musicians who create complex music which can't be played live (like Boards of Canada)? Musicians aren't obliged to tour because people can't be bothered to pay for their music.

Yeah, that's true. Your post reminded me of Simon Posford (of Shpongle)'s story. He started up a successful label in the late 90s I believe to market the new psy-trance music he and his contemporaries were innovating. They were successful for years until their last few CD releases, which made next to no money. Shpongle themselves only do 1 or 2 blow-out shows every year, so there's no money coming from there. The label is essentially broke now, and the only way these artists will survive is by signing on with something more corporate. Keep in mind though, that these bigger labels are notorious for keeping absurd amounts of income for themselves, not to mention stealing intellectual property through contracts that only an entertainment lawyer would understand.

Originally Posted by Xei

Interesting question that has occurred to me by the way: at the heart of this whole thing is how reproducing the physical representation of the non-physical object has become virtually free (when it was difficult and costly there was no issue). As this is the case, why do musicians need publishers? Why can't they just distribute it online?

There have definitely been significant success stories when it comes to using these methods to self-promote, or even to release a CD, but ONLY when the artists themselves are involved. http://torrentfreak.com/pirated-by-i...orrent-080206/. More and more music artists are realizing that proactivity on the online front eliminates the need for these more corporatist labels.

Its all about adaptation. Things are certainly changing, and music artists are entering a time when they can no longer ignore the internet (as I believe many do). Thus they'll have to sink or swim. The film and gaming industries will likely have to undergo a similar transformation, though I lack enough knowledge of either industry to speculate much. Perhaps huge budget stuff will begin to disappear and independent stuff will become more of a focus (it seems to be happening a little bit already).

At any rate I really hope companies are over this DRM thing. It seems to do more harm than good for us as well as themselves. I swore off DRM ever since I bought a few protected albums from iTunes. Christ, its like I don't even own the songs! I just ended up downloading them elsewhere later. I also remember hearing when Spore came out that it was the most pirated game of all time, as well as the most DRM protected. Unbelievable that this still happens.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

Once again, the world turns to Trent Reznor for guidance and leadership.

Again: some more experimental albums require a lot of time, expensive equipment, and personnel, to create. It is not fair that such albums (many of which are extremely good; OK Computer, Loveless, Achtung Baby...) should not be allowed to make back the money put into them. These rules would mean some of the best albums ever made would never have been.

Why do you think these rules would change the production process? There's still good compensation to be made from Reznor's business model, if executed correctly. Radiohead's latest album being distributed similarly, and they still did very well for themselves from what I heard. And while its no OK Computer, its probably still my second favorite of theirs. Even if there was a loss of cashflow, good production is becoming cheaper and cheaper anyway. I heard a great independent album not too long ago that was recorded in someone's closet.

So My Bloody Valentine would have made their £250,000 back through T-Shirt sales?

I'm not sure what In Rainbows has to do with Renzor's idea. Radiohead let people pay what they wanted. Renzor says make the songs free and then make people may for extras and merchandise.

I'd put it about equal to The Bends and Kid A btw.

This gives me an interesting thought though: what is a fair price to pay for an album? Perhaps the problem is that albums are simply overpriced? If albums were £1 each would you bother to pirate them?

Originally Posted by Mario92

That's 5% more than I ever would have. I don't care about 99% of video games out there, and half the time, the other 1% turns out to be crap, too. That kind of cynicism basically ensures I'll never buy a video game, unless I know it's good. And with music, what I find interesting is that there are dozens of online radio stations that freely stream fine-quality music, but media companies ignore them completely. I personally don't pirate music. I have no reason to. It's being handed to me on a legal silver platter.

[/QUOTE]

Obviously you do care about 99% of the games out there, or you wouldn't have downloaded them illegally. If you didn't care about 99% of the games out there, you wouldn't be pirating them. You would be out playing baseball or something instead.

Originally Posted by Alric

Obviously you do care about 99% of the games out there, or you wouldn't have downloaded them illegally. If you didn't care about 99% of the games out there, you wouldn't be pirating them. You would be out playing baseball or something instead.

What? You just said I illegally downloaded 99% of video games. What kind of massive, futuristic hard drive do you think I have? XD And I don't care about 99% of the video games out there. It's amazing, trying to wade through the crap to find one shining diamond in a sea of filth. It's that 1% of games that I care about, not the 99% sewage. My game collection is actually extremely sparse. It consists of Halo, and...Prototype. Portal was obtained legally. Given the simply staggering amount of computer games out there, I'd call that about 1%, maybe 2% at most. I like video games....I like GOOD video games, which are increasingly hard to come by. One game I BOUGHT recently was Mario Galaxy 2, because the first one was a barrel of fun, and so is this one. Retreading familiar ground, yes, but still fun. It is worth my money. I could have homebrewed my console, sure, but this is a game I actually like enough to pay for.