StarCraft Source Code Discovered, Fan Rewarded for Returning it to Blizzard - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=DrTaxi;52193236]No, we can't. Source code to a twenty year old, culturally significant video game belongs in the hands of the public. Screw the IP owner.[/QUOTE] says who?

[QUOTE=oskramorir;52197504]says who?[/QUOTE] Certainly not the law.

I wonder what the person who sold it forward did with it first

[QUOTE=oskramorir;52197504]says who?[/QUOTE] See the post I'm referring to. We're talking about morality here. Which is subjective.

[QUOTE=DrTaxi;52198864]See the post I'm referring to. We're talking about morality here. Which is subjective.[/QUOTE] If you feel entitled to other people's property then you got some pretty fucked morals there mate.

[QUOTE=DeEz;52198897]If you feel entitled to other people's property then you got some pretty fucked morals there mate.[/QUOTE] Assuming you aren't libertarian, you probably don't mind the government taking a cut from people's income either. Why should that be literally the [I]only[/I] exception to "stealing is wrong"?

[QUOTE=DrTaxi;52198925]Assuming you aren't libertarian, you probably don't mind the government taking a cut from people's income either. Why should that be literally the [I]only[/I] exception to "stealing is wrong"?[/QUOTE] Because, I don't know, having functioning public facilities is pretty neat? Fucking hell man, at least [I]try[/I] to bring up a remotely credible argument.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;52199058]Because, I don't know, having functioning public facilities is pretty neat? Fucking hell man, at least [I]try[/I] to bring up a remotely credible argument.[/QUOTE] so it's okay to violate the otherwise sanctified principle of "no one is entitled to another person's property" in instances where doing so results in enough public good?

well i would expect Blizzard to give him access to all theirs games for free and lifetime ... guess multi-billion company can't afford even that ... even if the gold master was of no use , it's still something they can put on show into display case (actually i would say it had some use considering the remaster)

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52199084]so it's okay to violate the otherwise sanctified principle of "no one is entitled to another person's property" in instances where doing so results in enough public good?[/QUOTE] It's Blizzard's property. It was stolen. Regardless whether the guy bought it, it is still not his property or the public's. You don't get to keep a stolen car just because you're not the one who stole it. [editline]a[/editline] Or are you talking about the government "stealing" your money?

[QUOTE=Jimesu_Evil;52200312]It's Blizzard's property. It was stolen. Regardless whether the guy bought it, it is still not his property or the public's. You don't get to keep a stolen car just because you're not the one who stole it. [editline]a[/editline] Or are you talking about the government "stealing" your money?[/QUOTE] do you really think that distributing copyrighted information and taking a physical object are the exact same thing? Like, there's another conversation to be had about how we're willing to suspend certain principles under certain conditions, but I don't think we can have that if we can't even talk honestly about the situation. This isn't about someone taking Blizzard's car, this is about someone showing something to people that Blizzard made. I don't understand how anyone could conflate the two.

Paying taxes is a obligation to society and not stealing, therefore terrible comparison. Making sure some guy doesn't release to the public the source code to your game, regardless of how old it is, is not a obligation.

[QUOTE=Jimesu_Evil;52200312]It's Blizzard's property. It was stolen. Regardless whether the guy bought it, it is still not his property or the public's. You don't get to keep a stolen car just because you're not the one who stole it. [editline]a[/editline] Or are you talking about the government "stealing" your money?[/QUOTE] Yes. The government steals our money. None of us ever gave them permission to take it. But most of us think this is a good thing, because if you could just opt out of paying taxes, we'd have a problem. So clearly, there are cases of infringement upon private property that we approve of. And I'd consider this another one. StarCraft has significant cultural and historical value. Blizzard's been more than fairly compensated for it. It was made almost twenty years ago. As such, I frankly don't care what the property owner wants, I feel the public is as (morally) entitled to the ability to study and modify its source code as the government is to my tax money.

Tough spot. I really think if I was in the position I'd make a copy for myself since I'm a hoarder and then turn it in to Blizzard. Maybe after that truly years down the line when everyone has forgotten about this I'd think of releasing it. I genuinely hope in a real life situation I would not be stupid enough to try to release it, potentially fucking up my life. I know I would not have access to many things if everyone thought like me but truth be told I have far too much invested in my life up to this point to endanger it by pulling stunts, but at the same time more power to anyone who actually does. I feel like this guy had no choice whatsoever once he posted on reddit. After that any release would have tracked straight back to him so if he was going to do something he should have done it without seeking public advice. The other side of the coin is I am not sure if he'd be rewarded so well if the case was not brought to public eye.

I wonder if he made any copies

[Quote]The multi-billion dollar game company decided to reward Khemist49 by sending him a free copy of its popular FPS Overwatch[/Quote] Wow. He gives them back the source code and they insult him.

[QUOTE=DrTaxi;52200753]Yes. The government steals our money. None of us ever gave them permission to take it. But most of us think this is a good thing, because if you could just opt out of paying taxes, we'd have a problem. So clearly, there are cases of infringement upon private property that we approve of. And I'd consider this another one. StarCraft has significant cultural and historical value. Blizzard's been more than fairly compensated for it. It was made almost twenty years ago. As such, I frankly don't care what the property owner wants, I feel the public is as (morally) entitled to the ability to study and modify its source code as the government is to my tax money.[/QUOTE] A terrible comparison as taxes are paid for public services and other public things, such as the streets you walk on. Essentially, you're getting something for it. It's not theft lol. It doesn't matter how culturally important a product is; that doesn't entitle you to the source code in any way. You can't just forsake someone's right over a product they've made.

[QUOTE=yellowoboe;52200977]Wow. He gives them back the source code and they insult him.[/QUOTE] What he got means a whole lot more than it looks if you're a huge Blizzard fan. He basically got $250 worth of ingame stuff - services, subscriptions and microtransactions. I know microtransactions aren't exactly popular but the vanity items you can buy in the WoW store are pretty goddamn awesome looking [i]And[/i] Blizzcon for free, can't imagine that being cheap or easy to get to

[QUOTE=Natrox;52201014]A terrible comparison as taxes are paid for public services and other public things, such as the streets you walk on. Essentially, you're getting something for it. It's not theft lol.[/QUOTE] Taxes are used for plenty of things that don't benefit [I]me[/I] even indirectly. Besides, feel free to break into someone's home, steal their TV and leave them a shiny new smartphone instead. Not theft! They got something for it! No, taxation is totally theft. We just don't usually call it that because we think it's justified. [QUOTE]You can't just forsake someone's right over a product they've made.[/QUOTE] Why not?

[QUOTE=DrTaxi;52201112]Taxes are used for plenty of things that don't benefit [I]me[/I] even indirectly. Besides, feel free to break into someone's home, steal their TV and leave them a shiny new smartphone instead. Not theft! They got something for it! No, taxation is totally theft. We just don't usually call it that because we think it's justified.[/QUOTE] Taxes are a collective fund. You pay taxes to support this fund so that the government can keep the country from falling apart. The world doesn't revolve around you - other people may pay taxes too in cases where it does not benefit them but it does benefit you. For example, as far as I know, your school system is mostly paid by the government. Kids can go to school for 'free'. That comes from your taxes, and I am sure that has had benefit for you and your guardians at some point in your life (even though it may not benefit you RIGHT NOW). If you don't like the way your tax money is spent, take it up with whoever political leader it was that you helped appoint. It's not theft though. [QUOTE=DrTaxi;52201112]Why not?[/QUOTE] Because it's not yours?

[QUOTE=Natrox;52201179]Taxes are a collective fund. You pay taxes to support this fund so that the government can keep the country from falling apart. The world doesn't revolve around you - other people may pay taxes too in cases where it does not benefit them but it does benefit you. For example, as far as I know, your school system is mostly paid by the government. Kids can go to school for 'free'. That comes from your taxes, and I am sure that has had benefit for you and your guardians at some point in your life (even though it may not benefit you RIGHT NOW). If you don't like the way your tax money is spent, take it up with whoever political leader it was that you helped appoint. It's not theft though.[/QUOTE] Disability benefits would be an example though. No benefit to me. Which is good and all, I never said I had a problem with how my tax money is spent. What exactly are you denying here? That taxation involves taking part of people's income without their consent? That thus, there are instances of "taking people's property without their consent" we consider justified? That someone might possibly also consider some other cases of "taking people's property without their consent" justified?

[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;52198844]I wonder what the person who sold it forward did with it first[/QUOTE] Oh trust me. If it was me, Id use it as a good learning experience.

[QUOTE=DrTaxi;52201112]Taxes are used for plenty of things that don't benefit [I]me[/I] even indirectly. Besides, feel free to break into someone's home, steal their TV and leave them a shiny new smartphone instead. Not theft! They got something for it! No, taxation is totally theft. We just don't usually call it that because we think it's justified. [/QUOTE] How come libertarians and anti-tax people in general can never seem to make an argument without sounding completely retarded? I'm reminded of our libertarian party campaigning on the promise of abolishing income tax with a completely straight face.

[QUOTE=DrTaxi;52201112]Taxes are used for plenty of things that don't benefit [I]me[/I] even indirectly. Besides, feel free to break into someone's home, steal their TV and leave them a shiny new smartphone instead. Not theft! They got something for it! No, taxation is totally theft. We just don't usually call it that because we think it's justified. Why not?[/QUOTE] is this what a anarchist communist looks like.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;52201278]How come libertarians and anti-tax people in general can never seem to make an argument without sounding completely retarded? I'm reminded of our libertarian party campaigning on the promise of abolishing income tax with a completely straight face.[/QUOTE] He hasn't said anything about abolishing taxes, nor has he said that taxes are bad. What the fuck are you talking about?

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;52201278]How come libertarians and anti-tax people in general can never seem to make an argument without sounding completely retarded? I'm reminded of our libertarian party campaigning on the promise of abolishing income tax with a completely straight face.[/QUOTE] This post would be a whole lot better if you bothered to explain why you think his argument is bad instead of just saying "DAE think his argument is bad haha"

[QUOTE=geel9;52201934]This post would be a whole lot better if you bothered to explain why you think his argument is bad instead of just saying "DAE think his argument is bad haha"[/QUOTE] I'll fill in to humor this. This was the original quote which started off this somewhat off-track debate [QUOTE=DrTaxi]Assuming you aren't libertarian, you probably don't mind the government taking a cut from people's income either. Why should that be literally the only exception to "stealing is wrong"?[/QUOTE] This sentence establishes DrTaxi's belief that taxation is theft, and therefore it's hypocritical that the poster they're talking to would be ok with taxation and not people stealing. However, many counterarguments could be made to the idea that taxation is theft. Here's three of the most obvious ones off the top of my head. 1. The government is not spending all of its collective funding into places that (seemingly) directly benefit you specifically, but it would be unwise to overlook everything else they do for you. For instance, disability benefits(as noted by DrTaxi) give him nothing to consider -- no money is made available in the form of a cheque to be cashed in. However, it's merely a [I]part[/I] of what that tax money goes to, and many other public benefits are made available. Having a working municipal sewage system & plumbing is funded by taxes. Electricity and gas systems to provide for basic amenities is also funded by taxes(although the private citizen does pay for individual household consumption. The distribution infrastructure is a public service.) Having law enforcement to make sure anarchy doesn't reign is paid by taxes. Having roads to walk and drive on is paid by taxes. Even having food to eat and beverages to drink is paid by taxes, because the government sets up & maintains the infrastructure needed to manufacture & transport resources. 2. Taxation is an implicit debt because of the benefits you receive by being a citizen of the country. For a lack of better words, you are paying to exist as an American, British, German, Chinese, Indian, Russian, etc, as long as you maintain your paperwork and live in those lands. Nations are not free to run, and governments cannot simply print money to pay their workers with unless they want to devalue the currency into garbage. You are entitled to live sovereign and identify under no particular land, but you must find such a land to begin with. If you discard your German citizenship, for instance, and you drink water from a public fountain or use a public restroom, it is theft because you are no longer paying for those rights(although it's highly unlikely you would be persecuted for it.) Thus you are giving consent as long as you keep choosing to be a citizen of any nation. It is nearly impossible to be a citizen without giving something back, except for a few cases, bringing me to point 3. 3. In many modern countries, you do not have to pay income tax if you do not make enough income to a certain threshold. In the US, for instance, for non-senior citizens, you can make $10,350 before you are required to pay taxes. In Germany(from what I can tell), you can make up to €8,652 before income taxes must be paid. However, just because you do not pay income tax [I]does not mean you do not receive citizen's benefits.[/I] You may not be paying income taxes, but law enforcement will still come to your aid. Your water and gas will still be running(as long as you pay usage bills). You will still be able to buy food at the market. You will still be able to travel outside of your country. Why? Because you are still enjoying the benefits of [U]citizenship.[/U] Paying taxes for many visible(and invisible) benefits, even while implicit, is not the same as direct theft. You're welcome to opt out and live as a self-sufficient hermit in a remote area -- the government can't tax you if you're not making any money, and you also wouldn't be leeching off the government -- a fair trade, in my book. It's also not very comparable to stealing a company's intellectual property which is protected by law.

[QUOTE=aznz888;52204124]I'll fill in to humor this. This was the original quote which started off this somewhat off-track debate This sentence establishes DrTaxi's belief that taxation is theft, and therefore it's hypocritical that the poster they're talking to would be ok with taxation and not people stealing. However, many counterarguments could be made to the idea that taxation is theft. Here's three of the most obvious ones off the top of my head. 1. The government is not spending all of its collective funding into places that (seemingly) directly benefit you specifically, but it would be unwise to overlook everything else they do for you. For instance, disability benefits(as noted by DrTaxi) give him nothing to consider -- no money is made available in the form of a cheque to be cashed in. However, it's merely a [I]part[/I] of what that tax money goes to, and many other public benefits are made available. Having a working municipal sewage system & plumbing is funded by taxes. Electricity and gas systems to provide for basic amenities is also funded by taxes(although the private citizen does pay for individual household consumption. The distribution infrastructure is a public service.) Having law enforcement to make sure anarchy doesn't reign is paid by taxes. Having roads to walk and drive on is paid by taxes. Even having food to eat and beverages to drink is paid by taxes, because the government sets up & maintains the infrastructure needed to manufacture & transport resources. 2. Taxation is an implicit debt because of the benefits you receive by being a citizen of the country. For a lack of better words, you are paying to exist as an American, British, German, Chinese, Indian, Russian, etc, as long as you maintain your paperwork and live in those lands. Nations are not free to run, and governments cannot simply print money to pay their workers with unless they want to devalue the currency into garbage. You are entitled to live sovereign and identify under no particular land, but you must find such a land to begin with. If you discard your German citizenship, for instance, and you drink water from a public fountain or use a public restroom, it is theft because you are no longer paying for those rights(although it's highly unlikely you would be persecuted for it.) Thus you are giving consent as long as you keep choosing to be a citizen of any nation. It is nearly impossible to be a citizen without giving something back, except for a few cases, bringing me to point 3. 3. In many modern countries, you do not have to pay income tax if you do not make enough income to a certain threshold. In the US, for instance, for non-senior citizens, you can make $10,350 before you are required to pay taxes. In Germany(from what I can tell), you can make up to €8,652 before income taxes must be paid. However, just because you do not pay income tax [I]does not mean you do not receive citizen's benefits.[/I] You may not be paying income taxes, but law enforcement will still come to your aid. Your water and gas will still be running(as long as you pay usage bills). You will still be able to buy food at the market. You will still be able to travel outside of your country. Why? Because you are still enjoying the benefits of [U]citizenship.[/U] Paying taxes for many visible(and invisible) benefits, even while implicit, is not the same as direct theft. You're welcome to opt out and live as a self-sufficient hermit in a remote area -- the government can't tax you if you're not making any money, and you also wouldn't be leeching off the government -- a fair trade, in my book. It's also not very comparable to stealing a company's intellectual property which is protected by law.[/QUOTE] These are interesting points, but I don't think they properly debunk the idea that taxation, in its most basic form, is theft. 1. Receiving benefits from the entity that has taken something from you does not make it not theft. If someone took my money without my ability to legally deny them doing so, but later paid for my medical bills, it is still theft. Yes, I received benefits, but they still stole from me. 2. I cannot choose to be born into the United States, and the ability to travel anywhere the United States does not control requires money. There is no non-government-controlled area of the world that I am able to reach from the United States without having money. The act of gaining money to achieve this incurs a tax, which I cannot say no to. Thus, a situation has been constructed such that by simply being born, I owe something that I never agreed to. Forcing someone to give you money when they did not agree to give it to you is theft. 3. A threshhold on you who steal from does not change the nature of it being theft. It simply means you're stealing from fewer people. Essentially, you're thrust into a situation where the only way out is to pay taxes for some time. At no point have you agreed to paying taxes, yet you are required to do so anyways. That's theft. That's not even to say that taxes shouldn't exist, or that we could have a functioning society without taxes. I personally think it would be disastrous to get rid of taxation. It's intellectually dishonest, however, to not admit that someone forcing you to give them something, and claiming you owe it simply because you were born within land they control, is theft. Call something what it is.

[QUOTE=geel9;52206258]These are interesting points, but I don't think they properly debunk the idea that taxation, in its most basic form, is theft. 1. Receiving benefits from the entity that has taken something from you does not make it not theft. If someone took my money without my ability to legally deny them doing so, but later paid for my medical bills, it is still theft. Yes, I received benefits, but they still stole from me. 2. I cannot choose to be born into the United States, and the ability to travel anywhere the United States does not control requires money. There is no non-government-controlled area of the world that I am able to reach from the United States without having money. The act of gaining money to achieve this incurs a tax, which I cannot say no to. Thus, a situation has been constructed such that by simply being born, I owe something that I never agreed to. Forcing someone to give you money when they did not agree to give it to you is theft. 3. A threshhold on you who steal from does not change the nature of it being theft. It simply means you're stealing from fewer people. Essentially, you're thrust into a situation where the only way out is to pay taxes for some time. At no point have you agreed to paying taxes, yet you are required to do so anyways. That's theft. That's not even to say that taxes shouldn't exist, or that we could have a functioning society without taxes. I personally think it would be disastrous to get rid of taxation. It's intellectually dishonest, however, to not admit that someone forcing you to give them something, and claiming you owe it simply because you were born within land they control, is theft. Call something what it is.[/QUOTE] If we are going by the most simplistic definition of theft, without regard for the context of its necessity and purposes in a given situation, then yes I would agree that taxation is theft, because as you pointed out, you're thrust into the situation from your parents. However, we know that context is everything, and it's kind of silly to try to say taxation's version of theft is the same as stealing IP. It is also silly to compare stealing IP to the same as someone breaking into your house & taking something while leaving something behind. To sum up, I think that there are situations where theft is OK. There's a broad spectrum, and it's not black & white.

I wasn't really trying to stir up a discussion on the definition of "theft". Just to bring up an example of "taking other people's property without their permission" (which taxation is, regardless of whether you're gonna reduce the definition of theft to that) that's [I]supported[/I] by most people, so "it's not your property" isn't an incontrovertible knockout argument. If you don't feel that publishing someone's work against their will a long time after they've created it is also okay, then fair enough. That's a matter of opinion. I'd just like you to recognise that no, the simple fact that "it's not your property" is not the [I]full[/I] reason why you feel that way.