PDA

View Full Version : EM loses...



itsonyourhead
22nd Sep 2011, 16:26
over 4,500,000$ value to PC pirates (based on the tracking statistics of the dominant torrent and evaluating the game at 30$).

http://i56.tinypic.com/nltsfa.jpg

Even if you hold that most of the people downloading the game would not have acquired it otherwise, they are still stealing the copyrighted digital information from EM, and that copyrighted digital information has a value, in dollars. So yes. Those people are taking EM for 4,500,000 $. This doesn't mean that barring the torrenting, EM would have gotten 4,500,000 $ more income. What it means is that these people stole that much value from EM.

It's kinda weird though, isn't it? How can they steal 4,500,000 $ from EM that EM doesn't, and will never have? Kinda makes you think about digital media value models, doesn't it?

satan claus
22nd Sep 2011, 16:32
over 4,500,000$ income to PC pirates (based on the tracking statistics of the dominant torrent and evaluating the game at 30$).
PB s5456+l3346*approx 6*30$=1.584.360$

itsonyourhead
22nd Sep 2011, 16:36
PB s5456+l3346*approx 6*30$=1.584.360$

You are only considering current leachers and seeders. I'm talking about having kept track of total DLs.

Jason Parker
22nd Sep 2011, 16:37
over 4,500,000$ income to PC pirates (based on the tracking statistics of the dominant torrent and evaluating the game at 30$).

The problem with this calculation is the same false assumption the music industry is making: They assume that everyone pirating a game or music album would buy the game/album if it was not possible to pirate it.

This totally neglects the fact that a huge part of pirating is simply driven by not having the money to buy the game/music and some kind of collecting mania (I'd even say the latter plays a much bigger role in it).

MaxxQ1
22nd Sep 2011, 16:49
Well, in the US anyway, one of the reasons many cite for pirating (try-before-buy) may not hold water anymore in a few weeks. Netflix is going to start carrying PS3, 360, and Wii games. Human Revolution is one of them.

Have I mentioned that I'm a Netflix employee?

I realize that that doesn't directly affect PC piracy, but it seems that a lot of folks own/game on both PC and consoles. My supervisor told me that when Netflix started streaming into Canada, movie piracy there dropped over 50%. I find that hard to believe, but for all I know, it may be true. After all, he's a manger and gets to go to all those manager meeting where they might possibly talk about those things.

So yeah, maybe Netflix carrying games might help a little towards reducing piracy.

Jason Parker
22nd Sep 2011, 17:12
Well, in the US anyway, one of the reasons many cite for pirating (try-before-buy) may not hold water anymore in a few weeks. Netflix is going to start carrying PS3, 360, and Wii games. Human Revolution is one of them.

I'm from europe could you quickly explain what exactly netflix is/does?

Aside from that I'd say that "try-before-buy" is pretty much the lamest of all the excuses for piracy and I doubt more than 1% of those saying they pirate because they want to try before buying really buys the game afterwards if he really liked it.

I myself simply quit pirating when I started to earn my own money (that happened to be about the same time when music and games industry started reasonable and user friendly digital online sales). The reasons I got music and games from the internet illegaly before simply was the fact that I just did not have the money and it removed the need to drive to the next reseller. It was just a lot more convenient to download games/music. Both industries missed a lot by starting digital online sales almost a decade too late.

What makes me mad and angry is that on the one hand the industries are accounting for pirates as potential customers when calculating losses due to piracy (what I said before: they count every pirated copy as one that otherwise would have been legally bought if piracy was no option. And on a side note I highly doubt that at least for the movies and games industry we're really talking about losses rather than just less profit) and on the other hand criminalize them WAY BEYOND any reason and sanity. Which bothers me especially if you consider that the major part of the so called pirates ar minors. I suspect they do that partly to distract from the fact that they all collectively (even more so the music than the game industry) underestimated the potential of the internat during the mid to end ninetys (where pirating via internet began to prosper while digital online sales of music or games was never even dreamed of and laughed away as a non-profitable idiocy).

imported_BoB_
22nd Sep 2011, 17:28
The problem with this calculation is the same false assumption the music industry is making: They assume that everyone pirating a game or music album would buy the game/album if it was not possible to pirate it.



What makes me mad and angry is that on the one hand the industries are accounting for pirates as potential customers when calculating losses due to piracy (what I said before: they count every pirated copy as one that otherwise would have been legally bought if piracy was no option. And on a side note I highly doubt that at least for the movies and games industry we're really talking about losses rather than just less profit) and on the other hand criminalize them WAY BEYOND any reason and sanity. Which bothers me especially if you consider that the major part of the so called pirates ar minors. I suspect they do that partly to distract from the fact that they all collectively (even more so the music than the game industry) underestimated the potential of the internat during the mid to end ninetys (where pirating via internet began to prosper while digital online sales of music or games was never even dreamed of and laughed away as a non-profitable idiocy).

Agreed 100%.

And with mandatory Steam, I even think that some people (maybe only 1 or 2% but still) will buy the game but will also download it. I know that if my PC would have been able to run the game, it's what I would have done because a Steam install on my PC won't ever happen.

Jason Parker
22nd Sep 2011, 17:38
And with mandatory Steam, I even think that some people (maybe only 1 or 2% but still) will buy the game but will also download it. I know that if my PC would have been able to run the game, it's what I would have done because a Steam install on my PC won't ever happen.

I have no problem whatsoever to admit that the non-steam crack to every single of the nearly 250 games I own on steam that has such a crack available resides on my disc, alongside a backup of the game data.

MaxxQ1
22nd Sep 2011, 17:45
I'm from europe could you quickly explain what exactly netflix is/does?

Netflix is a movie streaming/DVD rental service. For a monthly fee ($8/month for 1 dvd at a time, $8/month for unlimited streaming, $16/month for both) you can watch movies. There are no late fees, you can hang on to a movie for as long as you like, but the next movie in your queue won't be sent until you have returned the previous movie. Physical DVD's usually arrive within a day after "ordering" it from Netflix, obviously excepting Sundays where there's no mail delivery.

Streaming can be done through your internet connection on your PC, or through the 360/PS3/Wii, or through a Roku box you can buy for use with your TV.

There are other plans where you can have multiple movies, Blu-Ray, and now games, but TBH, I'm not aware of the pricing as my service is free*, and I haven't bothered to look at the site to see what the various plans cost. Game rental will work exactly the same as movie rental.

*Sort of. When the new company, Qwikster (a new division of Netflix that will deal *only* with the DVD-by-mail and games services - Netflix will only handle streaming), goes into effect, I will be working for Qwikster, and while dvd/blu-ray/game rental will be free for me, I will have to start paying the normal $8/month for streaming. The employee plan allows me to order up to four movies at once, or up to two games and two movies at a time. The game part of it is wasted on me as I don't play on a console.


Aside from that I'd say that "try-before-buy" is pretty much the lamest of all the excuses for piracy and I doubt more than 1% of those saying they pirate because they want to try before buying really buys the game afterwards if he really liked it.

Agreed. I always thought that the excuse of try-before-buy was a pretty lame justification for pirating.

Jason Parker
22nd Sep 2011, 18:00
Netflix is a movie streaming/DVD rental service. For a monthly fee ($8/month for 1 dvd at a time, $8/month for unlimited streaming, $16/month for both) you can watch movies. There are no late fees, you can hang on to a movie for as long as you like, but the next movie in your queue won't be sent until you have returned the previous movie. Physical DVD's usually arrive within a day after "ordering" it from Netflix, obviously excepting Sundays where there's no mail delivery.

Streaming can be done through your internet connection on your PC, or through the 360/PS3/Wii, or through a Roku box you can buy for use with your TV.

There are other plans where you can have multiple movies, Blu-Ray, and now games, but TBH, I'm not aware of the pricing as my service is free*, and I haven't bothered to look at the site to see what the various plans cost. Game rental will work exactly the same as movie rental.

*Sort of. When the new company, Qwikster (a new division of Netflix that will deal *only* with the DVD-by-mail and games services - Netflix will only handle streaming), goes into effect, I will be working for Qwikster, and while dvd/blu-ray/game rental will be free for me, I will have to start paying the normal $8/month for streaming. The employee plan allows me to order up to four movies at once, or up to two games and two movies at a time. The game part of it is wasted on me as I don't play on a console.



Agreed. I always thought that the excuse of try-before-buy was a pretty lame justification for pirating.

Ah I see. Definetly sounds like what some services in germany try to do but actually done right^^.

On the topic at hand: I wonder how game publishers account the losses due to for instance DRM that forces internet connection. Allthough the internet is at a triumphal march through the world there still are lot's of people not connected but interested in gaming.

pha
22nd Sep 2011, 18:07
over 4,500,000$ income to PC pirates (based on the tracking statistics of the dominant torrent and evaluating the game at 30$).

Quick! Make the game 5 bucks to lower their loss!

Also what Jason Parker said.

xaduha
22nd Sep 2011, 18:11
I prefer to view piracy as a form of inverted humanitarian aid, needy people help themselves :)

Ashpolt
22nd Sep 2011, 18:30
The problem with this calculation is the same false assumption the music industry is making: They assume that everyone pirating a game or music album would buy the game/album if it was not possible to pirate it.

And it also makes the assumption that none of the people who torrented it then went on to buy it, or bought the game legally first, and then torrented it to avoid Steam / whatever other reason. I know at least one person on this forum owns the game legally and also has a downloaded copy.

I wouldn't find this kind of shallow, two dimensional analysis worrying if it was only being done by a random forum member: sadly, it's done at a "professional" level as well. And here's the thing, games industry - until you understand piracy properly, you won't be able to combat it effectively.


EM loses over 4,500,000$ income to PC pirates (based on the tracking statistics of the dominant torrent and evaluating the game at 30$).

You got a single fact to back that up?

Jason Parker
22nd Sep 2011, 18:35
I prefer to view piracy as a form of inverted humanitarian aid, needy people help themselves :)

All fun aside there surely can be seen slight similarities between piracy of games/music/movies and for instance petty larceny of food. To me both pose a similar threat to society (namely absolutely none) and I for one find it very questionable if the time of courts and public prosecution departments should be wasted at all with piracy of entertainment goods.

Before anyone jumps at me: Of course I don't mean to set the desperation/urge to play games/listen to music/watching movies on one level with the need to have food. Allthough there are scientists/psychologists that argue that entertainment/relaxation is just as important as eating enough to stay healthy.

Fluffis
22nd Sep 2011, 18:58
People have covered most of the issues with this, but I feel I have to add one more thing:

They are not "losing" money. They never had that money, so it's not theirs to lose. Yes, this is semantics but in a case like this, semantics is very important. The law is to some extent based on semantics (which is why there are loopholes).

This is the same kind of error as saying that game piracy is theft. It's not, because you're not actually losing your property - it's still in your hands/on your HDD/whatever.

Just like piracy is a category in and of itself; not getting money from your product (which you are still in possession of) even though people get their hands on copies, is not "losing" money.

satan claus
22nd Sep 2011, 18:59
sorry double posting

satan claus
22nd Sep 2011, 19:05
Most of piracy whiners release their ugly and buggy crap without demo version first with hope for fast income. EA hello 0/.
But no one return money spend on their BS

ps:It is not about EM and DeusExHR due to good release quality, fast patching and... well previous demo\beta.

satan claus
22nd Sep 2011, 19:10
People have covered most of the issues with this, but I feel I have to add one more thing:
They are not "losing" money. They never had
Just google "Foregone benefit"

Fluffis
22nd Sep 2011, 19:14
Just google "Foregone benefit"

Ah. So that's the English definition.

Pinky_Powers
22nd Sep 2011, 20:09
Taking note of tracker history and traffic tells you nothing of piracy or lost sales. All it shows is how many downloads a torrent got. That's it. Any further extrapolation is bogus, illegitimate tosh intended for political manipulation.

Cloakedfigure
22nd Sep 2011, 20:36
Well as someone that use to Pirate games I can tell you the reason I did, Can't speak for anyone else. I pirated games because I was broke and supporting 3 other people in my family. Even when I had the money to buy games I'd have to drive 60 miles to the big city and hope they had it somewhere.

Nowadays I am only supporting myself can afford games and with sites like Direct 2 Drive It's much easier to just pay the 60 bucks and be playing the game in 2 hours then to torrent it. When pirating games you generally have to wait for several weeks after the release to get a legit copy. Anytime a patch comes out its at least another week before it can be cracked. All in all it's just a pain in the ass, Now that I have the money to spend it's far easier to just buy the game.

To be honest I wouldn't have bought this game had it not been for the leaked beta. I was so impressed with the Leaked beta that I per-ordered it.

TLDR: I use to pirate games when I was poor, but now I am making plenty of money its just easier to pay for them.

Edit: Just incase it comes up, I'm not saying what I did was right or trying to justify it. I am just giving the reason why I did it.

Akimbo
22nd Sep 2011, 21:22
Piracy would be reduced if publishers didn't release overpriced, half-finished/poorly polished/buggy, rushed out the door, trash games with DRM that only hurts the paying customer. Companies give themselves a bad a reputation (Ubisoft DRM comes to mind) then wonder why people pirate their games.

Of course, there are reasons for releasing games in the state described above. Whether they're acceptable reasons is another matter.

However people will always pirate games, regardless of what publishers do, simply because free>paying, but I feel that if publishers showed the consumer a little more respect and didn't make it feel like they're having a joke at the consumers expense, it'd help reduce piracy.

What I don't agree with is companies turning around being all "OMG PIRATES STOLE OUR MONEY!" without explaining how they release games in an unacceptable condition in the first place, or with DRM etc. which prevent their consumer from even using the product.

joebarnin
22nd Sep 2011, 22:40
I love the rationalizations here.

"I pirated because I was poor". Ah, okay. The guy who stole you wallet was poor, so I guess you don't mind that. (Not picking on you, Cloakedfigure, I've heard this argument before from many others as a justification)

"Publishers deserve it because they put out crappy games". So, it's okay to steal something, if at some point the owner what you steal put out a poor product. I ripped the Ford Focus from the lot, but it's Ford's fault because the Pinto sucked.

"They aren't losing money. They never had the money". I took a check out of your mailbox, but it's not a loss, because you never had the money.

I'm okay with "try before buy", as long as you are honest, play for a couple of hours, then delete it and buy it or not. And obviously torrenting a cracked version of what you've already bought is okay.

But if you download a full game and play it without playing for it, it's theft. Very minor theft in the scheme of things, but theft all the same. I occasionally did the same thing in the early 80s, copying a few VHS tapes. I rationalized it at the time four ways from Thursday, but it was wrong then and it's wrong now. Don't kid yourself. And don't bother attacking me, cause I'm not going to read this thread anymore. It'll just be more rationalizations, and I've heard them all before.

Cloakedfigure
22nd Sep 2011, 22:45
I love the rationalizations here.

"I pirated because I was poor". Ah, okay. The guy who stole you wallet was poor, so I guess you don't mind that. (Not picking on you, Cloakedfigure, I've heard this argument before from many others as a justification)

"Publishers deserve it because they put out crappy games". So, it's okay to steal something, if at some point the owner what you steal put out a poor product. I ripped the Ford Focus from the lot, but it's Ford's fault because the Pinto sucked.

"They aren't losing money. They never had the money". I took a check out of your mailbox, but it's not a loss, because you never had the money.

I'm okay with "try before buy", as long as you are honest, play for a couple of hours, then delete it and buy it or not. And obviously torrenting a cracked version of what you've already bought is okay.

But if you download a full game and play it without playing for it, it's theft. Very minor theft in the scheme of things, but theft all the same. I occasionally did the same thing in the early 80s, copying a few VHS tapes. I rationalized it at the time four ways from Thursday, but it was wrong then and it's wrong now. Don't kid yourself. And don't bother attacking me, cause I'm not going to read this thread anymore. It'll just be more rationalizations, and I've heard them all before.


You will get no argument from me, no matter how a person justifies theft it is still theft! The thing is though we are never gonna be able to get people to be completely honest. The best way to slow down piracy is to make it easier to buy the games and give incentives to paying customers.

Jason Parker
22nd Sep 2011, 23:13
I love the rationalizations here.

"I pirated because I was poor". Ah, okay. The guy who stole you wallet was poor, so I guess you don't mind that. (Not picking on you, Cloakedfigure, I've heard this argument before from many others as a justification)

"Publishers deserve it because they put out crappy games". So, it's okay to steal something, if at some point the owner what you steal put out a poor product. I ripped the Ford Focus from the lot, but it's Ford's fault because the Pinto sucked.

"They aren't losing money. They never had the money". I took a check out of your mailbox, but it's not a loss, because you never had the money.

I'm okay with "try before buy", as long as you are honest, play for a couple of hours, then delete it and buy it or not. And obviously torrenting a cracked version of what you've already bought is okay.

But if you download a full game and play it without playing for it, it's theft. Very minor theft in the scheme of things, but theft all the same. I occasionally did the same thing in the early 80s, copying a few VHS tapes. I rationalized it at the time four ways from Thursday, but it was wrong then and it's wrong now. Don't kid yourself. And don't bother attacking me, cause I'm not going to read this thread anymore. It'll just be more rationalizations, and I've heard them all before.

Nothing wrong in what you say joebamin. I totally agree and indeed by that definition I committed a lot of theft between being 14 and 20 and I owe it to the non-existance of proper laws and computer forensics back then that I got away with it without ever hearing from any lawyers that's for sure. I guess none of the people in here really wants to justify software/game/music/movie piracy. It IS direspectful towards the artists that want to life from what they're doing. It IS illegal. And if you get caught and punished it's completely justified.

I guess the point we're wanting to make is that the industry for the past 10 years is extremely overreacting to the problem in a very ineffective yet even counterproductive manner, by making calculations like the one in the OP, by starting ad campaigns that give the impression that "entertainment pirates" come right after child molesters and mass murderers in te list of who are the worst criminals and by wasting ****loads of money for copy protection and DRM that so far only achieved one thing: piss off legitimate users and drive them to piracy (again this is no excuse to committing piracy but it is a fact that avoiding DRM is one reason people are downloading games from torrents). There has yet to be one case where copy protection succesfully prevented piracy of music, games or movies.

Ok I forgot one achievement of copy protection: In conjunction with the according laws it allows the industry or much more their hired guns (attorneys) to sue 14 year olds and their families over a few thousands of Euros for downloading 100 MP3 songs that if legitimatly bought would have cost less than a tenth of that.

ijakoan
22nd Sep 2011, 23:17
Just google "Foregone benefit"

Piracy can also help maintain market share, just look at Microsoft, do you really think if they made it hard to pirate Windows and Office people would start paying for it? No, People would move to the readily available free alternatives Linux / Open Office, only because People can pirate Microsoft Software so easily they get used to it as Kids / Students so when they enter the world of Work (and with it hopefully legal Software) they accept nothing else than Microsoft Operating Systems and Office Programs.

itsonyourhead
22nd Sep 2011, 23:29
Piracy can also help maintain market share, just look at Microsoft, do you really think if they made it hard to pirate Windows and Office people would start paying for it? No, People would move to the readily available free alternatives Linux / Open Office, only because People can pirate Microsoft Software so easily they get used to it as Kids / Students so when they enter the world of Work (and with it hopefully legal Software) they accept nothing else than Microsoft Operating Systems and Office Programs.

I heard they were basically giving it away in China and other developing places.

Jason Parker
22nd Sep 2011, 23:56
It's kinda weird though, isn't it? How can they steal 4,500,000 $ from EM that EM doesn't, and will never have? Kinda makes you think about digital media value models, doesn't it?

It indeed does. Intuition tells me and a lot of other people that this way of calculating and looking at the problem is somehow flawed, you can tell that by reading most of the posts in this thread. It also seems pretty obvious that making this calculations and publicating them has just one goal: force politics to further and further reduce personal freedoms regarding communications in order to allow the industry to protect their digital values. Or to put it more provocating and harshly (and from my perspective closer to the trueth): To allow the industry to get their hands on that money over the detour of sueing people for pirating games.

If they succeed with that agenda piracy might die out in the end but I doubt that it will increase sales. I wonder what they will blame the "loss" of those 4,500,000 $ on then? Lol let me guess: "The market was not perpared for this kind of game."

Fluffis
23rd Sep 2011, 00:00
"They aren't losing money. They never had the money". I took a check out of your mailbox, but it's not a loss, because you never had the money.


That is a completely false analogy. They invested money, but are getting less return than the could have hoped for. That is not loss. They are already out the money. They are not losing the return, because there is no way to lose something that doesn't even exist. That's right; the return doesn't exist until someone buys the game. Someone stealing the money out of their account/embezzling - that would be "loss".

(Just FYI: I am dead-set against piracy)



But if you download a full game and play it without playing for it, it's theft. Very minor theft in the scheme of things, but theft all the same. I occasionally did the same thing in the early 80s, copying a few VHS tapes. I rationalized it at the time four ways from Thursday, but it was wrong then and it's wrong now. Don't kid yourself. And don't bother attacking me, cause I'm not going to read this thread anymore. It'll just be more rationalizations, and I've heard them all before.

It is not theft! Not in any legal sense, whatsoever! The proprietor in this type of case, is still in possession of the product. Theft is when the product itself is removed from the rightful owner, so that that owner no longer has any access to it. Piracy is not theft. This is what is given courts all over the world such headache. They cannot try game piracy as theft, because the legal owner is still in possession of the product. Nobody has taken the product.

Until the idea of using "theft" as the description for game piracy is removed, there is no hope in hell of actually stopping it. Nobody is doing anyone any favours by referring to piracy as "theft".

It is a dick move to pirate stuff, but it is not theft.

Kyithios
23rd Sep 2011, 00:32
You got a single fact to back that up?
It's all in the numbers...

Zyme junkie
23rd Sep 2011, 00:40
ps:It is not about EM and DeusExHR due to good release quality, fast patching and... well previous demo\beta.

1. thats terror

2. the consoles have not had a single patch yet for some odd reason

3. piracy is theft, no matter how you look at it. it may not be the same as mugging someone in the street, but all pirates should bare some responsibility.

4. responsability? pirates are partly responsable for "consolitus". if there were no pirates there probably would be more pc exclusives.

5. :(

Cloakedfigure
23rd Sep 2011, 00:40
That is a completely false analogy. They invested money, but are getting less return than the could have hoped for. That is not loss. They are already out the money. They are not losing the return, because there is no way to lose something that doesn't even exist. That's right; the return doesn't exist until someone buys the game. Someone stealing the money out of their account/embezzling - that would be "loss".

(Just FYI: I am dead-set against piracy)



It is not theft! Not in any legal sense, whatsoever! The proprietor in this type of case, is still in possession of the product. Theft is when the product itself is removed from the rightful owner, so that that owner no longer has any access to it. Piracy is not theft. This is what is given courts all over the world such headache. They cannot try game piracy as theft, because the legal owner is still in possession of the product. Nobody has taken the product.

Until the idea of using "theft" as the description for game piracy is removed, there is no hope in hell of actually stopping it. Nobody is doing anyone any favours by referring to piracy as "theft".

It is a dick move to pirate stuff, but it is not theft.

Isn't that just arguing semantics, why not change the definition of theft to include piracy if it's causing that much trouble in the courts?

Zyme junkie
23rd Sep 2011, 00:42
Piracy can also help maintain market share, just look at Microsoft, do you really think if they made it hard to pirate Windows and Office people would start paying for it? No, People would move to the readily available free alternatives Linux / Open Office, only because People can pirate Microsoft Software so easily they get used to it as Kids / Students so when they enter the world of Work (and with it hopefully legal Software) they accept nothing else than Microsoft Operating Systems and Office Programs.

if microsoft wernt corporate pirates themselves, maybe more companies could get by.

Fluffis
23rd Sep 2011, 00:54
Isn't that just arguing semantics, why not change the definition of theft to include piracy if it's causing that much trouble in the courts?

Like I wrote earlier: Yes, it is semantics. The law is, to a fairly large extent, built on semantics - that's why there are loopholes.

But you see, there is not enough justification to alter the definition of the word "theft" to include piracy (in this sense). It wouldn't be sustainable. It is just a bit too far off from the original definition. People are not actually stealing something - they are copying things. There is no removal of an object, physical or digital.

Hell, even going the "illegal copying" route is a big pain in the tuchus. The only one that can be reliably charged with that is the person who first does it. The other games do not exist, since they are all the same one. This is why they are going with "illegal distribution". Don't get me wrong; they are absolutely itching to be able to call this "theft" - it's just not possible as it is at the moment.

FuzzyPuffin
23rd Sep 2011, 01:03
Does that pirated version contain both preorder DLCs?

If the pirated version is the superior product, that doesn't help the situation. :rolleyes:

Cloakedfigure
23rd Sep 2011, 01:19
Like I wrote earlier: Yes, it is semantics. The law is, to a fairly large extent, built on semantics - that's why there are loopholes.

But you see, there is not enough justification to alter the definition of the word "theft" to include piracy (in this sense). It wouldn't be sustainable. It is just a bit too far off from the original definition. People are not actually stealing something - they are copying things. There is no removal of an object, physical or digital.

Hell, even going the "illegal copy" route is a big pain in the tuchus. The only one that can be reliably charged with that is the person who first does it. The other games do no in exist, since they are all the same one. This is why they are going with "illegal distribution". Don't get me wrong; they are absolutely itching to be able to call this "theft" - it's just not possible as it is at the moment.

Ok, I apologize I did not see your first post, I find the whole legal system confusing. Thanks for attempting to explain it to a layman :)

Fluffis
23rd Sep 2011, 01:29
Ok, I apologize I did not see your first post,

No need to apologize. I have a tendency to "bridge" posts, as it were. I just continue from one to the next, without stopping to consider that not everyone may have read my previous ones. It's my own issue - I'm working on it... :)



I find the whole legal system confusing.

Most people do - me included. I do get how things work sometimes, though, but a lot of it is just :scratch:...
You just have to find something that interests you, and try to understand that - if you have the interest and stamina, or insanity, needed. :D

Tverdyj
23rd Sep 2011, 05:03
the law is based on concrete definitions. if it fits the definition of theft, it's theft. if it doesn't, then it's not.

courts all over th world have an existing definitoin of theft. majority of constitutions in the world forbid courts from making new laws--that is done exclusively by governments.

the issue, is, ofc that if you make somehting a crime, you are pitting the pirates against the government. meaning, any pirates who are caught and prosecuted, would either pay a fine ot the governmnet, or go to jail. either way, the people who are actually hurt by piracy don't get anything out of it.

if a software companies are to sue pirates directly, then they would need to articulate a clear definition of just what piracy consists of. they've done this partially--a large number of the great filesharing apps of the 90's -edonkey2000, KaZaA, BearShare, Morpheus, etc were shut down, b/c they distributed entire files (who here remembers the story of how brutally Swiss Police shut down Sharereactor?)
current definitions do not encompass torrenting.
and once they start, pirates will find something else.

itsonyourhead
23rd Sep 2011, 05:20
Imagine that EM makes a game "Deus Ex: Human Revolution". And that they produce an infinite number of this game for the cost of development.

Now, at the price given, there is a certain demand for DX:HR. These people buy a DX:HR from EM for however much that is, and EM trades away some of their infinite number of games, at no cost to them.

Now pirates come along, and they look at the game for free. For, free, the pirates have a certain demand for the game. So they break into EM's vault of infinite DX:HR's and steal a few hundred thousand of them.

Even though EM wouldn't have made the money value of what they stole, they still stole something of value from EM.

Was EM really hurt by the pirates? Well, they have an infinite warehouse full of DX:HR's. And infinity minus few hundred thousand is still infinity. So in a sense no. They haven't been hurt at all. Yet at the same time, they were taken for the value of a few hundred DX:HR's.

Because EM can produce an infinite amount of DX:HR for the cost of development, each individual DX:HR cost nothing to produce. Obviously this is tied to the seemingly irrational mathematical nature of infinity and limits.

So let's consider a different paradigm.

Let us consider DX:HR a service, rather than a good.

The developers at EM build a game DX:HR, and provide it to consumers as a service. Their service cost the cost of development, and once completed they are able to service an unlimited number of people. The cost per "packet" of service is essentially equal to the development cost divided by the number of consumers. So say the game cost 50 million dollars to make, and 2 million people buy the game. Then EM provided a service to those 2 million people at 25$ a consumer. The more people EM services, the cheaper it cost to provide those services. In this case, theoretically, EM should have been willing to provide DX:HR to consumers for 25$ (ignoring profit, etc.)

Pirates increase the consumer base from 2 to 2.2 million, decreasing the cost of providing the service to about 23$. So EM should be willing to provide the game for 23$ (ignoring profit, etc.). However .2 million of those people don't pay for the service provided. So EM loses 23$ * .2 million = 4500000$.

EM provides a service (that cost something) to these pirates (unwillingly), and doesn't get paid for it.

Onylra
23rd Sep 2011, 05:21
What?

Cloakedfigure
23rd Sep 2011, 05:43
Imagine that EM makes a game "Deus Ex: Human Revolution". And that they produce an infinite number of this game for the cost of development.

Now, at the price given, there is a certain demand for DX:HR. These people buy a DX:HR from EM for however much that is, and EM trades away some of their infinite number of games.

Now pirates come along, and they look at the game for free. For, free, the pirates have a certain demand for the game. So they break into EM's vault of infinite DX:HR's and steal a few hundred thousand of them.

Even though EM wouldn't have made the money value of what they stole, they still stole something of value from EM.

Was EM really hurt by the pirates? Well, they have an infinite warehouse full of DX:HR's. And infinity minus few hundred thousand is still infinity. So in a sense no. They haven't been hurt at all. Yet at the same time, they were taken for the value of a few hundred DX:HR's.

Because EM can produce an infinite amount of DX:HR for the cost of development, each individual DX:HR cost nothing to produce. Obviously this is tied to the seemingly irrational mathematical nature of infinity and limits.

So let's consider a different paradigm.

Let us consider DX:HR a service, rather than a good.

The developers at EM build a game DX:HR, and provide it to consumers as a service. Their service cost the cost of development, and once completed they are able to service an unlimited number of people. The cost per "packet" of service is essentially equal to the development cost divided by the number of consumers. So say the game cost 50 million dollars to make, and 2 million people buy the game. Then EM provided a service to those 2 million people at 25$ a consumer. The more people EM services, the cheaper it cost to provide those services. In this case, theoretically, EM should have been willing to provide DX:HR to consumers for 25$ (ignoring profit, etc.)

Pirates increase the consumer base from 2 to 2.2 million, decreasing the cost of providing the service to about 23$. So EM should be willing to provide the game for 23$ (ignoring profit, etc.). However .2 million of those people don't pay for the service provided. So EM loses 23$ * .2 million = 4500000$.

This actually makes a lot sense, by far the best explanation of it I have heard. Errr... read since I technically am not hearing it. Unless hearing the voice that reads it to me in my head counts, but do I actually hear that? ahhhhhhhh

satan claus
23rd Sep 2011, 05:56
Imagine that EM makes a game "Deus Ex: Human Revolution". And that they produce an infinite number of this game for the cost of development.
Looks like augmented troll (c) lurking here somewhere :)


Now, at the price given, there is a certain demand for DX:HR. These people buy a DX:HR from EM for however much that is, and EM trades away some of their infinite number of games, at no cost to them.
Now pirates come along, and they look at the game for free. For, free, the pirates have a certain demand for the game. So they break into EM's vault of infinite DX:HR's and steal a few hundred thousand of them.
even though EM wouldn't have made the money value of what they stole, they still stole something of value from EM.
Your point is false because any copy of any product cost some money when it exist physical or digital(development, support, storage, licencing, BSing, etc,etc,etc). Just for lulz: even when you copy 1gb file from one hdd to another it cost some money for you - its calculable but cost lolable :)

itsonyourhead
23rd Sep 2011, 05:59
Looks like augmented troll (c) lurking here somewhere :)

Your point is false because any copy of any product cost some money when it exist physical or digital(development, support, storage, licencing, BSing, etc,etc,etc). Just for lulz: even when you copy 1gb file from one hdd to another it cost some money for you - its calculable but cost lolable :)

I'm very aware of that. I'm ignoring those costs for the sake of the reasoning.

Jordasm
23rd Sep 2011, 09:11
Does that pirated version contain both preorder DLCs?

If the pirated version is the superior product, that doesn't help the situation. :rolleyes:

I think it does actually.
Oh well. There's nothing we can do about it, theres always gonna be pirates. Hell you could make the greatest game that has ever existed, and some people would still pirate it.

Ashpolt
23rd Sep 2011, 09:26
<<words>>

You're again assuming that those 0.2 million people:

a) Would've bought the game if they didn't / couldn't pirate it and

b) Didn't buy the game as well as downloading it for whatever reason

Plus, your theoretical "cost of service" is just that - theoretical. As others have said, it's money EM never had, and those 0.2 million people (if we assume that they didn't buy the game as well as downloading it) are customers that EM never had. In real terms, there is absolutely no difference to EM between people who download the game and people who simply don't buy it - they don't factor into the "cost per service unit" calculation.

That EM sold X amount of copies and Y amount of people downloaded the game is a fact, but claiming that X+Y is the total "potential sales" number is shallow speculation, and cannot be the basis for any calculation of even potential money lost, much less actual money lost (because, of course, actual money lost is nothing.)

Dragonknight
23rd Sep 2011, 09:51
Read this.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/us-government-finally-admits-most-piracy-estimates-are-bogus.ars

TheUnbeholden
23rd Sep 2011, 10:02
You got a single fact to back that up?

Thats terror-ific.

zenstar
23rd Sep 2011, 10:08
Software piracy is wrong. Rationalise it however you want, it doesn't change the facts.

Legally it's not theft. It's copyright infringement of software. But the average joe's definition often will lump it in with theft because we're not lawyers and it's pretty close to the legal definition of theft except for the part where you deprive the person you copied it from of their copy. Is it close enough? Not for the courts and that's why it's a seperate crime there but trying to give it some credence because it's not really theft is a weak argument. It's better than actually stealing someone's copy (like taking their xbox disc) but not that much better IMO (and yes. lots of arguments around piracy are opinion based).

And the whole argument about "they pirated it but they wouldn't have bought it anyway" thing leads me to this point: If you pirated it but weren't going to buy it anyway then you don't deserve to experience it. Doesn't matter that you weren't going to buy it. If you didn't put up the cost (or wait it out until it got cheap enough to afford) then why should you get to have the experience that we coughed up cash for? What makes you special that you deserve free things?

Having said that I don't agree with the roughshod calculations of the publishers and the horrid DRM that many have decided upon. But, while they may seem crazy and money-grubbing, the publishers are also reacting to a situation. They may be overreacting like some sort of disease where the white blood cells start killing everything off, healthy or otherwise, because of an infection, but it was all started by an infection.

In an ideal world the publishers would calm down and reasses the market. People want digital distribution and they have a massive fanbase that are young and cannot afford full price products. Some sort of minimalist DRM and some student discounts that made games affordable to young people would help garner sales and lessen piracy. In an ideal world pirates would also not pirate things though because the economies of games would be in such a state that they'd be able to afford enough to satisfy their immediate needs.

Unfortunately this isn't an ideal world and there will always be pirates who pirate because they pirate and "F you! that's why!" just like there will always be publishers who will rip off their customers and try make a quick buck. You have to decide where you stand on the whole argument and act accordingly.
Me? I don't support publishers that rip me off and I don't pirate games. If that means I don't get to play a game here and there then so be it. There are plenty of games released by developers and publishers that I respect that I have enough on my plate.
You? You make your own choices. Just realise that your rationalisations are rationalisations (just like mine are) and that there are repercussions to your actions. They may be far removed and difficult to track and they may be small and require large numbers to have effect, but they're there.

Ashpolt
23rd Sep 2011, 11:01
Software piracy is wrong. Rationalise it however you want, it doesn't change the facts.

I don't think you'll find much argument about that here. Speaking purely personally, I'm not trying to say piracy is good, acceptable or even justifiable, I'm just trying to point out that counting every pirated copy as a lost sale is inaccurate, and the industry's reaction based on that innacurate assumption / belief is just making the problem worse. Yes, there will always be pirates no matter what you do - as you say, some people (while they may publicly rationalise it otherwise) are just doing it for reasons of "F you, that's why." But the way to combat that is not to make your paid product inferior (through draconian DRM or, as is relevant here, adverts in a full RRP product) than the "free" version.

zenstar
23rd Sep 2011, 11:13
I don't think you'll find much argument about that here. Speaking purely personally, I'm not trying to say piracy is good, acceptable or even justifiable, I'm just trying to point out that counting every pirated copy as a lost sale is inaccurate, and the industry's reaction based on that innacurate assumption / belief is just making the problem worse. Yes, there will always be pirates no matter what you do - as you say, some people (while they may publicly rationalise it otherwise) are just doing it for reasons of "F you, that's why." But the way to combat that is not to make your paid product inferior (through draconian DRM or, as is relevant here, adverts in a full RRP product) than the "free" version.

Yeah. I completely agree with you here. My post wasn't trying to challenege anyone in this thread, I was just adding my $0.02 and I agree that some publishers overreact wildly.
Basically, both sides make things worse in my opinion which is why I try to support the guys I think are doing a good job by buying their games and avoid the guys I think are doing a bad job. There are certain publishers whose games I will only buy on console because their PC DRM is horrible. There are certain publishers who I will avoid because I find their customer relations to be pathetic and underhanded.
By the same token I will generally disagree with pirates because I think they're making things worse too. I understand there are reasons to pirate. I'm not squeeky clean here either. When I was but a young'un I used to copy games from friends at school but once I understood what I was doing I stopped and started playing free things if I couldn't afford something or convince my parents to buy me a game. Luckily I grew up with a lot of shareware products.
That's something I'd like to see make a comeback too. I remember when games were in 3 parts and part one was shareware (doom etc) and had 75% of the functionality in there. Full multiplayer, just missing levels and storyline that you could get in the full product.
Basically there's a middle ground somewhere which is populated by a couple of publishers and a few indie devs and is the ideal balance between profit and piracy, but the vocal portions of the argument tend to be the extremists who give everyone a bad name. Seriously: shareware and student discounts would solve so much.

Jason Parker
23rd Sep 2011, 11:26
the issue, is, ofc that if you make somehting a crime, you are pitting the pirates against the government. meaning, any pirates who are caught and prosecuted, would either pay a fine ot the governmnet, or go to jail. either way, the people who are actually hurt by piracy don't get anything out of it.

if a software companies are to sue pirates directly, then they would need to articulate a clear definition of just what piracy consists of. they've done this partially--a large number of the great filesharing apps of the 90's -edonkey2000, KaZaA, BearShare, Morpheus, etc were shut down, b/c they distributed entire files (who here remembers the story of how brutally Swiss Police shut down Sharereactor?)
current definitions do not encompass torrenting.
and once they start, pirates will find something else.

I can say that at least in germany the music industry has already gone a step further than fighting the distributors and succesfully started to sue the "end customers" directly. A lot of companies specializing in computer forensics and specifically to detect who downloads what and when in any given distribution network have been built and are assigned by the industry to find pirates. This is fine so far and their right to do. What I find questionable about it though is that law firms or the industry themselves start to make a dime from it. Wether or not being assigned by the aggrieved party (the music industry) they assign those computer forensics specialists and then send out cease-and-desist orders to people caught piratig with very unreasonable fines (like for instance 2000 to 3000 Euros for a download of 100 MP3's). Their goal obviously is to shock people into paying those fines or reach a consensus out of courts for much more than the actual created damage (which is questionable in itself as we're discussing here). This isn't about simply how to have justice served and fighting piracy this is simply about how to turn piracy into an actual profit.


I agree with Aspholt here: If the industries would use the money spent on studies that show how piracy affects the economy and DRM into studies that uncover the reasons for piracy they'd have a much better indication on what to do to effectively counteract piracy.

Some examples of possible means were already proposed in this thread, like student discounts on games, why the hell not I ask?? Microsoft's doing it pretty succesful for quite some time now. Removal of DRM, at least those that force internet connection they do more harm than good.

TheUnbeholden
23rd Sep 2011, 11:27
Software piracy is wrong. Rationalise it however you want, it doesn't change the facts.

What facts?




It's copyright infringement of software

oh yeah I forgot. :whistle:


But the average joe's definition often will lump it in with theft because we're not lawyers and it's pretty close to the legal definition of theft

Theft means taking robbing someone else's property.

But here there isn't any theft because nothing is missing. So what you have is publishers trying to prove theft where there is none... so not only is it not the definition of theft but its also very unscrupulous.

merely a potential possibility of a customer not buying the product... Paranoia is not healthy and quite time wasting.

I understand what you mean, laymens term: You are getting something that would have costed you.



And the whole argument about "they pirated it but they wouldn't have bought it anyway" thing leads me to this point: If you pirated it but weren't going to buy it anyway then you don't deserve to experience it. Doesn't matter that you weren't going to buy it. If you didn't put up the cost (or wait it out until it got cheap enough to afford) then why should you get to have the experience that we coughed up cash for? What makes you special that you deserve free things?

Well some people deserve to be a little selfish, I suppose its a very individualist thing that you can't accuratly say unless you go through it case by case. Some less fortunate in the money department might deserve to have some fun... and well you can't blame kids period.
But adults on the other hand, depends on whether they have the budget for it and are actively trying to make a living but struggling. Honestly I wouldn't be to ho-hummed about a 1% loss in sales or whatever the real figure is.

The real answer is selling games for cheaper, and giving customers good help line and support, and releasing quality product with minimal bug/glitches. I would also go for actually listening to constructive criticism about the product and actively addressing customers concerns... but what do I know :p


It's better than actually stealing someone's copy but not that much better IMO

Why? it's not really hurting anyone. Perhaps on superficial level (some damaged ego's).

Some companies might loose minimal profit, but they already make alot of money.


Having said that I don't agree with the roughshod calculations of the publishers and the horrid DRM that many have decided upon. But, while they may seem crazy and money-grubbing, the publishers are also reacting to a situation. They may be overreacting like some sort of disease where the white blood cells start killing everything off, healthy or otherwise, because of an infection, but it was all started by an infection.


No it was started by the perception of an infection. Doesn't mean there actually was an infection. Its a small distinction but a important one.

...which sort of screws your analogy...




In an ideal world the publishers would calm down and reasses the market. People want digital distribution and they have a massive fanbase that are young and cannot afford full price products. Some sort of minimalist DRM and some student discounts that made games affordable to young people would help garner sales and lessen piracy. In an ideal world pirates would also not pirate things though because the economies of games would be in such a state that they'd be able to afford enough to satisfy their immediate needs.

True.. but in their ideal world, they would bleed us dry.

Thats the problem with men with large amounts of money... they always want more.

We just have to look out for ourselves. To quote Anthony Hopkins: "never feel sorry for a man that owns a plane".



Unfortunately this isn't an ideal world and there will always be pirates who pirate because they pirate and "F you! that's why!" just like there will always be publishers who will rip off their customers and try make a quick buck. You have to decide where you stand on the whole argument and act accordingly.
Me? I don't support publishers that rip me off and I don't pirate games. If that means I don't get to play a game here and there then so be it. There are plenty of games released by developers and publishers that I respect that I have enough on my plate.
You? You make your own choices. Just realise that your rationalisations are rationalisations (just like mine are) and that there are repercussions to your actions. They may be far removed and difficult to track and they may be small and require large numbers to have effect, but they're there.

heh like your little quip there at Anarchs.

Goes back to the old saying, what goes around comes around... no wait... a leaf in the ocean may be just a leaf in the ocean... but its still there.

Jason Parker
23rd Sep 2011, 11:38
Seriously: shareware and student discounts would solve so much.

Damn right they would.

bucyrus5000
23rd Sep 2011, 12:00
The whole thread is moot if EM has met or exceeded their projected sales.

Jason Parker
23rd Sep 2011, 12:08
The whole thread is moot if EM has met or exceeded their projected sales.

So at least tells common sense to us low folk that operates with thousands of dollars at best instead of millions. Just yesterday saw "Margin Call" in the movies, dead boring film, but it managed to make me hate business people even more than I do already. If the increase of the lack of conscience alongside the increase of the amount of owned money is anywhere near what was depicted in that film, business people deserve all the hate they're getting.

El Zoido
23rd Sep 2011, 12:55
What facts?


That you acquire something someone else created without offering a reasonable compensation.
Fact is, they did spend money and considerable effort on creating the product. For that work they deserve compensation.

If you don't place any value in their work, there's anyway no reason for you to acquire it.
If no one would be willing to pay, those products would not be made.

That's my take on the morality behind it, anyway.

That being said, I personally don't mind kids at school exchanging/pirating some games because it's the only way for them to play more than 1 or 2 each year.
But there are more than enough people with enough money who think that it's perfectly fine to pirate all their "media" and don't see anything wrong with it. Or worse, consider it some cool and revolutionary political attitude. Sorry, but that's just a very bad excuse to justify something morally questionable and ultimately illegal.

zenstar
23rd Sep 2011, 13:02
What facts?
oh yeah I forgot. :whistle:
You should probably read the thread.
Theft means taking robbing someone else's property.
But here there isn't any theft because nothing is missing. So what you have is publishers trying to prove theft where there is none... so not only is it not the definition of theft but its also very unscrupulous.
merely a potential possibility of a customer not buying the product... Paranoia is not healthy and quite time wasting.
Well some people deserve to be a little selfish, I suppose its a very individualist thing that you can't accuratly say unless you go through it case by case. Some less fortunate in the money department might deserve to have some fun... and well you can't blame kids period.
But adults on the other hand, depends on whether they have the budget for it and are actively trying to make a living but struggling. Honestly I wouldn't be to ho-hummed about a 1% loss in sales or whatever the real figure is.
The real answer is selling games for cheaper, and giving customers good help line and support, and releasing quality product with minimal bug/glitches. I would also go for actually listening to constructive criticism about the product and actively addressing customers concerns... but what do I know :p
Why? it's not really hurting anyone. Perhaps on superficial level (some damaged ego's).
Some companies might loose minimal profit, but they already make alot of money.
No it was started by the perception of an infection. Doesn't mean there actually was an infection. Its a small distinction but a important one.
...which sort of destroys your analogy...
True.. but in their ideal world, they would bleed us dry.
Thats the problem with men with large amounts of money... they always want more.
We just have to look out for ourselves. To quote Anthony Hopkins: "never feel sorry for a man that owns a plane".
heh like your little quip there at Anarchs.
Goes back to the old saying, there is always calm before the storm... no wait... a leaf in the ocean may be just a leaf in the ocean... but its still there.

I'm not going to get into a whole thing with you on this since most of it is opinion based and a whole mired tangle of multiple arguments but you have quote mined me a little bit to put forward points that actually don't make sense when put with my post as a whole.
For example: I already state that it's not theft becuase it's not depriving anyone of their property, but you don't quote that bit and then tell me to read the thread because I don't know what theft is? There is a distinction between legal definitions of things and the average joe definition and (as I said) we're not lawyers and people may use the wrong words but we understand their meaning unless we're intentionally splitting hairs to win an argument.

Also you'll notice that generally I blame publishers overreacting to piracy (especially if you read my second post) as much as I blame pirates. And the whole "analogy destroying thing" about infection / perceived infection: Piracy exists and is the "infection" in the analogy. Just because it may not be a harmful "infection" (or maybe it is.. different argument) doesn't mean it doesn't exist.. so the analogy stands pretty well. Also: it's a throwaway analogy and overanalysis is a bit silly. I mean technically it has nothing to do with the human body so there goes the analogy too =/ yeah... a bit of a silly stance.

And just because a publisher is making a lot of money doesn't mean they deserve to be pirated. The whole "they can afford it" way of thinking is selfish. By the very same logic: the people pirating can afford not to have any games. At least the publisher worked for their money.

The argument "it doesn't hurt anyone" also doesn't fit that well. DRM has come about to try stop people copying games. It may not work and it may be stupid but it is "hurting" people and has come about to try counteract piracy. There are consquences to every action and piracy has consequences. Ignoring them doesn;t make them not exist.

Either way: both sides of the line are to blame to varying degrees.

BTW: I'm not trying to argue with you here, just trying to clarify my points a little (ok.. maybe pointing out a couple of things I thought were incorrect in your post, but not antagonistically). Like I state often: It's a heavily opinionated topic and I'm just giving my viewpoints (which may change based on sufficiently good counterarguments. I'm happy to keep an open mind here but the counterargument had better be solid and cogent).

Jason Parker
23rd Sep 2011, 13:47
If no one would be willing to pay, those products would not be made.


This is something I doubt. I really doubt that gaming would die if no money were to be earned by making games. Things surely would change. Development would somewhat stagnate as for instance the improvement of graphics cards would just die. Making games would take longer since people would do it in their free time. But games would continue to be made.

It's something the indutry making millions from it wants us to believe but I really doubt it would become true. People that truely love music and love making music surely don't stop doing so if they cannot earn money with it. Same goes for painting, film making and ultimatley making games. Sure those that first and foremost did it only to earn money from it will likely stop to do it completely. But honestly: I think that's not necessarily a bad thing.

But in the end this is purely hypothetic anyways: I think it's pretty safe to say that the human's demand for entertainment will never wear out and die and there will always be people willing to pay for it.

El Zoido
23rd Sep 2011, 13:51
This is something I doubt. I really doubt that gaming would die if no money were to be earned by making games.

Oh, I wasn't saying that. I was referring to big-budget AAA titles.
There would surely still be games. After all, there are a lot of great open-source projects.
And there are a lot of very affordable and often great indie games. But incidentally those get pirated big time, as well...

TheUnbeholden
23rd Sep 2011, 15:39
I'm not going to get into a whole thing with you on this since most of it is opinion based and a whole mired tangle of multiple arguments but you have quote mined me a little bit to put forward points that actually don't make sense when put with my post as a whole.

Yeah I was basically just voicing my general opinion rather then talking to you personally.
probably shouldn't have told you to do that :D I take it back



Also you'll notice that generally I blame publishers overreacting to piracy (especially if you read my second post) as much as I blame pirates.

Yeah and I half agree with you.



and the whole "analogy destroying thing" about infection / perceived infection: Piracy exists and is the "infection" in the analogy. Just because it may not be a harmful "infection" (or maybe it is.. different argument) doesn't mean it doesn't exist.. so the analogy stands pretty well. Also: it's a throwaway analogy and overanalysis is a bit silly. I mean technically it has nothing to do with the human body so there goes the analogy too =/ yeah... a bit of a silly stance.

I say its more like pimples, its not really physically harmful but can be unsightly to look at... and can affect publishers mental side, and make them do harsh things... so more like a ailment but whatever.

...lol


And just because a publisher is making a lot of money doesn't mean they deserve to be pirated. The whole "they can afford it" way of thinking is selfish. By the very same logic: the people pirating can afford not to have any games. At least the publisher worked for their money.

Yeah. Thats why I said that some people can be a little selfish. It's not just about publishers being able to easily afford what small loss they get.

I suppose it is a moral question and I realize that.

And when it comes down to it, we both agree about the most important thing. That DRM is bad, and there are better solutions to the problem like I detailed in my answer and like how you detailed your own solution.


The argument "it doesn't hurt anyone" also doesn't fit that well. DRM has come about to try stop people copying games. It may not work and it may be stupid but it is "hurting" people and has come about to try counteract piracy. There are consquences to every action and piracy has consequences. Ignoring them doesn;t make them not exist.


Well ok, indirectly yes. I can agree with that.

Fluffis
23rd Sep 2011, 15:54
Oh, I wasn't saying that. I was referring to big-budget AAA titles.
There would surely still be games. After all, there are a lot of great open-source projects.
And there are a lot of very affordable and often great indie games. But incidentally those get pirated big time, as well...

You're forgetting one possibility: ads (and product placement).

El Zoido
23rd Sep 2011, 16:14
If ads would create enough revenue to result in free-to-play games, I could accept it (however it might depend on the actual implementation).
Just not in a full-price game please.
But we digress.

neoWilks
23rd Sep 2011, 16:15
Is lending a friend a game/album/movie unequivocally wrong? Is it more wrong if I lend it to a stranger? Even more so if I still have the content saved to my computer? What if I lend it to more than one person? How many friends or acquaintances can I lend something to before I'm depriving the content creator of profit?

This idea that piracy is unquestionably wrong without any consideration to the degree in which we casually share entertainment every day is far too black and white to be taken seriously.


I don't support publishers that rip me off and I don't pirate games. If that means I don't get to play a game here and there then so be it.

Piracy remains an effective means of conveying, "I like this product, I do not like the manner in which it's distributed." Simply electing to not purchase something fails to communicate this nuance.

El Zoido
23rd Sep 2011, 16:29
Is lending a friend a game/album/movie unequivocally wrong? Is it more wrong if I lend it to a stranger? Even more so if I still have the content saved to my computer? What if I lend it to more than one person? How many friends or acquaintances can I lend something to before I'm depriving the content creator of profit?

Well, I would say no it's not wrong to lend something to a friend (although publishers would say otherwise ;) ), If it stops there, at your rather limited circle of friends, fine. The problem is that with digital distribution, you can give the game not only to 5 friends, but to potentially millions of strangers.


This idea that piracy is unquestionably wrong without any consideration to the degree in which we casually share entertainment every day is far too black and white to be taken seriously.

I would distinguish between lending and piracy. Also between sharing with family and close friends and piracy.
German law (unless they changed that paragraph) states that you are allowed to copy media for your family, as long as it is not copy protected (somewhat schizophrenic).


Piracy remains an effective means of conveying, "I like this product, I do not like the manner in which it's distributed." Simply electing to not purchase something fails to communicate this nuance.

Well, I doubt that. The publisher cannot distinguish between "pirated the game because of draconian DRM" and "pirated the game just because he doesn't like to spend money". Looking at some examples, what usually seems to work better is large numbers of complaining customers and bad ratings (e.g. at Amazon).

zenstar
23rd Sep 2011, 16:35
Yeah I was basically just voicing my general opinion rather then talking to you personally.
probably shouldn't have told you to do that :D I take it back
Yeah and I half agree with you.
I say its more like pimples, its not really physically harmful but can be unsightly to look at... and can affect publishers mental side, and make them do harsh things... so more like a ailment but whatever.
...lol
Yeah. Thats why I said that some people can be a little selfish. It's not just about publishers being able to easily afford what small loss they get.
I suppose it is a moral question and I realize that.
And when it comes down to it, we both agree about the most important thing. That DRM is bad, and there are better solutions to the problem like I detailed in my answer and like how you detailed your own solution.
Well ok, indirectly yes. I can agree with that.
I suspected you and I were almost on the same page but were just looking at things from slightly different angles ^_^
The whole issue is really not as cut and dry as it could be. I can sympathyse with some pirates (even while I disagree with them) and I can condem some of the actions that publishers make (even while I sympathise with their reasoning).

Hopefully these sorts of discussions will actually have an effect on both the publishers and the pirates and we can all live happily in the middleground where everyone is happiest... or maybe this is a Prisoner's Dilema and our fate is going to be decided by extremists on either side. I guess only time will tell.

zenstar
23rd Sep 2011, 16:45
Is lending a friend a game/album/movie unequivocally wrong? Is it more wrong if I lend it to a stranger? Even more so if I still have the content saved to my computer? What if I lend it to more than one person? How many friends or acquaintances can I lend something to before I'm depriving the content creator of profit?

This idea that piracy is unquestionably wrong without any consideration to the degree in which we casually share entertainment every day is far too black and white to be taken seriously.

Piracy remains an effective means of conveying, "I like this product, I do not like the manner in which it's distributed." Simply electing to not purchase something fails to communicate this nuance.

Lending a game / album / movie to friends is different to piracy. Making a copy of a game / album / movie for them is wrong. There may be some reasons that overcome this (lesser of 2 evils) but it is wrong.
IMO lending stuff to strangers is wrong. Giving away copies to strangers is definitely wrong.

You are right that there are shades of gray in sharing entertainment, but if you're copying something like a game for someone else then you're in the very dark shades.

And pirating does not say anything to the publishers other than "I pirated your game". As El Zoido says there are better ways of getting your message across.
For example: From Dust for PC had some annoying DRM and people complained like crazy and started asking for refunds from Steam because they said there wouldn't be DRM. Within a week the publishers were telling Steam to honor refunds and 2 weeks later they removed the need to always be online when playing the game (which was the part of the DRM that people were complaining about). Piracy didn't do that. People (and gaming news sites) making themselves heard did that.

neoWilks
23rd Sep 2011, 16:47
Well, I would say no it's not wrong to lend something to a friend (although publishers would say otherwise ;) ), If it stops there, at your rather limited circle of friends, fine. The problem is that with digital distribution, you can give the game not only to 5 friends, but to potentially millions of strangers.

What if you have more than five friends? It's easy to look at this with starkly contrasting numbers. I mean, when we're talking five versus five million, anyone can point to the latter and say, "Well, that's pretty excessive." But is there a significant difference if one person lends a single copy to a million people versus one million people lending their copies to five friends each? Is the crime the actual lending or simply the degree of potential lending?


I would distinguish between lending and piracy. Also between sharing with family and close friends and piracy.
German law (unless they changed that paragraph) states that you are allowed to copy media for your family, as long as it is not copy protected (somewhat schizophrenic).

Piracy is lending. The only difference is in scope. My point is many arguments that follow the whole, "Piracy is wrong. Period," line of thinking completely ignore how we share content all the time. Copyright laws exist to encourage the design of creative products and solutions. They aren't ends in themselves, they are means to ensure progress. Without evidence that this progress has actually be hindered through piracy, I'm not sure how you can argue there was certifiable harm that requires penal measures to be taken.


Well, I doubt that. The publisher cannot distinguish between "pirated the game because of draconian DRM" and "pirated the game just because he doesn't like to spend money". Looking at some examples, what usually seems to work better is large numbers of complaining customers and bad ratings (e.g. at Amazon).
It certainly distinguishes things better than a simple lack of sales. The former says, "I want to play this, but I'm going to circumvent certain limitations you've placed on the product." The latter says, "I'm not interested in playing this." If your aim is not to discontinue further development of a particular piece of entertainment, but rather effectively boycott DRM or unreasonable pricing, piracy serves as a much more useful tool.

EDIT:

Well ****. I didn't mean to double.

Lending a game / album / movie to friends is different to piracy. Making a copy of a game / album / movie for them is wrong. There may be some reasons that overcome this (lesser of 2 evils) but it is wrong.
IMO lending stuff to strangers is wrong. Giving away copies to strangers is definitely wrong.

I think you'd be in a small minority with that outlook. The vast majority of the population is constantly sharing entertainment content (on a small and large scale, and whether they're fully aware of it or not). I'm not sure much more can be said on this line if that's the position you're taking.


You are right that there are shades of gray in sharing entertainment, but if you're copying something like a game for someone else then you're in the very dark shades.

Why?


And pirating does not say anything to the publishers other than "I pirated your game". As El Zoido says there are better ways of getting your message across.
For example: From Dust for PC had some annoying DRM and people complained like crazy and started asking for refunds from Steam because they said there wouldn't be DRM. Within a week the publishers were telling Steam to honor refunds and 2 weeks later they removed the need to always be online when playing the game (which was the part of the DRM that people were complaining about). Piracy didn't do that. People (and gaming news sites) making themselves heard did that.
A few anecdotal incidents where a company actually responded to consumer complaints doesn't discount the major trend of invasive/draconian DRM measures.

I'm also not arguing against vocalizing criticism. Obviously coupling piracy with written demands will be far more effective than merely piracy. No piracy, however, offers a company the excuse that, "Well, these people probably wouldn't have bought this anyways."

zenstar
23rd Sep 2011, 17:45
What if you have more than five friends? It's easy to look at this with starkly contrasting numbers. I mean, when we're talking five versus five million, anyone can point to the latter and say, "Well, that's pretty excessive." But is there a significant difference if one person lends a single copy to a million people versus one million people lending their copies to five friends each? Is the crime the actual lending or simply the degree of potential lending?

Piracy is lending. The only difference is in scope. My point is many arguments that follow the whole, "Piracy is wrong. Period," line of thinking completely ignore how we share content all the time. Copyright laws exist to encourage the design of creative products and solutions. They aren't ends in themselves, they are means to ensure progress. Without evidence that this progress has actually be hindered through piracy, I'm not sure how you can argue there was certifiable harm that requires penal measures to be taken.

It certainly distinguishes things better than a simple lack of sales. The former says, "I want to play this, but I'm going to circumvent certain limitations you've placed on the product." The latter says, "I'm not interested in playing this." If your aim is not to discontinue further development of a particular piece of entertainment, but rather effectively boycott DRM or unreasonable pricing, piracy serves as a much more useful tool.

EDIT:

Well ****. I didn't mean to double.

I think you'd be in a small minority with that outlook. The vast majority of the population is constantly sharing entertainment content (on a small and large scale, and whether they're fully aware of it or not). I'm not sure much more can be said on this line if that's the position you're taking.

Why?

A few anecdotal incidents where a company actually responded to consumer complaints doesn't discount the major trend of invasive/draconian DRM measures.

I'm also not arguing against vocalizing criticism. Obviously coupling piracy with written demands will be far more effective than merely piracy. No piracy, however, offers a company the excuse that, "Well, these people probably wouldn't have bought this anyways."

You're simplifying what copyright laws are there for. They are also there to protect the creators and make sure that they get paid for their creation when it is used. IE: piracy is making use of someone's intellectual property without their permission and without recompensing them for it.

Also: there is a difference between lending and making a copy. If you lend something to someone you do not have it. If you copy it then you both have it. If lending something to someone is the same as copying it for someone then you cannot argue that pirating is not theft because you make no distinction between who has access to the copy after the deed. And since we're all pretty sure that piracy is not theft (by the legal definition) then there must be something about having access to the material that differentiates these acts. QED: lending is not copying & vice versa.


I think you'd be in a small minority with that outlook. The vast majority of the population is constantly sharing entertainment content (on a small and large scale, and whether they're fully aware of it or not). I'm not sure much more can be said on this line if that's the position you're taking.

You need more clarity here. What entertainment are they sharing? If you're talking about friends sitting together watching a movie then that's nothing. But again: why are you moving the goalposts now and talking about sharing and not lending? Unless you actually mean lending. In which case I'd say that people, in general, do not lend stuff to strangers. Unless you mean copying in which case I refer you to above where I point out how copying is not lending.

Also: Just because a large number of people are doing something does not make it right. If a large number of people thought that the earth was flat they'd still be wrong.


Obviously coupling piracy with written demands will be far more effective than merely piracy. No piracy, however, offers a company the excuse that, "Well, these people probably wouldn't have bought this anyways."
Again: how do they link the piracy to you and your demands? They can't. Nice justification if you're going to pirate but in reality it's not sending any message to the company other than "people are pirating our game. Obvious solution to this is more draconin DRM."
Piracy is illegal. You lose the moral high ground as soon as you pirate. No matter how much you try to justify it you're "just a pirate" in the eyes of the company and probably wouldn't pay for their product if they met your demands (as everyone keeps pointing out pirates aren't lost income because most of them wouldn't buy it even if they couldn't pirate it).

Fluffis
23rd Sep 2011, 19:59
Just like piracy is not theft, it is also not "lending". Lending implies that you don't have access to something, while the one you lent it to has it.

itsonyourhead
23rd Sep 2011, 21:17
I think the more important question is. When everyone who would be able to play Deus Ex: Human Revolution could also get the game for free. Why does anyone actually buy the game?

jd10013
23rd Sep 2011, 21:54
I think the more important question is. When everyone who would be able to play Deus Ex: Human Revolution could also get the game for free. Why does anyone actually buy the game?

I'd argue a great many people don't know how to. It probably seems easy to the very computer literate of this board, but for someone who's time with a computer mostly consists of facebook updates it can be tricky. I'm not 100% sure, as I've only ever downloaded one game, but I believe, at least in the US, that a lot of sites that offer that are scrubbed from search results, and blocked by access providers. for a great many people, It's just so much easier to fork over the $50 (which really isn't much for the average US household) then to screw with torents. as I said, I once downloaded a game. and it was actually Invisible war. Not to be misunderstood, I bought a copy of it. when I bought a new PC and went to install it, one of the disks were scratched ever so slightly. the damn thing was basically able to install all but one file. so being as I had paid full price for it, (bought it the first week it came out), I didn't see any harm in downloading something I had bought. well, getting it downloaded and installed was one giant PITA. and in the end, I couldn't even get it to work. I think I finally just copied the whole damn thing off my old pc, then ran the installer off the disk as far as it would go, and that worked.

anyhow, illegal downloads, as bad as they are, are probably just a drop in the bucket when compared to all the illegal copies being pumped out of Chinese factories.

Tverdyj
23rd Sep 2011, 21:54
to support the developer. to have (in theory), customer support form the publisher (although in practice, the pirates often provide much more comprehensive tech support)

case in point: I got my hands on the leak after teh game came out. I wanted to see if it would run on my laptop, which doesn't have a dedicated video card, and thus doesn't fall under any classification. only way for me to know if a game will run on my laptop is to try it.

once i saw I got an okayish framerate, I went on steam and bought the full game.

digital distribution, such as Steam does a lot to make piracy less appealing.
back in the day, Piracy was the most efficient way to get a large portion of software entertainment, because physical copies were generally sparse--throughtout 2000s, retail PC gaming selection in my area continued to shrink.
I'm not apologizing for all the stuff I pirated as a teenager, though technically I could say that I was brought up in teh part of the world where the concept of copyright was still in its infancy and it was practically impossible to get a non-pirated version of a movie/game/album. Hell, I still have my copy of Cossacks: European wars, that my grandfather bought for me in retail. inside the disk case, there was a sticker, which, if translated from Russian, would say roughly this: "Dear customers: to ensure the game runs properly, please copy the file DMCR.exe from the folder CRACK into the game install directory". I still have that sticker, some 11 years later.

meh. I'm pretty sure each person has to make their own choice about where to stand in the pirating debate. i'm not planning to pick a side anytime soon. it's a widespread phenomenon, and I don't see it going away any time soon.

neoWilks
24th Sep 2011, 03:20
You're simplifying what copyright laws are there for. They are also there to protect the creators and make sure that they get paid for their creation when it is used. IE: piracy is making use of someone's intellectual property without their permission and without recompensing them for it.

It's already been established that there is no solid case to be made that anyone has been deprived of significant profit. Or at least, there's no means of providing a reasonable answer as to how much profit may or may not be lost. The laws are there to encourage progress and creative development. They do this by ensuring the creators can be paid for their creation. But since there's no clear case that piracy does result in a significant loss, can it really be said that piracy discourages creative development?


Also: there is a difference between lending and making a copy. If you lend something to someone you do not have it. If you copy it then you both have it. If lending something to someone is the same as copying it for someone then you cannot argue that pirating is not theft because you make no distinction between who has access to the copy after the deed. And since we're all pretty sure that piracy is not theft (by the legal definition) then there must be something about having access to the material that differentiates these acts. QED: lending is not copying & vice versa.

Lending does not imply any loss of access. If I rip a music album to my computer, then lend that album to a friend, I've still lent them the album. My still having access to another copy doesn't change this. The implication is then that if I ever want to lend an album to someone I must either not have ever copied it to a secondary device (computer, MP3 player, etc) or I must first delete the content from the devices it has been copied to.

Theft would be coming into my home and removing the album from my possession. Even if I still had a copy of that album, it would still be theft because I was deprived of physical property. If someone came into my home and copied the CD to their own device while leaving it behind, that wouldn't be theft. It would probably be breaking and entering and an invasion of privacy, but those are different offenses to theft. In the same sense, piracy is a violation of copyright, not theft.

I suppose you could argue that piracy is instead giving. Lending does imply an expectation of return. Distributors of pirated content don't really expect anyone to give back the data they've copied. The same argument applies, however. Should it be illegal for me to give away an old album or movie or game if I have that data copied and saved to a hard drive or MP3 player or disk?


You need more clarity here. What entertainment are they sharing? If you're talking about friends sitting together watching a movie then that's nothing. But again: why are you moving the goalposts now and talking about sharing and not lending? Unless you actually mean lending. In which case I'd say that people, in general, do not lend stuff to strangers. Unless you mean copying in which case I refer you to above where I point out how copying is not lending.

Anecdotally, coworkers and I regularly swap and share movies and albums. We "know" each other, but it's not as if we're best buds or anything. Most of us don't see each other outside of work. Similarly sharing games with friends, movies with family members, etc. I know plenty of people who copy movies ordered through netflix, before that movies rented from blockbuster. Being as how pervasive these sorts of things are across all the social circles I interact in, I don't think the argument that this is unique to my situation holds much water. Admittedly, I do not have any actual data on this.

On a broader scale, you have things like youtube which hosts buttloads of unauthorized content. Even clips which aren't specifically movies or songs still use copyrighted content. The numbers of viewers here is easier to chart. Most of these sort of services do record the number of views any given video receives.


Also: Just because a large number of people are doing something does not make it right. If a large number of people thought that the earth was flat they'd still be wrong.

But believing the earth is flat isn't illegal. Or, I think you're confusing which version of "right" you mean. More to the point, I'm saying you've something here that's technically illegal that many people do not actually consider wrong (or don't even realize it's illegal to begin with). Given that, I think it's on you to prove it's wrong on more than just principle. You have to prove that there is actual harm from the act.


Again: how do they link the piracy to you and your demands? They can't. Nice justification if you're going to pirate but in reality it's not sending any message to the company other than "people are pirating our game. Obvious solution to this is more draconin DRM."

The stupid solution is more DRM, as that was the reason for the piracy to begin with. Now, I'm not going to claim that publishers aren't incredibly ******* stupid, but the problem there is stupidity, not piracy. As far as understanding the connection, I already explained that. Vocalizing your dissatisfaction alongside piracy is more effective than just piracy.


Piracy is illegal. You lose the moral high ground as soon as you pirate. No matter how much you try to justify it you're "just a pirate" in the eyes of the company and probably wouldn't pay for their product if they met your demands (as everyone keeps pointing out pirates aren't lost income because most of them wouldn't buy it even if they couldn't pirate it).
There's a difference between generic piracy that will occur irregardless of pricing or the presence of DRM and targeted piracy designed to send a message. In this sense, piracy acts like a sit-in. Technically against the law, but that's not the point. You can send a stronger message when you've chained yourself to a tree than yelling from behind the barricades. Similarly, someone could be written off in these situations as nothing more than a troublemaker. But the point is by actually obstructing them, you've forced them to notice you.

Fluffis
24th Sep 2011, 03:49
There's a difference between generic piracy that will occur irregardless of pricing or the presence of DRM and targeted piracy designed to send a message. In this sense, piracy acts like a sit-in. Technically against the law, but that's not the point. You can send a stronger message when you've chained yourself to a tree than yelling from behind the barricades. Similarly, someone could be written off in these situations as nothing more than a troublemaker. But the point is by actually obstructing them, you've forced them to notice you.

Wow... I had a feeling that something like this was the case, but I'd never actually gotten any evidence for it. Some pirates actually see themselves as some kind of "people's champions", or heroes. I mean, I know about the Pirate Parties (the first one was founded here in Sweden, and a friend of mine is part of it), but those ideals are somewhat loftier than cracking games, mostly - though that is a part of it.

I'm sorry, my friend, but you're suffering from a delusion here. A pirate is committing a crime, pure and simple. The only message you're sending to the companies is "We want to play the game, but we don't want to pay for it." That's the only part they care about, no matter how noble you think your actions are.

I know all of this comes from the cyberpunk ideal of "Information wants to be free", but what is very often forgotten in the idolization of the characters in books like that, is that they have no illusions about what they do. They know they are criminals, and performing criminal acts. Their employers often have idealistic motives, but the main characters know that they are simple criminals - they just don't give a ****.

OT: And please, for the love of all that's holy, don't ever use the word "irregardless" in front of me again. (I feel dirty using it myself.)

Romeo
24th Sep 2011, 03:58
People have covered most of the issues with this, but I feel I have to add one more thing:

They are not "losing" money. They never had that money, so it's not theirs to lose. Yes, this is semantics but in a case like this, semantics is very important. The law is to some extent based on semantics (which is why there are loopholes).

This is the same kind of error as saying that game piracy is theft. It's not, because you're not actually losing your property - it's still in your hands/on your HDD/whatever.

Just like piracy is a category in and of itself; not getting money from your product (which you are still in possession of) even though people get their hands on copies, is not "losing" money.
That's true of almost ANY theft: Steal a car from the dealer. The dealer never "had the money" to lose.

At the end of the day, it is still theft. If I design a part for a car that could revolutionize cars everywhere, and save it to my PC, is there ANY difference between you taking a unit I've made, versus just copying the information for yourself? Sure, I still have the information on my PC, but frankly, it's of no benefit if everyone simply takes it without paying. Especially concerning the fact that Eidos and Square Enix have both heavily invested in to the product.

Workers aren't free.

Well as someone that use to Pirate games I can tell you the reason I did, Can't speak for anyone else. I pirated games because I was broke and supporting 3 other people in my family. Even when I had the money to buy games I'd have to drive 60 miles to the big city and hope they had it somewhere.

Nowadays I am only supporting myself can afford games and with sites like Direct 2 Drive It's much easier to just pay the 60 bucks and be playing the game in 2 hours then to torrent it. When pirating games you generally have to wait for several weeks after the release to get a legit copy. Anytime a patch comes out its at least another week before it can be cracked. All in all it's just a pain in the ass, Now that I have the money to spend it's far easier to just buy the game.

To be honest I wouldn't have bought this game had it not been for the leaked beta. I was so impressed with the Leaked beta that I per-ordered it.

TLDR: I use to pirate games when I was poor, but now I am making plenty of money its just easier to pay for them.

Edit: Just incase it comes up, I'm not saying what I did was right or trying to justify it. I am just giving the reason why I did it.
I hear your justification, but frankly I've always considered it completely asanine that people always feel "entitled" to entertainment they can't afford.

I'd really like a Ferrari - would love one - but I can't afford one. Does that justify me going out and taking one? No, of course not. And yet many people say they can't afford a whole slew of $60 games. That's unfortunate - and I've been there too. If you can't afford it though, you can't afford it. End of story.

Piracy would be reduced if publishers didn't release overpriced, half-finished/poorly polished/buggy, rushed out the door, trash games with DRM that only hurts the paying customer. Companies give themselves a bad a reputation (Ubisoft DRM comes to mind) then wonder why people pirate their games.

Of course, there are reasons for releasing games in the state described above. Whether they're acceptable reasons is another matter.

However people will always pirate games, regardless of what publishers do, simply because free>paying, but I feel that if publishers showed the consumer a little more respect and didn't make it feel like they're having a joke at the consumers expense, it'd help reduce piracy.

What I don't agree with is companies turning around being all "OMG PIRATES STOLE OUR MONEY!" without explaining how they release games in an unacceptable condition in the first place, or with DRM etc. which prevent their consumer from even using the product.
Your point is self-conflicting, as you said. If a game is that unenjoyable that you wouldn't pay for it, then don't buy it. In choosing not to, that doesn't give one the right to keep on playing because they might not enjoy it as much. Again, going back to my own industry, saying "I don't care for the three tail pipes" on the 458 Italia doesn't justify me taking one.

As you said, the issue is right there: People are selfish, and will usually choose free over paying.

Fluffis
24th Sep 2011, 04:11
That's true of almost ANY theft: Steal a car from the dealer. The dealer never "had the money" to lose.

At the end of the day, it is still theft. If I design a part for a car that could revolutionize cars everywhere, and save it to my PC, is there ANY difference between you taking a unit I've made, versus just copying the information for yourself? Sure, I still have the information on my PC, but frankly, it's of no benefit if everyone simply takes it without paying. Especially concerning the fact that Eidos and Square Enix have both heavily invested in to the product.

Workers aren't free.


No you need to get that thought out of your head, because it is simply not true. The definition of theft is quite clear - a property is removed from its rightful owner.

Merriam-Webster on "theft":


a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

Pay special attention to the underlined part.

Pirating is not theft, because nothing is actually removed, and the intent is not to deprive the owner of the actual property. Piracy doesn't fit within any part of the definition of "theft".

As for the discussion about "loss", well... You can't compare your analogy with what I wrote in any way, shape or form. Stealing a car is theft, but the dealer doesn't lose the money he would have gotten for the car. He just lost the car. It is quite possible that the potential gains from the car would have been nothing at all - if nobody buys it. So you see, there is just too much abstraction with "potential gain", for it to be germane to apply the word "loss" to it.

It's a lack of return on your investment. You have already "lost" (invested) the money - you're just trying to make it back, and more. Losing the means to do that, doesn't in fact mean that you lose the return - it was never yours.

I know this may seem like splitting hairs, but I'm talking about legal definitions here. If you go after a pirate in court, with the charges being "theft", then you will lose outright, because there is no place in the definition of "theft" for the actions of a game pirate.

lol
24th Sep 2011, 04:26
I actually would have preferred if Eidos bugged the game to oblivion for those who pirate.Batman Arkham Asylum has this,and it was very good.It did not stop the pirating,but delayed for a month or to atleast.

Eidos,try to implement that same DRM on the next game,legit people will play the best version,pirates will get the buggiest version ever.

Zyme junkie
24th Sep 2011, 04:27
No you need to get that thought out of your head, because it is simply not true. The definition of theft is quite clear - a property is removed from its rightful owner.

Merriam-Webster on "theft":


Pay special attention to the underlined part.

Pirating is not theft, because nothing is actually removed, and the intent is not to deprive the owner of the actual property. Piracy doesn't fit within any part of the definition of "theft".

As for the discussion about "loss", well... You can't compare your analogy with what I wrote in any way, shape or form. Stealing a car is theft, but the dealer doesn't lose the money he would have gotten for the car. He just lost the car. It is quite possible that the potential gains from the car would have been nothing at all - if nobody buys it. So you see, there is just too much abstraction with "potential gain", for it to be germane to apply the word "loss" to it.

It's a lack of return on your investment. You have already "lost" (invested) the money - you're just trying to make it back, and more. Losing the means to do that, doesn't in fact mean that you lose the return - it was never yours.

I know this may seem like splitting hairs, but I'm talking about legal definitions here. If you go after a pirate in court, with the charges being "theft", then you will lose outright, because there is no place in the definition of "theft" for the actions of a game pirate.

well that law is absolute bull$hit. there is plenty of BS laws anyhow. it is still theft! have you never heard anyone say "hey you stole my idea!". laws were written by pretentious old men they need to be rewritten for modern times.

neoWilks
24th Sep 2011, 04:28
Wow... I had a feeling that something like this was the case, but I'd never actually gotten any evidence for it. Some pirates actually see themselves as some kind of "people's champions", or heroes. I mean, I know about the Pirate Parties (the first one was founded here in Sweden, and a friend of mine is part of it), but those ideals are somewhat loftier than cracking games, mostly - though that is a part of it.

I'm sorry, my friend, but you're suffering from a delusion here. A pirate is committing a crime, pure and simple. The only message you're sending to the companies is "We want to play the game, but we don't want to pay for it." That's the only part they care about, no matter how noble you think your actions are.

Uh, what? You are sort of completely overreacting. I simply stated that piracy is a valid means of protest. Do you disagree with this statement, or do you view consumer rights as somehow less valid? There's no pretenses here. Piracy is against the law. I might think it shouldn't be against the law---or at least, the nature of enforcement and particulars of what constitutes the crime needs a significant overhaul---but that doesn't change the fact that illegal activities are valid forms of protest.

Please explain how piracy is a less valid means of protest than a sit-in to protest discrimination, or someone chaining themselves to a tree to prevent logging, or hacking somebody's private account to expose corruption. Is invasive DRM and price gouging less important than some of these things? Sure (though I think it's an ******* move to decide what is and isn't worthy of protest for other people). But similarly, the act of piracy has less impact than any of the above crimes as well.


OT: And please, for the love of all that's holy, don't ever use the word "irregardless" in front of me again. (I feel dirty using it myself.)
Irregardless is a perfectly acceptable word and has been in use for nearly a century. There's nothing improper about it unless you would also consider the word "unravel" a blight on language. It's merely more emphatic than simply using regardless. I find the aversion people have to the word pretty bizarre.

Fluffis
24th Sep 2011, 04:40
well that law is absolute bull$hit. there is plenty of BS laws anyhow. it is still theft!


No, it really isn't theft. Nothing anyone says in here is going to change that, because the law is quite clear on this. The property itself has not been removed from the rightful owner - there is no way around this.



have you never heard anyone say "hey you stole my idea!".


Stealing intellectual property in that sort of case would usually be referred to as plagiarism, or copyright infringement (if there is a copyright). You can't actually steal an idea, since you still have the idea.



laws were written by pretentious old men they need to be rewritten for modern times.

You think all laws are old, huh? You may want to think again.


Uh, what? You are sort of completely overreacting. I simply stated that piracy is a valid means of protest. Do you disagree with this statement, or do you view consumer rights as somehow less valid? There's no pretenses here. Piracy is against the law. I might think it shouldn't be against the law---or at least, the nature of enforcement and particulars of what constitutes the crime needs a significant overhaul---but that doesn't change the fact that illegal activities are valid forms of protest.

Please explain how piracy is a less valid means of protest than a sit-in to protest discrimination, or someone chaining themselves to a tree to prevent logging, or hacking somebody's private account to expose corruption. Is invasive DRM and price gouging less important than some of these things? Sure (though I think it's an ******* move to decide what is and isn't worthy of protest for other people). But similarly, the act of piracy has less impact than any of the above crimes as well.


Where did I state that a sit-in is a valid way of doing things?

No matter what I think about that, though. There is a difference; the main reason for piracy is acquiring a product - which costs money - for free. A sit-in has no such inherent agenda.



Irregardless is a perfectly acceptable word and has been in use for nearly a century. There's nothing improper about it unless you would also consider the word "unravel" a blight on language. It's merely more emphatic than simply using regardless. I find the aversion people have to the word pretty bizarre.

No, linguistically it is completely nonsensical, since "ir-" and "-less" mean exactly the same thing. It's a double negative.

Tverdyj
24th Sep 2011, 04:58
I actually would have preferred if Eidos bugged the game to oblivion for those who pirate.Batman Arkham Asylum has this,and it was very good.It did not stop the pirating,but delayed for a month or to atleast.

Eidos,try to implement that same DRM on the next game,legit people will play the best version,pirates will get the buggiest version ever.

DEAR GOD NO!

Batman: AA was a great game, hands down.

but it came with GFWL--which is second-worst DRM out there, right next to ubi-DRM

FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY, STICK TO STEAMWORKS, EM!

GFWL IS AN ABOMINATION AND MUST DIE.

Romeo
24th Sep 2011, 05:03
Uh, what? You are sort of completely overreacting. I simply stated that piracy is a valid means of protest. Do you disagree with this statement, or do you view consumer rights as somehow less valid? There's no pretenses here. Piracy is against the law. I might think it shouldn't be against the law---or at least, the nature of enforcement and particulars of what constitutes the crime needs a significant overhaul---but that doesn't change the fact that illegal activities are valid forms of protest.

Please explain how piracy is a less valid means of protest than a sit-in to protest discrimination, or someone chaining themselves to a tree to prevent logging, or hacking somebody's private account to expose corruption. Is invasive DRM and price gouging less important than some of these things? Sure (though I think it's an ******* move to decide what is and isn't worthy of protest for other people). But similarly, the act of piracy has less impact than any of the above crimes as well.

Irregardless is a perfectly acceptable word and has been in use for nearly a century. There's nothing improper about it unless you would also consider the word "unravel" a blight on language. It's merely more emphatic than simply using regardless. I find the aversion people have to the word pretty bizarre.
Although I was in the middle of replying to Fluffis, I had to stop and answer whatever the hell this is.

Right off the bat - piracy is not a valid means of protest. "Grr, that company did something I dislike, let's steal their stuff!" Try that in any non-entertainment industry and watch what happens. I dislike the fact that Ford is replacing V8's with turbo-sixes. If I stole Fords "as a means of protest", I wouldn't be a protester. I'd be an idiot, just like anyone trying to use that as an excuse.

Second, it is well documented that "irregardless" is NOT a word. Either something is regarding something, or is regardless of something. Irregardless would presumably bring it back to the root word. It's improper in the sense that referring to planes as "flyerfidoos" is improper. Notably, in the fact it's not a word.

MaxxQ1
24th Sep 2011, 05:23
Second, it is well documented that "irregardless" is NOT a word. Either something is regarding something, or is regardless of something. Irregardless would presumably bring it back to the root word. It's improper in the sense that referring to planes as "flyerfidoos" is improper. Notably, in the fact it's not a word.

Reminds me of one of George Carlin's routines where he talks about "flammable", "inflammable", and "noninflammable".

Kodaemon
24th Sep 2011, 05:32
DEAR GOD NO!

Batman: AA was a great game, hands down.

but it came with GFWL--which is second-worst DRM out there, right next to ubi-DRM

FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY, STICK TO STEAMWORKS, EM!

GFWL IS AN ABOMINATION AND MUST DIE.

I really, really don't get this.

I just create an offline account for GFWL and it never bothers me again.

Steam comes up with new ways to **** me over practically every time I start it.

neoWilks
24th Sep 2011, 05:32
Where did I state that a sit-in is a valid way of doing things?

Are you suggesting sit-ins are not or haven't been effective means of protesting or disagreeing with the action? They've certainly been used before (the civil rights movement, Ghandi, Tiananmin square, etc) and have succeeded in their goals. Unless you prescribe to the belief that one should never engage in any illegal tactic as protest, I'm not sure why you'd be against them.

It's a non-violent means to effect change.


No matter what I think about that, though. There is a difference; the main reason for piracy is acquiring a product - which costs money - for free. A sit-in has no such inherent agenda.

The main reason for piracy is whatever any particular pirate holds as their reason. I'm not hand waving away all piracy as being for some noble greater good, I was responding specifically to claims that piracy is unequivocally wrong and the only reason anyone ever pirates a product is because they just want something for free.

This is why I said you were overreacting. I made a simple statement: Piracy can be a valid means of protest. You then ran with that and made me out to be some sort of copyright-trouncing Che Guevara.


No, linguistically it is completely nonsensical, since "ir-" and "-less" mean exactly the same thing. It's a double negative.
And ravel already means what unravel means. So the term "unravel" would logically mean the opposite of ravel. Or we simply recognize that any language has always had exceptions to it's rules and exceptions make things interesting. "Irregardless" has been in common usage for a century, there's no confusion over it's meaning, this isn't like improper syntax or redefining an already clearly defined word. The only reason to call someone on this is so you can flex some grammar Nazi muscles.

Kodaemon
24th Sep 2011, 05:38
And ravel already means what unravel means. So the term "unravel" would logically mean the opposite of ravel. Or we simply recognize that any language has always had exceptions to it's rules and exceptions make things interesting. "Irregardless" has been in common usage for a century, there's no confusion over it's meaning, this isn't like improper syntax or redefining an already clearly defined word. The only reason to call someone on this is so you can flex some grammar Nazi muscles.

No. Just no.

MaxxQ1
24th Sep 2011, 05:40
And ravel already means what unravel means. So the term "unravel" would logically mean the opposite of ravel. Or we simply recognize that any language has always had exceptions to it's rules and exceptions make things interesting. "Irregardless" has been in common usage for a century, there's no confusion over it's meaning, this isn't like improper syntax or redefining an already clearly defined word. The only reason to call someone on this is so you can flex some grammar Nazi muscles.

Ahem...

neoWilks
24th Sep 2011, 05:45
No. Just no.
Seriously, is anyone actually confused or is anal retentiveness just an attractive frame of mind? If there's no confusion what is actually wrong? Romeo's comparison to using a made up term like "flyerfidoos" is completely disingenuous. No one would know what that meant without some fairly explicit context. "Irregardless", however, is clearly understood. If "flyerfidoos" became widespread enough to enter the common lexicon, then it would be an absolutely acceptable word to use in place or "airplane".

@Maxx:

Typing quickly, force of habit.

Kodaemon
24th Sep 2011, 05:50
The fact that it's possible to identify the correct word does not make "irregardless" any less absurd. Do you also use "misunderestimated"?

neoWilks
24th Sep 2011, 06:01
The fact that it's possible to identify the correct word does not make "irregardless" any less absurd. Do you also use "misunderestimated"?
No, but somehow I imagine if I'd used the word misunderestimated no one would have given a ****, simply assuming I was having fun with my language. There's is something specific to the word "irregardless" that seemingly compels people to obnoxiously correct the user. Similarly, I imagine if I had used the word "ain't" no one would have cared, despite that being non-proper english. I've also yet to see anyone respond to the terms "unravel" versus "ravel". Again, I doubt anyone would have said anything to that usage.

This isn't a grammar context, this sort of setting is about as informal as it gets. I apologize that word-play and colloquialisms are so offensive to those present. Beg your pardons.

Pinky_Powers
24th Sep 2011, 06:03
All this talk of "irregardless"... I'm worried that it's seeped into my vocabulary and I'll start using it by accident now. :eek:

Kodaemon
24th Sep 2011, 06:23
So now it's intentional wordplay, huh?

Anyway, about "ravel" - it's a bit of ann odd one, as it can actually mean both tangling and untangling.

itsonyourhead
24th Sep 2011, 06:33
All this talk of "irregardless"... I'm worried that it's seeped into my vocabulary and I'll start using it by accident now. :eek:

What you think you'll use irregardless irregardless of whether or not you want to use the word irregardless? What's wrong with irregardless? I use irregardless irregardless of irregardless' irregardless state.

neoWilks
24th Sep 2011, 06:39
So now it's intentional wordplay, huh?

When wasn't it? Ir- in this case acts as an intensifier and adds an enjoyable rhythm to an otherwise nondescript word. There's also the manner in which it defies convention. Language isn't mathematics. Irregardless' irreverence is satisfying.


Anyway, about "ravel" - it's a bit of ann odd one, as it can actually mean both tangling and untangling.

So, when it a different word, you're all, "Um, it's an odd one, I guess," but when "irregardless" is in question, it's "absurd". I's cool to rag on "irregardless". That's the only reason anything was said to begin with. If I'd used any other sort of slang term (we're on the internet for ****'s sake OMG LOLSAUSE GUIS) can anyone honestly say they would have said anything?

Kodaemon
24th Sep 2011, 07:10
First you were pushing "irregardless" as a proper word, now you act as if it was wordplay all along. I rest my case.


Steam comes up with new ways to **** me over practically every time I start it.

Yeah, about that...

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o258/Kodaemon/unavailablol.jpg

What do you ******* mean it's not available, it's sitting right there on my hard drive you asshats!

Zyme junkie
24th Sep 2011, 07:15
Anyway, about "ravel" - it's a bit of ann odd one, as it can actually mean both tangling and untangling.

isnt it "unravel" for untangling?

you guys confuse the **** out of me. im outta this thread.

Romeo
24th Sep 2011, 07:25
Are you suggesting sit-ins are not or haven't been effective means of protesting or disagreeing with the action? They've certainly been used before (the civil rights movement, Ghandi, Tiananmin square, etc) and have succeeded in their goals. Unless you prescribe to the belief that one should never engage in any illegal tactic as protest, I'm not sure why you'd be against them.

It's a non-violent means to effect change.

The main reason for piracy is whatever any particular pirate holds as their reason. I'm not hand waving away all piracy as being for some noble greater good, I was responding specifically to claims that piracy is unequivocally wrong and the only reason anyone ever pirates a product is because they just want something for free.

This is why I said you were overreacting. I made a simple statement: Piracy can be a valid means of protest. You then ran with that and made me out to be some sort of copyright-trouncing Che Guevara.

And ravel already means what unravel means. So the term "unravel" would logically mean the opposite of ravel. Or we simply recognize that any language has always had exceptions to it's rules and exceptions make things interesting. "Irregardless" has been in common usage for a century, there's no confusion over it's meaning, this isn't like improper syntax or redefining an already clearly defined word. The only reason to call someone on this is so you can flex some grammar Nazi muscles.
Again, you're essentially treating theft as being possibly noble - it isn't. Ever. There is no "protesting" or anything that justifies it - it's some tool saying he doesn't like what someone has done. And will show it by playing the thing he apparently dislikes, for free. Don't even try to make it seem plausible, it's just stupid.

And while ravel and unravel are a curiousity in the english language, they're both still words. So, "irregardless" of their silly nature, they sound significantly less stupid than imaginary words.

Brockxz
24th Sep 2011, 07:58
First you were pushing "irregardless" as a proper word, now you act as if it was wordplay all along. I rest my case.



Yeah, about that...

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o258/Kodaemon/unavailablol.jpg

What do you ******* mean it's not available, it's sitting right there on my hard drive you asshats!

I hope you checked that you want offline mode be on in Steam account preferences? If yes, that i'm with you and feel sorry that steam ****ed you up but if you didn't checked that then you don't have any reason to blame Steam for this but only yourself :lol:


About pirating games. I agree with everyone who says EM never had that money and never will. It's just an assumption of loss and nothing more.
I have not always been able to buy games and the reason was not that i didn't have money but because I live in a country where you just can't find any store to buy them (it's a little bit different situation now but still it's pretty bad because of overpricing and not always there is really available games in language I prefer). So what was my only mean of getting the game? Pirate the **** out of everything I could find on internet or just go and find someone who sells pirated copy (we had that problem in 90ties and early 2000+). For that only publishers and developers can blame themselves that they ignore a lot of regions and don 't consider to tap in that and actually work with that to find the right price for those countries and the right means to bring games to people in those regions.
Even now I pretty much buy about 20+ games in a year (thanks to evolved internet and online stores in UK) I still sometimes download game just for demo purposes and about this only publishers and developers can blame themselves for abandoning pre-release demo. Also i feel a lot of people pirate game even they already have bought it and the reason is ****ty DRM that asks you to be online all the time. For that also developers and publishers can blame themselves.

So what we have after all this? We have that publishers and developers can blame only themselves (and of course the internet :lol:) for all that how pirating has evolved and why this problem still exist in that large numbers. They need to understand that 60$ is not the same in every region in the world and that people in every country wants to play games if that is the new thing to do for fun so how about you actually see how you could deliver what people want and for the right price.
I pretty much see how this will evolve for the best when some smart people in gaming industry will finally realize the main reason behind those pirating numbers but until then they only can blame themselves and calculate money loss they never had and never will. No DRM or any other restriction will stop pirating and that's the first thing they need to realize. The second thing is that they need to realize that there are a generation of people who will never buy a game because they have lived 20+ years without being able to buy it in the first place and not they don't see the point of buying it if they know they can get it anyway by downloading for free. Also if for some magical reason you will be able to stop pirates they need to realize that incomes will still stay the same because most of those who pirated will not buy games anyway and they will just find any other means to entertain themselves and a lot of people will not buy because they will destroy the only way people can try game before they buy if they will still not release demos for games. Most likely there are a lot more reasons people pirate games but they need to realize that almost non of those reasons will actually become more profit if they will stop pirates. That's the fact.

Kodaemon
24th Sep 2011, 08:01
I hope you checked that you want offline mode be on in Steam account preferences? If yes, that i'm with you and feel sorry that steam ****ed you up but if you didn't checked that then you don't have any reason to blame Steam for this but only yourself :lol:

Actually, I have another copy of the game installed, without Steam. I only run the Steam-infested version out of morbid curiosity.

zenstar
24th Sep 2011, 08:40
Lending does not imply any loss of access. If I rip a music album to my computer, then lend that album to a friend, I've still lent them the album. My still having access to another copy doesn't change this.
You no longer have access to the album. You have access to the copy.
This shows me that you are willfully being obstinant. You and I will no longer discuss this because you're here to preach and not discuss.
Good night.

Tverdyj
24th Sep 2011, 09:00
I really, really don't get this.

I just create an offline account for GFWL and it never bothers me again.

Steam comes up with new ways to **** me over practically every time I start it.

when I moved my Steam folder over to a new external hard drive, all my GFWL games stopped working.

it took me two days to find a way to re-install GFLW, because every single link off the M$oft website and everything xbox-related was horrifcally broken. not to mention I find the whole idea of me needing to be tied into the xbox community in any way shape or form abhorrent. I game on PC for a reason. if I wanted to be part of your console club, i'd buy one. so stop pushing me towards it, Microsoft, because it's not gonna happen.

Steam, otoh, has given me 0 issues. and it's almost always in offline mode, unless i'm installing something.

jd10013
24th Sep 2011, 10:21
this thread is almost frighting. used to be thieves had no qualms about admitting they were thieves. they accepted it. now people try to compare them to Gandhi. Guess the current economic state of the world makes bit more sense if this is the kind of stuff the gen x/y people believe.

and no, sit in's don't work. they're just like bracelets, ribbons, and candlelight vigils in that they're primarily designed to make the participant feel better about himself and a little better than everybody else cause, gee, he cares.

jd10013
24th Sep 2011, 10:24
when I moved my Steam folder over to a new external hard drive, all my GFWL games stopped working.

it took me two days to find a way to re-install GFLW, because every single link off the M$oft website and everything xbox-related was horrifcally broken. not to mention I find the whole idea of me needing to be tied into the xbox community in any way shape or form abhorrent. I game on PC for a reason. if I wanted to be part of your console club, i'd buy one. so stop pushing me towards it, Microsoft, because it's not gonna happen.

Steam, otoh, has given me 0 issues. and it's almost always in offline mode, unless i'm installing something.

GFWL was created by Satan himself.

El Zoido
24th Sep 2011, 11:01
About pirating games. I agree with everyone who says EM never had that money and never will. It's just an assumption of loss and nothing more.

I tend to agree, such numbers are usually "imaginary", as there's no way every pirated copy would have been a legitimate sale if the possibility to pirate it wouldn't exist.


I have not always been able to buy games and the reason was not that i didn't have money but because I live in a country where you just can't find any store to buy them...

There are different reasons to pirate a game, but usually I'd say it boils down to this:
Either you don't have money or you don't want to spend it, not having access to games should be, nowadays at least, rather insignificant.


They need to understand that 60$ is not the same in every region in the world and that people in every country wants to play games if that is the new thing to do for fun so how about you actually see how you could deliver what people want and for the right price.

Yes, although that would probably mean region locks again. If one country has games for half the price because it's comparably poor, people will try to order there instead of in their own country. Now you may argue free market and all, but free market is the reason we have those prices in the first place...

The other argument, about games being too expensive, I'm afraid making them cheaper wouldn't work either.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, even very reasonably priced (and critically acclaimed) indie games, which above all often benefit mostly the devs, not some publishers, get pirated up the ying yang.
Although there are demos. So every demand is fulfilled and yet they are pirated.
But as you said yourself, there are people that never bought a game and never will.

You can't prevent that. All I'm asking for is that some people stop comparing piracy to some revolutionary fight for justice and freedom. Thats just stupid.


No DRM or any other restriction will stop pirating and that's the first thing they need to realize.
Hopefully they will...

jd10013
24th Sep 2011, 11:09
being as piracy preceded DRM there's no logical reason to think getting rid of it would get rid of piracy. those arguments have always stuck me as simply one more attempt at justifying piracy.

Fluffis
24th Sep 2011, 12:39
Are you suggesting sit-ins are not or haven't been effective means of protesting or disagreeing with the action? They've certainly been used before (the civil rights movement, Ghandi, Tiananmin square, etc) and have succeeded in their goals. Unless you prescribe to the belief that one should never engage in any illegal tactic as protest, I'm not sure why you'd be against them.

It's a non-violent means to effect change.

The main reason for piracy is whatever any particular pirate holds as their reason. I'm not hand waving away all piracy as being for some noble greater good, I was responding specifically to claims that piracy is unequivocally wrong and the only reason anyone ever pirates a product is because they just want something for free.

This is why I said you were overreacting. I made a simple statement: Piracy can be a valid means of protest. You then ran with that and made me out to be some sort of copyright-trouncing Che Guevara.


I also never said that sit-ins were not a valid form of protest. I never mentioned sit-ins at all.

Your post is riddled with contradiction.

No, the main reason for piracy is wanting a product for free. It's what the vast majority are doing it for. That is why it is not a valid form of protest. The vast majority usually don't sit in order to deprive others of money. I.E. sitting, per se, is not an illegal act.



And ravel already means what unravel means. So the term "unravel" would logically mean the opposite of ravel. Or we simply recognize that any language has always had exceptions to it's rules and exceptions make things interesting. "Irregardless" has been in common usage for a century, there's no confusion over it's meaning, this isn't like improper syntax or redefining an already clearly defined word. The only reason to call someone on this is so you can flex some grammar Nazi muscles.

But "un-" and "ravel" don't mean the same thing - "ir-" and "-less" do. "Unravel" is a leftover from a time when "ravel" could mean "entangle". It has an actual history as to why it is used in that way. "Irregardless" is, most likely, the effect of someone wanting to say "irrespective" or "regardless", but having a brain fart. Then people started using it, either as a joke (most likely, to begin with) or because they didn't know better (a natural expression of insecurity). Then it just sort of stuck. It's still nonsense, though. "ir-" and "-less" cancel each other out, leaving the meaning of the word "regard".

Kvltism
24th Sep 2011, 13:21
The vast majority usually don't sit in order to deprive others of money.

Depends. If you look at many of the sit-ins during the US Civil Rights Movement, (eg: Greensboro) they were for the express purpose of denying discriminatory establishments the chance to continue with business as usual. So, yes... depriving them of money until their policies changed.

Back on-topic, I'll admit to having pirated games, but only if it was not possible to acquire a copy by legitimate means; long out-of-production, not available digitally/in stores. Even then, I have been able to buy the bulk of them, thanks to GOG and the odd lucky catch elsewhere. If it's good enough to stay on your hard-drive for more than a day or two, it's good enough to pay for. :D

Fluffis
24th Sep 2011, 13:25
Depends. If you look at many of the sit-ins during the US Civil Rights Movement, (eg: Greensboro) they were for the express purpose of denying discriminatory establishments the chance to continue with business as usual. So, yes... depriving them of money until their policies changed.


Yeah, but I was comparing the majority of people who sit to the majority of people who pirate games. The main reason for sitting is not illegal activity - the main reason for piracy is.

Tverdyj
24th Sep 2011, 13:27
I would love to pay for a copy of System Shock 2, that doesn't involve me going on e-bay, or some other less that reliable outlet.

Kodaemon
24th Sep 2011, 13:53
I would love to pay for a copy of Deus Ex: Human Revolution, that doesn't involve me installing Steam, or some other less than reliable third-party software.

neoWilks
24th Sep 2011, 17:49
First you were pushing "irregardless" as a proper word, now you act as if it was wordplay all along. I rest my case.

It is a perfectly acceptable word, that doesn't make it's use not word play. I prefer it to regardless in most cases because of the way it alters the flow of what is being said.

Again, you're essentially treating theft as being possibly noble - it isn't. Ever. There is no "protesting" or anything that justifies it - it's some tool saying he doesn't like what someone has done. And will show it by playing the thing he apparently dislikes, for free. Don't even try to make it seem plausible, it's just stupid.

It's not theft. You can keep echoing this, but it doesn't make it true. What the pirate may not like is the delivery system, not the product. That's what I explained earlier. Piracy allows a user to bypass invasive DRM and over-pricing, while still declaring, "I enjoy this content."

You no longer have access to the album. You have access to the copy.
This shows me that you are willfully being obstinant. You and I will no longer discuss this because you're here to preach and not discuss.
Good night.
There is no obstinance, and there is clearly a difference. Lending a copy (or rather, keeping a copy while lending the original) doesn't change the fact that I have lent something I still have access to. Do you disagree that this is lending? How so? It is my right as the owner of that product to make a copy. Or you simply disagree with the morality of that kind of sharing, which doesn't change the fact that it's still lending.

This is the question I asked. One that you will apparently not answer because I was "preaching" (where?). I've already conceded that if you think all forms of sharing are wrong and ought be illegal, than there's nothing to discuss. But I assume you don't think of things in such a black and white manner, so I asked you what specifically about piracy makes it fundamentally wrong compared to sharing on a smaller scale.

I also never said that sit-ins were not a valid form of protest. I never mentioned sit-ins at all.

What? I thought you were objecting to my use of sit-ins because you didn't feel they were appropriate. Obviously you never mentioned them, I did. I was drawing comparison to other illegal acts of protest. What precisely is the issue with that?


Your post is riddled with contradiction.

No, the main reason for piracy is wanting a product for free. It's what the vast majority are doing it for. That is why it is not a valid form of protest. The vast majority usually don't sit in order to deprive others of money. I.E. sitting, per se, is not an illegal act.

What contradiction? I never, ever claimed that even half of all pirates were doing so out of protest. I was merely pointing out that it can be used as protest, and so writing off the entire act of piracy without regards to the specifics of any individual's position is wrong. You keep extrapolating this simple statement into, "He must think all pirates are noble Robin Hoods!" I've already clarified the response and you continue to shove words down my throat.

Sit-ins are illegal in that people occupy some private building or block access to certain areas. It's essentially loitering, but with different motivations. That's why it's a valid comparison. Piracy for the sake of procuring content for free is like loitering. Piracy to send a message is like a sit-in. The fact that there are far, far more loiterers than people organizing sit-ins doesn't mean a sit-in isn't a valid form of protest.


But "un-" and "ravel" don't mean the same thing - "ir-" and "-less" do. "Unravel" is a leftover from a time when "ravel" could mean "entangle". It has an actual history as to why it is used in that way. "Irregardless" is, most likely, the effect of someone wanting to say "irrespective" or "regardless", but having a brain fart. Then people started using it, either as a joke (most likely, to begin with) or because they didn't know better (a natural expression of insecurity). Then it just sort of stuck. It's still nonsense, though. "ir-" and "-less" cancel each other out, leaving the meaning of the word "regard".
And thus: Language. How do you think words are created? You think there is always a mathematically logical step-by-step process? Language serves to communicate ideas. If there is no confusion as to what is meant, where is the failing? Ir- in this case does not serve as a negative. It serves as an intensifier, emphasizing your remark. Irregardless is no different than any other word or phrase that's an exception to language rules (read: guidelines).

Fluffis
24th Sep 2011, 19:39
What? I thought you were objecting to my use of sit-ins because you didn't feel they were appropriate. Obviously you never mentioned them, I did. I was drawing comparison to other illegal acts of protest. What precisely is the issue with that?

What contradiction? I never, ever claimed that even half of all pirates were doing so out of protest. I was merely pointing out that it can be used as protest, and so writing off the entire act of piracy without regards to the specifics of any individual's position is wrong. You keep extrapolating this simple statement into, "He must think all pirates are noble Robin Hoods!" I've already clarified the response and you continue to shove words down my throat.

Sit-ins are illegal in that people occupy some private building or block access to certain areas. It's essentially loitering, but with different motivations. That's why it's a valid comparison. Piracy for the sake of procuring content for free is like loitering. Piracy to send a message is like a sit-in. The fact that there are far, far more loiterers than people organizing sit-ins doesn't mean a sit-in isn't a valid form of protest.



I was objecting, because they are completely different things. Sit-ins are illegal, sitting is not. Sitting requires context to be illegal.

Piracy is always illegal, full stop. Piracy is an illegal action, in and of itself. It doesn't need context to be illegal.

It doesn't matter if both "protests" are illegal, because the basic intents of the actions themselves are not equal.

Cf.:
1. I break into a jeweller's and steal a bunch of jewellery, in order to protest the high price of gold.
2. I chain myself to a redwood, in order to stop logging.

Do you consider these two equal?



And thus: Language. How do you think words are created? You think there is always a mathematically logical step-by-step process? Language serves to communicate ideas. If there is no confusion as to what is meant, where is the failing? Ir- in this case does not serve as a negative. It serves as an intensifier, emphasizing your remark. Irregardless is no different than any other word or phrase that's an exception to language rules (read: guidelines).

I'm a linguist. I know how words are created. The word "irregardless" was nonsense when it came into being, and it is still nonsense. Don't you get that what you're saying, when you use that word, is "regard(ing)". You are saying the exact opposite of what you think you're saying, because the prefix "ir-" (means "the opposite of") and the suffix "-less" (means "not") cancel each other out. You are saying "the opposite of not regard(ing)". The. Word. Is. Nonsense.

Anyway; the linguistic discussion is completely off topic, and we should stop.

zenstar
24th Sep 2011, 19:49
There is no obstinance, and there is clearly a difference. Lending a copy (or rather, keeping a copy while lending the original) doesn't change the fact that I have lent something I still have access to. Do you disagree that this is lending? How so? It is my right as the owner of that product to make a copy. Or you simply disagree with the morality of that kind of sharing, which doesn't change the fact that it's still lending.

This is the question I asked. One that you will apparently not answer because I was "preaching" (where?). I've already conceded that if you think all forms of sharing are wrong and ought be illegal, than there's nothing to discuss. But I assume you don't think of things in such a black and white manner, so I asked you what specifically about piracy makes it fundamentally wrong compared to sharing on a smaller scale.

I'm not continuing to belabour a point trying to equate piracy with a long term loan.
FYI: Your "right" to make a copy is for backup purposes or "fair use" only and is not a "right" in every country. The backup is not there for you to use while your friend has the original. It is there in case the original is damaged or stolen.
Fair use generally means something like videotaping a show to watch later because you cannot watch it at time of airing. Piracy does not fall under fair use. In fact in a fair number of countries (and I disagree with the strictness here) ripping a CD you own to listen on your MP3 player is not considered fair use.

Basically what makes piracy wrong is the following: If you obtained something through illegal means you don't deserve to have it. Piracy is illegal. QED.
That's a very simplistic look at it but pretty much covers a wide range of things. There are arguments about how strict copyright protection should be but I have never seen a halfway decent argument that states why copyright should not exist.

Piracy is a flagrant form of copyright infringement that is far beyond sharing a book to a friend.

El Zoido
24th Sep 2011, 21:03
It's not theft. You can keep echoing this, but it doesn't make it true. What the pirate may not like is the delivery system, not the product. That's what I explained earlier. Piracy allows a user to bypass invasive DRM and over-pricing, while still declaring, "I enjoy this content."

Two wrongs don't make a right. Piracy is illegal and, above all, morally wrong.
Even if it is not "theft" by the Oxford Dictionary's definition of the word, it's still a way to deprive people of the deserved compensation for their work.
If you don't want DRM, don't buy the game. Even if that means you can't enjoy it. If you want it DRM free, complain. If enough people complain you might accomplish something.
If the price is to high for your liking, wait until it's cheaper. Most games go down in price pretty fast nowadays.

drunkrussian9
24th Sep 2011, 21:27
I have a question for you piracy-haters;

Do you download music from the internet without expense?

El Zoido
24th Sep 2011, 21:34
Short answer: No, not from torrents, etc.

Long answer: I record some (internet) radio, which is explicitly allowed in my country due to some "tax" I have to pay for the "privilege" to listen to radio (or watch tv). This "tax" is, among other things, used to compensate right holders.
Also I guess that a radio station ("legal" ones) compensate for broadcasted songs.
It's a bit fuzzy though, admittedly, but as I stated, not illegal here.

Fluffis
24th Sep 2011, 21:39
I have a question for you piracy-haters;

Do you download music from the internet without expense?

Don't have to. I pay about €10/month for Spotify, and get unlimited listening time to a couple of million songs. That even gives me access through my mobile. And with the payment plan, I don't even have to be online all the time.

Pirating music is so 2006.

Edit: Sorry dude, but obvious trap is obvious - to use one of the most annoying memes in the last couple of years.

MaxxQ1
24th Sep 2011, 22:29
I have a question for you piracy-haters;

Do you download music from the internet without expense?

Nope, I buy the CD then rip what I want from it to my iPod. I also have ripped about half my vinyl collection, as some of the albums are unavailable in CD form (or there isn't enough that I want to transfer to warrant the cost of replacing what I already have). Some of my vinyl I purchased over 35 years ago.

Even though I have an iPod and use iTunes as a player while surfing, I have yet to ever actually buy anything from iTunes - I usually buy my music from Amazon or Best Buy. I actually prefer to have physical copies of what I pay physical money for.

drunkrussian9
24th Sep 2011, 22:48
Edit: Sorry dude, but obvious trap is obvious - to use one of the most annoying memes in the last couple of years.
If you haven't noticed, all 3 of you have different methods of getting your music fix. Pardon if I don't live up to our expectations, I was simply asking a question. I wouldn't know how others go about the process, I am only familiar to one method since it's worked for me for years without problems.

Fluffis
24th Sep 2011, 22:52
If you haven't noticed, all 3 of you have different methods of getting your music fix. Pardon if I don't live up to our expectations, I was simply asking a question. I wouldn't know how others go about the process, I am only familiar to one method since it's worked for me for years without problems.

If I misunderstood your intent, then I'm sorry.

jd10013
24th Sep 2011, 23:02
I have a question for you piracy-haters;

Do you download music from the internet without expense?

nope, and a great many people don't. itunes makes billions off downloads. but the whole argument is pointless. the pirates, thieves, lack the proper values and morals to understand why it's wrong. and because of that, they'll never stop. thieves don't have a conscious. it's a character flaw. trying to make them see why it's wrong it like trying to make a 5 yr old understand algebra. they simply don't have the capacity to do it. the people who do it are simply the product of societies that instill a sense of entitlement in people from birth, and that they are the most important thing in the universe. morality and values to them are simply relative and can be whatever you want them to . there is no good or bad, right or wrong, or black and white. everything is a nuanced shade of grey.

*******end rant**********

Romeo
25th Sep 2011, 01:55
Yeah JD, I think you nailed it head on. It's a sense of entitlement, and it's responsible for the overwhelming majority of piracy. Probably goes a long way towards explaining why when you ask a pirate why they do it, it is invariably either a selfish reason (Too expensive, quicker for me, didn't like feature 'x') or a total lie (Just trying the game, didn't like the game enough to buy, and my new favourite: 'Protesting').

As for the music question, no, I always ensure I buy the album if I like the music enough that I can't live without it.

Fluffis
25th Sep 2011, 02:01
I feel I should add that if I find myself listening to one particular album a lot on Spotify, I usually buy a physical copy not long after.

Good products should be bought - it's as simple as that. It's the only sure-fire way to show that you enjoy them.

Romeo
25th Sep 2011, 02:05
I feel I should add that if I find myself listening to one particular album a lot on Spotify, I usually buy a physical copy not long after.

Good products should be bought - it's as simple as that. It's the only sure-fire way to show that you enjoy them.
Like I said, I've just never understood why people find it justifiable to take things from the entertainment industry. If someone tried that at my shop, they'd be prosecuted, end of story.

You're completely right: If you like a product, whatever it is, buy it. If you don't like it, or can't afford it, then don't.

KingNL
25th Sep 2011, 02:10
>implying all of those people would have bought it if there was no pirated copy available

You have to teach me how to also read minds and stuff.

Also, downloading games in my country is legal but I still bought the PC collectors edition and the XBOX360 Benelux edition.

mad825
25th Sep 2011, 02:36
nope, and a great many people don't. itunes makes billions off downloads. but the whole argument is pointless. the pirates, thieves, lack the proper values and morals to understand why it's wrong. and because of that, they'll never stop. thieves don't have a conscious. it's a character flaw. trying to make them see why it's wrong it like trying to make a 5 yr old understand algebra. they simply don't have the capacity to do it. the people who do it are simply the product of societies that instill a sense of entitlement in people from birth, and that they are the most important thing in the universe. morality and values to them are simply relative and can be whatever you want them to . there is no good or bad, right or wrong, or black and white. everything is a nuanced shade of grey.
So they are Nihilist? Objectivists? What?
Could you even explain why Nihilism or Objectivism is wrong? :rolleyes:

Their actions cannot really be justified but it's petty, only fat cats are the people with the main grudge. When the people pirating do get caught they are sentenced with an unpayable fine based on theoretical evidence, are you still going to support the fat cats? As the saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right.

Fluffis
25th Sep 2011, 02:44
So they are Nihilist? Objectivists? What?


Neither. That would imply some form of conscious decision. It's about a lack of basic understanding of right and wrong. It's also about a sense of entitlement - that people around the pirates somehow owe them something, without the need for reciprocation by the pirate.

It's also about feeling "cool", because of the title "pirate".

mad825
25th Sep 2011, 02:50
Neither. That would imply some form of conscious decision. It's about a lack of basic understanding of right and wrong. It's also about a sense of entitlement - that people around the pirates somehow owe them something, without the need for reciprocation by the pirate.

It's also about feeling "cool", because of the title "pirate".

Ah, the witch hunt card. You do know how low that is, right?

If you are really going to dehumanise them then your justification is the same as the pirates.

Fluffis
25th Sep 2011, 02:55
Ah, the witch hunt card. You do know how low that is, right?

If you are really going to dehumanise them then your justification is the same as the pirates.

No witch hunt. I know pirates. A lot of them. A old friend of mine is fairly high up in the Pirate Party here in Sweden. Practically all of them do feel that way. And the ones I've asked can't really explain why they feel society owes them, if pushed, or they deliver really lame speeches about "personal integrity", "Big Brother" or some **** like that. They just can't see that it's possible that they are the ones who are wrong. It doesn't fit into the little world of self-entitlement they've built for themselves.

mad825
25th Sep 2011, 03:06
No witch hunt. I know pirates. A lot of them. A old friend of mine is fairly high up in the Pirate Party here in Sweden. Practically all of them do feel that way. And the ones I've asked can't really explain why they feel society owes them, if pushed, or they deliver really lame speeches about "personal integrity", "Big Brother" or some **** like that. They just can't see that it's possible that they are the ones who are wrong. It doesn't fit into the little world of self-entitlement they've built for themselves.

So, extreme lefties would fit very well.

Not all pirates are the same, just like people. Although people who form a political party out of X, Y or Z are usually zealous anyway.

Fluffis
25th Sep 2011, 03:11
So, extreme lefties would fit very well.


Tell them that, and you're likely to get hacked to hell and back.
They often consider themselves anarchists, or some variation thereof, if they even bother with that sort of thing.



Not all pirates are the same, just like people. Although people who form a political party out of X, Y or Z are usually zealous anyway.

Of course, not all are the same - but there is a basic similarity to the "dedicated" pirates.

(I'm not talking about the casual downloaders, of course.)

mad825
25th Sep 2011, 03:13
Tell them that, and you're likely to get hacked to hell and back.

Eh, try pissing off someone in the far right, you might end-up with a bomb on your doorstep.

Fluffis
25th Sep 2011, 03:17
Eh, try pissing off someone in the far right, you might end-up with a bomb on your doorstep.

Very true.

But with a "wronged" anarchist hacker/pirate, it's not entirely impossible that you wake up one day and find you don't actually exist anymore... or that someone else is you.

At least a bomb would be quick. :D

neoWilks
25th Sep 2011, 05:25
I was objecting, because they are completely different things. Sit-ins are illegal, sitting is not. Sitting requires context to be illegal.

Which isn't an apt comparison. Sitting in general would be like computer use in general. Piracy is a more specific type of computer usage, as loitering or sit-ins would be a more specific version of sitting. Conflating sit-ins (a highly specific action) with sitting in general (a very vague category) is disingenuous, and wouldn't work as a comparison to piracy at all.

Piracy to sit-ins/loitering makes sense. Both are illegal, both can be a simple crime or an act of protest. Sitting can not, it wouldn't make sense to compare the two.


Piracy is always illegal, full stop. Piracy is an illegal action, in and of itself. It doesn't need context to be illegal.

It doesn't matter if both "protests" are illegal, because the basic intents of the actions themselves are not equal.

Piracy and sit-ins are both always illegal (well, a sit-in has the potential to be an organized, legal function, but often is not. The latter kind being the relevant type). The intents are just as equal. Piracy aiming to protest DRM or pricing is conscious illegal activity to effect change. A sit-in is similarly conscious illegal activity to effect change.

If you simply disagree that consumer rights are as "important" as some other unidentified right or cause then whatever, there's not much more to say. But again, I think it's kinda a dick move to be saying, "These people can do illegal things in protest because I agree with them, these people can't because I don't."


Cf.:
1. I break into a jeweller's and steal a bunch of jewellery, in order to protest the high price of gold.
2. I chain myself to a redwood, in order to stop logging.

Do you consider these two equal?

Personally? No, but that's more because the first makes little sense. It's an incredibly vague action targeting an international issue. Targeting a single jewelry shop that has no sway over the price of gold is just being a dick to that particular jewelry shop owner.

Piracy as protest on the other hand is highly targeted. You don't pirate a music album to protest invasive DRM included in a specific title. That wouldn't make any sense and would be just as ineffective as the situation you described. You would pirate the specific game in question as that is what you are protesting.

If you're going to set up a hypothetical, use ones that are actually analogous, instead of those designed to lead the responder.

MaxxQ1
25th Sep 2011, 08:30
Here's an interesting twist on the piracy issue I just found out about.

Regarding the band Rush, in late October, an official copy of a 1974 Cleveland Agora show (first ever recorded show with their then-new drummer Neil Peart) bootleg will be released in the UK. I assume this will also be released here in the states, although the article doesn't mention it. The cd will contain two songs that have *never* been released - Garden Road and Fancy Dancer - and a cover song (Larry Williams' Bad Boy). The article doesn't mention the track listing, but a Rush message board I frequent has it up.

http://ultimateclassicrock.com/rush-live-album-1974/

This is relevant since bootlegging concerts back then was essentially what we now refer to as piracy. People were illegally recording concerts, then making their own, usually inferior, vinyl copies and selling them. Neither the band nor the publishing company made a cent off of it.

I realize this is nothing new, as some bands have pretty much embraced bootlegs (or at least don't object to people recording their shows), but considering the timing of this, I thought it might garner a few comments in this thread. I find it interesting that a band can now actually *make* money from a bootleg. I can just see the original people who snagged it complaining that they're not making any money off this.

In an interesting coincidence (maybe...), Rush will also be releasing a DVD/Blu-Ray of their 2011 Cleveland show recorded earlier this year in support of their Time Machine Tour. And sometime next spring, they will be releasing their 19th full-length studio album, Clockwork Angels.

Fluffis
25th Sep 2011, 12:45
Which isn't an apt comparison. Sitting in general would be like computer use in general. Piracy is a more specific type of computer usage, as loitering or sit-ins would be a more specific version of sitting. Conflating sit-ins (a highly specific action) with sitting in general (a very vague category) is disingenuous, and wouldn't work as a comparison to piracy at all.

Piracy to sit-ins/loitering makes sense. Both are illegal, both can be a simple crime or an act of protest. Sitting can not, it wouldn't make sense to compare the two.


Oh, it does make sense. It's just that it can't be spun to support your own opinion.

Sit-ins are always an illegal activity, and are always a form of protest.
Piracy is always an illegal activity, and only rarely used as a form of protest.

So how would those two be analogous?

Piracy is an illegal action whether it is used as a form of protest or not. Sit-ins are by definition only a form of protest.

This is what makes the analogy more apt than you want to think.



Piracy and sit-ins are both always illegal (well, a sit-in has the potential to be an organized, legal function, but often is not. The latter kind being the relevant type). The intents are just as equal. Piracy aiming to protest DRM or pricing is conscious illegal activity to effect change. A sit-in is similarly conscious illegal activity to effect change.

If you simply disagree that consumer rights are as "important" as some other unidentified right or cause then whatever, there's not much more to say. But again, I think it's kinda a dick move to be saying, "These people can do illegal things in protest because I agree with them, these people can't because I don't."


Nope, I don't consider consumer rights unimportant - in fact I'm a staunch supporter of them. I just don't think that illegal activity is the way to change those. Sit-ins are not usually used to get someone to lower prices, either.



Personally? No, but that's more because the first makes little sense. It's an incredibly vague action targeting an international issue. Targeting a single jewelry shop that has no sway over the price of gold is just being a dick to that particular jewelry shop owner.


But maybe, just maybe, "if enough people do it, they will listen"... right...? ;)

I'll come back to this in the next part.



Piracy as protest on the other hand is highly targeted. You don't pirate a music album to protest invasive DRM included in a specific title. That wouldn't make any sense and would be just as ineffective as the situation you described. You would pirate the specific game in question as that is what you are protesting.

If you're going to set up a hypothetical, use ones that are actually analogous, instead of those designed to lead the responder.

They are analogous. You just can't see it.

Do you more often see publishers or developers going out of business, due to poor sales? Which ones do you think set the prices? Make decisions on DRM?

Typically, piracy "protest" misses its mark by a fairly wide margin. The ones that are most noticeably affected by it (developers and shops), are not typically the ones that set the prices or make decisions on DRM.

And the difference to someone staging a sit-in, who finds out that they've been targeting the wrong people (most likely profusely apologizing, and offering to make reparations)? The pirate "protesters" shrug, and play the game they have illegally copied.

jd10013
25th Sep 2011, 12:59
Eh, try pissing off someone in the far right, you might end-up with a bomb on your doorstep.


one of the biggest myths perpetrated. almost all violence like that (at least in the US) is perpetrated by far left groups. just do a Google search on weather underground, black panthers, or even the KKK.

anyhow, political affiliation has nothing to do with it. it's as I said, more a cultural, moral, and value issue. ever since the 60's we, as a society, have been promoting an "if it feels good do it" mindset amongst people. piracy is just one of the pieces of rotten fruit to fall off that tree. not as serious as the 60% divorce rate, or similarly high out of wedlock birth rate. but they all have the same root problem...............a mindset of " I exist, I want, therefore I should have". too many people don't expect themselves to work or save for things anymore. we simply demonize those who have in order that we feel better about ourselves when we take it from them.

mad825
25th Sep 2011, 21:59
one of the biggest myths perpetrated. almost all violence like that (at least in the US) is perpetrated by far left groups. just do a Google search on weather underground, black panthers, or even the KKK.

anyhow, political affiliation has nothing to do with it. it's as I said, more a cultural, moral, and value issue. ever since the 60's we, as a society, have been promoting an "if it feels good do it" mindset amongst people. piracy is just one of the pieces of rotten fruit to fall off that tree. not as serious as the 60% divorce rate, or similarly high out of wedlock birth rate. but they all have the same root problem...............a mindset of " I exist, I want, therefore I should have". too many people don't expect themselves to work or save for things anymore. we simply demonize those who have in order that we feel better about ourselves when we take it from them.

huh, good thing I don't live in the US then, here in Britannia you could quite as easily end-up beaten,shanked (knifed) , Endless verbal abuse with the word "bruv" or "dick" at the beginning of each sentence and if you're unlucky you do get shot. Going to a local EDL protest near you for an example :D

Still, I hear things are still bad in Ireland from a friend of mine. With a paramilitary group that's underground a bomb is not far from the truth.

Romeo
25th Sep 2011, 22:02
Wilks, allow me to simplify the argument for you: If you dislike what a company has done - don't buy the product. A boycott would have the same fiscal impact as piracy. But that isn't good enough, is it? No, you want the game - you simply don't want to pay. Don't dance around like you're some sort of paragon to the people.

Again, you still have YET to justify why you think it's justified simply because it's the entertainment industry. Again, I don't like the tailpipes on the Ferrari 458. That wouldn't justify me in taking one off the lot, would it? Similarly, all modern cars have "black boxes" (Comparible to say, DRM). Once again, simply removing that aspect and then taking my neighbor's car is not a responsible course of action. I could claim it as protest, but anyone with an ounce of common sense would realize it's simply me taking something without paying.

Tverdyj
26th Sep 2011, 00:53
nope, and a great many people don't. itunes makes billions off downloads. but the whole argument is pointless. the pirates, thieves, lack the proper values and morals to understand why it's wrong. and because of that, they'll never stop. thieves don't have a conscious. it's a character flaw. trying to make them see why it's wrong it like trying to make a 5 yr old understand algebra. they simply don't have the capacity to do it. the people who do it are simply the product of societies that instill a sense of entitlement in people from birth, and that they are the most important thing in the universe. morality and values to them are simply relative and can be whatever you want them to . there is no good or bad, right or wrong, or black and white. everything is a nuanced shade of grey.

*******end rant**********

you say like its a bad thing.
I happen to be from one of those societies that places next to 0 value in copyright. though I don't live there anymore, I can see and understand this point of view.

oh, and once again, piracy =/= theft. not the way we define theft.

drunkrussian9
26th Sep 2011, 01:42
Romeo, can you please refrain from using car analogies, they nullify your argument in the context you provide.

To me a valid comparison would be deejaying at a party without having rights to the songs(there are many restrictions, no matter if you purchase the song or not). These copyright laws are often annoying, especially when they provide free advertisement for the author. In a perfect world, music producers would make earnings from live performances rather than a recorded file. But, most people cannot overcome the love for money, and can't see past the initial stages where they would lose profit from loss of sales. Because the latter stages are the ones that propel a producer into stardom, if indeed his music is adored by people. Many DJs that produce music nowadays aren't filing complaints to people that use their music in their mixes. It's a step towards a more relaxed form of digital sharing, and although it seems wrong, there are many benefits to it.

Piracy is wrong, I know. But when producers start thinking of a different method to charge for their games (think: ads or features like multiplayer), they can provide a product to a much larger base of people that would have never otherwise had access to it. Say a student(on a budget) downloaded a free edition PC game called Deus Ex. This version had cut the multiplayer aspect. After playing through the entire game, the student realizes how much fun multiplayer will be, from the many conversations him and his friends had about it. He purchases the multiplayer edition for $30 online and downloads the game. Developer is paid. It happened to me, but substitute deus ex with GTA4 and cut out "a free edition".

Krankor
26th Sep 2011, 02:03
one of the biggest myths perpetrated. almost all violence like that (at least in the US) is perpetrated by far left groups.

Depending on which continent you are on the definition of 'Left' and 'Right' can change radically. A European 'extreme right' are basically Nazis (the NPD political party). An American 'extreme right' are tea partiers!

imported_BoB_
26th Sep 2011, 02:10
Piracy is wrong, I know. But when producers start thinking of a different method to charge for their games (think: ads or features like multiplayer), they can provide a product to a much larger base of people that would have never otherwise had access to it. Say a student(on a budget) downloaded a free edition PC game called Deus Ex. This version had cut the multiplayer aspect. After playing through the entire game, the student realizes how much fun multiplayer will be, from the many conversations him and his friends had about it. He purchases the multiplayer edition for $30 online and downloads the game. Developer is paid. It happened to me, but substitute deus ex with GTA4 and cut out "a free edition".

It must be the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Actually, the online/multiplayer features is one of the worst thing about this generation, because developers/editors know very well that they can make easy cash by just releasing new maps with very little effort.

A good single player game asks for a much greater production value, and much more polishing when there is no multiplayer if they don't want too much used copy in stores (copy that don't make any money for them)
Besides, you would pay the game, once you finished it, and only if a multiplayer would be interesting, how does it make sense at all?
If the student could pay 30$ for the multiplayer, why can't he pay 30$ for the full game to begin with?

Krankor
26th Sep 2011, 02:15
Again, you still have YET to justify why you think it's justified simply because it's the entertainment industry. Again, I don't like the tailpipes on the Ferrari 458. That wouldn't justify me in taking one off the lot, would it? Similarly, all modern cars have "black boxes" (Comparible to say, DRM). Once again, simply removing that aspect and then taking my neighbor's car is not a responsible course of action. I could claim it as protest, but anyone with an ounce of common sense would realize it's simply me taking something without paying.

Keep the context in mind, Cars =/= Digital Information.

The cost of making one copy of Photoshop is the same as making a million, we cannot say the same about cars.

That being said we live in an imperfect world, pirates shouldn't steal programs, but at the same time legitimate buyers SHOULD NOT be subjected to DRM.

There was already talk of doing this with cars, giving them built in kill switches that police could activate with remote. Obviously criminals would remove these and still lead the police on a chase, while law abiding citizens would be left with the burden.

Fluffis
26th Sep 2011, 02:40
Obviously criminals would remove these and still lead the police on a chase, while law abiding citizens would be left with the burden.

What burden? Knowing that if they break the law, the cops can stop them?
Not really a terrible burden for a law-abiding citizen.

drunkrussian9
26th Sep 2011, 03:46
It must be the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Actually, the online/multiplayer features is one of the worst thing about this generation, because developers/editors know very well that they can make easy cash by just releasing new maps with very little effort.

A good single player game asks for a much greater production value, and much more polishing when there is no multiplayer if they don't want too much used copy in stores (copy that don't make any money for them)
Besides, you would pay the game, once you finished it, and only if a multiplayer would be interesting, how does it make sense at all?
If the student could pay 30$ for the multiplayer, why can't he pay 30$ for the full game to begin with?
Lol @ your logic. Multiplayer is the worst feature evar yet it is responsible for the billion dollar video game industry. And who said it was going to be sold in stores? **facepalm** See the word "downloaded"? Also, the student has other financial priorities besides games, DUH. And now he sees more potential in one title than another for a spare $30. Multiplayer has the potential to DWARF your time playing single player. And in today's standards multiplayer polishing has to be much greater than singleplayer polishing. Also, multiplayer servers need to be kept running, that costs . . . That's why it makes sense.

Is english not your first language? You insult me yet I can't even comprehend half of your post. Way to set a first impression.

Tverdyj
26th Sep 2011, 03:58
What burden? Knowing that if they break the law, the cops can stop them?
Not really a terrible burden for a law-abiding citizen.

yeah, but here we run into issues of privacy. on the risk of going on a tangent, property I buy should belong to me. I do not want to be subjected to inconveniences, based on whatever suspicions (possibly unfounded) law-enforcers may have. frankly, just because a cop thinks i'm breaking the law, doesn't mean I am. I should not be ofrced to endure inconveniences due to what they may think.

which actually links in with the whole BS concept of "holding a license" to use a game, instead of "owning" a copy of a game, like we used to, back in the day.

neoWilks
26th Sep 2011, 04:29
Oh, it does make sense. It's just that it can't be spun to support your own opinion.

Sit-ins are always an illegal activity, and are always a form of protest.
Piracy is always an illegal activity, and only rarely used as a form of protest.

So how would those two be analogous?

Piracy is an illegal action whether it is used as a form of protest or not. Sit-ins are by definition only a form of protest.

This is what makes the analogy more apt than you want to think.

No it doesn't. The problem is you keep including piracy in general when I've always been talking about piracy as a form of protest. Sit-ins only apply to the latter, I've never claimed they apply to the former. I instead compared the former to loitering, as that's a far better comparison (breaking the law out of selfish reasons rather than to effect change).

You insist on conflating similar actions that share no common intent and your analogy was not an apt comparison.


Nope, I don't consider consumer rights unimportant - in fact I'm a staunch supporter of them. I just don't think that illegal activity is the way to change those. Sit-ins are not usually used to get someone to lower prices, either.

What does it matter what sit-ins have historically sought to change? The comparison doesn't require them to be exactly perfect mirrors of each other. It serves only to illustrate one act of illegal protest that is generally seen as acceptable (if not celebrated) has a nearly identical construction to another you claim is not.

You've drawn the line at a different point, deciding non-violent, but illegal protest is not justified in the case of consumer rights. That's clear. That doesn't mean it's an objective position, and I haven't seen any real argument as to why someone shouldn't be able to engage in illegal protest for consumer rights.

Sit ins have been used to protest/advocate a wide variety of issues. Things like the civil rights movement might be more iconic, but the action has still been used to protest layoffs, advocate worker's rights, housing developments, etc. Why are consumer rights in the case of media significantly less important to justify similar activity?


But maybe, just maybe, "if enough people do it, they will listen"... right...? ;)

In some hypothetical, outlandish situation? Maybe. Realistically? No way. And that comes back to the fact that it's only tangentially related to the actual complaint. Piracy of a particular game designed to specifically circumvent DRM is not only half-way related to the complaint in question. It's directly related to the complaint in question.



They are analogous. You just can't see it.

Do you more often see publishers or developers going out of business, due to poor sales? Which ones do you think set the prices? Make decisions on DRM?

Typically, piracy "protest" misses its mark by a fairly wide margin. The ones that are most noticeably affected by it (developers and shops), are not typically the ones that set the prices or make decisions on DRM.

That's an issue with the structure of the industry, not with piracy as protest. Publishers are simply better insulated from failures. It doesn't mean the protest is less on target. The item in question (the game with DRM, the over priced DLC, whatever) is still the target of the piracy. The message being, "We're not okay with the manner in which you're hocking your wares."

In any protest the smaller party on the opposite side is more likely to come out worse than the big one. If I successfully boycott some other product, do you think it's more likely the entire company folds or they layoff enough workers to stay afloat? That doesn't mean that my protest was wrong or missed the mark. Even if the company completely folded, the CEO is going to come out far better than the grunt in a cubicle.

This is, of course, assuming the party in question refuses to change the objectionable policy. If the policy is changed to reflect consumer demands, then continued protest would have no basis.

Also: is the implication then that it is acceptable to use piracy to protest a self-published title?


And the difference to someone staging a sit-in, who finds out that they've been targeting the wrong people (most likely profusely apologizing, and offering to make reparations)? The pirate "protesters" shrug, and play the game they have illegally copied.

[Citation Needed]

Putting aside the incredibly small chance that someone protesting DRM or pricing for a particular game is actually uninformed, what statistics do you have that show the pirate does not purchase the game after realizing their mistake?

zenstar
26th Sep 2011, 08:19
[Citation Needed]
Haahahahahahahah.
The irony of this.

El Zoido
26th Sep 2011, 09:51
In a perfect world, music producers would make earnings from live performances rather than a recorded file.

And a writer should only earn money from public readings of his books?

What about someone that composes great music but is a bad performer?

I'm not a big fan of overly restrictive copyright laws, but there is a reason to this laws that is (or at least used to be) different from giving publishers a licence to print money and bully their customers. There is some good in protecting the works of the artist.




Piracy is wrong, I know. But when producers start thinking of a different method to charge for their games (think: ads or features like multiplayer), they can provide a product to a much larger base of people that would have never otherwise had access to it.

I think we are beginning to see stuff like that. MMOs that are free2play and make money by ads or micro-transactions or premium content which is available only to subscribers.
Whether that is good or bad, I cannot say (yet), but it could certainly change gaming.

zenstar
26th Sep 2011, 10:15
And a writer should only earn money from public readings of his books?

What about someone that composes great music but is a bad performer?

I'm not a big fan of overly restrictive copyright laws, but there is a reason to this laws that is (or at least used to be) different from giving publishers a licence to print money and bully their customers. There is some good in protecting the works of the artist.

I agree with you 100% here. Copyright is good (I have yet to hear a good argument against it) but we need to find the right level of restrictions. IMO "Fair use" should mean something like: I can do whatever I want to this media I bought and enjoy it in whatever way I please as long as I'm not distibuting copies of it or broadcasting it / playing it for a mass audience and not making money off it.
Should ripping a CD to listen to the music on your Ipod be fair use? I think so. Same with ripping a DVD to watch on your ipod while on the train. As long as I have paid to listen to the music and watch the film I don't see anything wrong with how I watch or listen.
That's got to do with restrictions. It doesn't mean that copyright shouldn't exist.


I think we are beginning to see stuff like that. MMOs that are free2play and make money by ads or micro-transactions or premium content which is available only to subscribers.
Whether that is good or bad, I cannot say (yet), but it could certainly change gaming.
I think diversity is the key. F2P are nice. So are normally priced games. So are indie games and cheap experimental downloads from big companies. So are free, opensource games. They can all co-exist. Having one does not mean the loss of another.
In fact diversity is healthy because it creates competition which means better value and quality for the customer.

If I owned a publishing house I'd make sure that we published all sorts of game types. And I'd give student discounts and have more shareware and demos. I'd take great offence to people pirating games from my company.
If MS can afford to give student discounts I think more game companies could wrangle it. I obviously am speaking as a layman here as I'm not an accountant and have no idea what the financial situation is really like. But I can dream (I'm not even a student anymore... but it would have made my student life so much cooler).

Fluffis
26th Sep 2011, 10:18
No it doesn't. The problem is you keep including piracy in general when I've always been talking about piracy as a form of protest. Sit-ins only apply to the latter, I've never claimed they apply to the former. I instead compared the former to loitering, as that's a far better comparison (breaking the law out of selfish reasons rather than to effect change).

You insist on conflating similar actions that share no common intent and your analogy was not an apt comparison.


No, because the basic action of piracy is to copy something illegally.
The basic action of a sit-in is sitting down.



What does it matter what sit-ins have historically sought to change? The comparison doesn't require them to be exactly perfect mirrors of each other. It serves only to illustrate one act of illegal protest that is generally seen as acceptable (if not celebrated) has a nearly identical construction to another you claim is not.

You've drawn the line at a different point, deciding non-violent, but illegal protest is not justified in the case of consumer rights. That's clear. That doesn't mean it's an objective position, and I haven't seen any real argument as to why someone shouldn't be able to engage in illegal protest for consumer rights.


... because it's illegal...?



Sit ins have been used to protest/advocate a wide variety of issues. Things like the civil rights movement might be more iconic, but the action has still been used to protest layoffs, advocate worker's rights, housing developments, etc. Why are consumer rights in the case of media significantly less important to justify similar activity?


Because there are plenty of legal ways of doing it.




In some hypothetical, outlandish situation? Maybe. Realistically? No way. And that comes back to the fact that it's only tangentially related to the actual complaint. Piracy of a particular game designed to specifically circumvent DRM is not only half-way related to the complaint in question. It's directly related to the complaint in question.


No. It's directly related to wanting a game without paying for it.



That's an issue with the structure of the industry, not with piracy as protest. Publishers are simply better insulated from failures. It doesn't mean the protest is less on target. The item in question (the game with DRM, the over priced DLC, whatever) is still the target of the piracy. The message being, "We're not okay with the manner in which you're hocking your wares."

In any protest the smaller party on the opposite side is more likely to come out worse than the big one. If I successfully boycott some other product, do you think it's more likely the entire company folds or they layoff enough workers to stay afloat? That doesn't mean that my protest was wrong or missed the mark. Even if the company completely folded, the CEO is going to come out far better than the grunt in a cubicle.

This is, of course, assuming the party in question refuses to change the objectionable policy. If the policy is changed to reflect consumer demands, then continued protest would have no basis.


You're enforcing my opinion, without even seeing it. You are, yourself, saying that the people you wish to affect, are the ones that are the least affected.



Also: is the implication then that it is acceptable to use piracy to protest a self-published title?


Nope. Didn't say that. Didn't even imply it. Are you being deliberately obtuse? It is never acceptable! It's just that in a case like that, you would at least be targeting the right people. You couldn't really miss... at least not as spectacularly as you are doing otherwise.



Putting aside the incredibly small chance that someone protesting DRM or pricing for a particular game is actually uninformed, what statistics do you have that show the pirate does not purchase the game after realizing their mistake?

I don't need statistics for that. One pirated copy of a game is still illegal - which means one is enough.

And like Romeo said:
What this all boils down to is that you want a game, but you don't want to pay for it. If you truly wanted to protest something, you'd be actively getting others to boycott the game. You'd be picketing outside the publisher's HQ.

But, no. You still want to play the game - you just don't want to pay for it.

Kvltism
26th Sep 2011, 13:16
Romeo: your love of cars reminds me of a joke I heard on a comedy show here, (Stand Up Australia) a few years back. It was lampooning an anti-piracy campaign in movies, which had the inane slogan: "you wouldn't steal a car." The comic stated "of course I wouldn’t steal a car. But if a mate came up to me and said "Would you like me to burn you a copy?"…" *awkward silence* :lol:

zenstar
26th Sep 2011, 13:55
Romeo: your love of cars reminds me of a joke I heard on a comedy show here, (Stand Up Australia) a few years back. It was lampooning an anti-piracy campaign in movies, which had the inane slogan: "you wouldn't steal a car." The comic stated "of course I wouldn’t steal a car. But if a mate came up to me and said "Would you like me to burn you a copy?"…" *awkward silence* :lol:

Don't you find it ironic that the anti-piracy ads on DVDs are only watched by the people who bought the DVDs?
I bet that none of the pirated discs have anti-piracy warnings on them and I'm pretty sure that noone rips a movie and ads an anti-piracy ad in front (although that would be hilarious).

I think there was a rip-off ad in the IT crowd that went something like:
"you wouldn't steal a handbag would you? *footage of some dude stealing a handbag and being chased by a cop*,
you wouldn't kill a police officer *some dude shooting the cop*,
you wouldn't take a **** in that officers helmet and then send it to his grieving widow *footage of a sobbing woman opening a package at her front door*,
then why would you pirate a movie?"

Those ads are so heavy handed and aimed at the wrong people.

Kvltism
26th Sep 2011, 14:14
Don't you find it ironic that the anti-piracy ads on DVDs are only watched by the people who bought the DVDs?

Yes. Just as I find it ironic that the only people to get inconvenienced by DRM are legitimate customers.

zenstar
26th Sep 2011, 14:51
Yes. Just as I find it ironic that the only people to get inconvenienced by DRM are legitimate customers.

Nonsense. Hardcore drm causes pirates to wait for hours before the torrents are seeded with cracked versions :P

Meh. TBH I doubt I'll ever convince a pirate not to pirate. It's like trying to convert someone's religion msot of the time. I can only do what I think is right. I don't pirate. That may mean I don't get to play something (especially if I'm not happy with the DRM and so won't buy it) but at the end of the day I believe that my not purchasing something says more to the company than pirating something does. Especially if I vocalise my dissent on their forums.
Plus I get a warm feeling knowing that somewhere out there are a few developers / musicians that had part of a beer paid for by me as a thanks for the awesome game / music they helped build for me.
Even better when it's a self publishing indie company. They get a bigger slice of the pie. But even the big publishing houses deserve thanks for awesome games.

drunkrussian9
26th Sep 2011, 15:11
And a writer should only earn money from public readings of his books?

What about someone that composes great music but is a bad performer?

I'm not a big fan of overly restrictive copyright laws, but there is a reason to this laws that is (or at least used to be) different from giving publishers a licence to print money and bully their customers. There is some good in protecting the works of the artist.
In an environment where the music user isn't profiting in his use of the work, there should be no consequence. Only when there's money involved should there be a problem. The annoying youtube music copyrights disabling audio come to mind. That's where our current system stands.

As for the writer, thats a different territory considering books are *usually* a physical medium.


I think we are beginning to see stuff like that. MMOs that are free2play and make money by ads or micro-transactions or premium content which is available only to subscribers.
Whether that is good or bad, I cannot say (yet), but it could certainly change gaming.
Definitely. Imagine seeing an ad on a loading screen of DXHR? lol. I certainly hope that games begin to take advantage of that. A lot of apps for android/ios/wp7 have ads in free versions of many apps.

El Zoido
26th Sep 2011, 15:46
As for the writer, thats a different territory considering books are *usually* a physical medium.

And for how long will they stay one? With the advent of e-books, books might very soon be in the same position as music.
You can lend/resell a paperback novel only so many times, an e-book has no such limitations.
Writers might very well be at the same point the music industry was not too long ago, i.e. their product turns digital and seizes to be bound to a relatively easily controllable physical form.

Why should pirates stop at books? Of course, many people still prefer bound paper books for many reasons(like myself), but can we count on this?

The whole issue is one of not insignificant importance. As a society we have to find a way to accommodate the different demands of consumers (basically everyone) AND producers (artists, producers and probably even publishers).
The consumers want to listen to music, read books, watch movies at reasonable prices without too many restrictions and the second group wants some compensation for their work (is this really such an unreasonable demand?). Meaning until the total abolishment of money (whether due to true communism, the United Federation of Planets or whatever type of utopian society) we will have to pay something for our media.

zenstar
26th Sep 2011, 15:52
In an environment where the music user isn't profiting in his use of the work, there should be no consequence. Only when there's money involved should there be a problem. The annoying youtube music copyrights disabling audio come to mind. That's where our current system stands.

As for the writer, thats a different territory considering books are *usually* a physical medium.
.
Google profits off youtube videos. Advertising. It's google's main (and massive) income stream. Also it's a form of broadcasting and there are terms of use preventing the unauthorised use of music etc to prevent copyright infringements. IIRC short clips for satire and review are fine, but long clips are not.

A user shouldn't be re-broadcasting someone's works without permission. Music at a party is fine (it's not really broadcasting) but creating a pirate radio station isn't. If you can see the distinction I'm trying to make? Posting youtube clips of full songs (with or without videos) is kinda like a pirate radio station. Even if the user isn't making money from it (and let's just say google isn't either) people are still getting the use of the material without the artists being recompensated for his work.

And of course it only becomes a problem when money is involved :P It's all about the creator getting paid his due. The creator is always free to release his creation into the public domain which allows people to use it for free (and there are many creations in the public domain either from the creator releasing it or because the copyright has expired). Unfortunately most creations have to be funded with money and so publishers step in to fund the project. Publishers deserve some money for risking their money on the project to start with... and the cycle goes on with retailers taking their cut etc... This is why self publishing artists can do so well (if they're good). Look at Trent Reznor. He managed to release an album for free as a thank you to his fans since he started self publishing. He's in a lucky position to have enough money to do this. Most artists are not.

And I don't think the medium of delivery makes a difference (books are becoming more digital too, and books on tape are becoming more and more popular). It just happens that some mediums are more difficult to pirate. A painting is technically just information nicely arranged on some canvas, and how many Mona Lisas do you see hanging around? Not too many people quickly whip out a paintbrush and copy the picture when they visit the louvre (although the copyright has probably expired on that by now anyway) ;)

(Yes I'm being lighthearted about this but this thread has become way too heavy and politicized IMO)

imported_BoB_
26th Sep 2011, 16:12
Lol @ your logic. Multiplayer is the worst feature evar yet it is responsible for the billion dollar video game industry. And who said it was going to be sold in stores? **facepalm** See the word "downloaded"? Also, the student has other financial priorities besides games, DUH. And now he sees more potential in one title than another for a spare $30. Multiplayer has the potential to DWARF your time playing single player. And in today's standards multiplayer polishing has to be much greater than singleplayer polishing. Also, multiplayer servers need to be kept running, that costs . . . That's why it makes sense.

Is english not your first language? You insult me yet I can't even comprehend half of your post. Way to set a first impression.

But why would you want a free single player game AND the multiplayer part that would cost 30$. Buy a 30$ multiplayer game and that's it. You basically want to play for free and maybe spending money after, sorry, it's not how the world works.
Actually, most of the multiplayers games pick one of the player as host, so it doesn't cost them anything because they doesn't provide multiplayer servers, just an interface for playing (on the other hand, they make you pay an online pass bull**** for nothing without any hesitation)

You didn't see my point about multiplayer/online being a bad thing. If developers/editors would make cash only with multiplayer features, and much more easily. Do you think that they'll continue to produce single player game in the first place?

And for your information, english may not be my main language but I didn't insult you, I said that your idea was dumb (well not the part about ads, but the other part actually), not quite the same thing.

drunkrussian9
26th Sep 2011, 17:30
But why would you want a free single player game AND the multiplayer part that would cost 30$. Buy a 30$ multiplayer game and that's it. You basically want to play for free and maybe spending money after, sorry, it's not how the world works.
Actually, most of the multiplayers games pick one of the player as host, so it doesn't cost them anything because they doesn't provide multiplayer servers, just an interface for playing (on the other hand, they make you pay an online pass bull**** for nothing without any hesitation)

You didn't see my point about multiplayer/online being a bad thing. If developers/editors would make cash only with multiplayer features, and much more easily. Do you think that they'll continue to produce single player game in the first place?

And for your information, english may not be my main language but I didn't insult you, I said that your idea was dumb (well not the part about ads, but the other part actually), not quite the same thing.
Actually, there's plenty of games that let you do just that, and they're gaining in popularity. A leaked beta of Deus Ex also functioned as a demo. Also, if you pay attention and know a bit, you can get access to other betas as well, legally. So technically you can get a lot for free.


A user shouldn't be re-broadcasting someone's works without permission. Music at a party is fine (it's not really broadcasting) but creating a pirate radio station isn't. If you can see the distinction I'm trying to make? Posting youtube clips of full songs (with or without videos) is kinda like a pirate radio station. Even if the user isn't making money from it (and let's just say google isn't either) people are still getting the use of the material without the artists being recompensated for his work.
Music at a party is not fine. That's my point. It's technically illegal. About the same way as buying a DVD then allowing a group of people to watch it is. It's ridiculous.

A number of games I played had ran servers, MMORPGs come to mind.

The singleplayer free/multiplayer paid is just an example of one of the many ways a dev can separate it's game into pieces to provide for both a paying consumer and one that doesn't. There are other methods that have proven themselves already. However, in this case, the single player game (probably not as fleshed out as Deus Ex) can introduce the mechanics and gameplay attributes to the player to allow him to settle into the game, wanting more when he's finished. The "free" aspect of the game can also act as a longer demo . . . so that the player experiences say 25% of the story, like the DXHR beta. It can all be changed in accordance to the game being developed.

Jason Parker
26th Sep 2011, 17:46
I'm not a big fan of overly restrictive copyright laws, but there is a reason to this laws that is (or at least used to be) different from giving publishers a licence to print money and bully their customers. There is some good in protecting the works of the artist.

Man am I glad that finally we start returning to discussing things that matter in here. I totally agree copyright laws are a good and needed thing these days. In principle. In praxis they often times are overly restrictive in my view and even manage to turn out being used against the artist by the publisher, which especialy in the fields of literature and music is a really nasty thing.



I think we are beginning to see stuff like that. MMOs that are free2play and make money by ads or micro-transactions or premium content which is available only to subscribers.
Whether that is good or bad, I cannot say (yet), but it could certainly change gaming.

It could change gaming. If F2P MMO Publishers would finally pull their heads out of their asses and start making games that are actually fun to play instead of making games that annoy me by artificially slowing down the pace of my gameplay, that leave me chanceless whatsoever in competitive gameplay and are plain and simple no fun to play at all unless you start paying amounts of money that are way beyond anything that's accepted as reasonable in subscription based games.

F2P Games lack quality. And I fear this will remain a fact for quite some time. Only exceptions are former sub-games that failed to deliver enough to work based on subs an got turned into F2P. They're at least half-way decent and are not infested that badly by aforementioned gameplay brakes and fun killers. But any MMO specifically designed with F2P in mind is either a rip off or substandart in technical terms. And they only make money because they appeal to people not having enough gaming experience to see through it from the start.

Fluffis
26th Sep 2011, 19:28
Music at a party is not fine. That's my point. It's technically illegal.


That varies from country to country, though. In Sweden you can get away with a fair amount of things, as long as it is in a "Closed Group" - which is a wonderfully vague expression.

imported_BoB_
26th Sep 2011, 19:37
Actually, there's plenty of games that let you do just that, and they're gaining in popularity. A leaked beta of Deus Ex also functioned as a demo. Also, if you pay attention and know a bit, you can get access to other betas as well, legally. So technically you can get a lot for free.


Well beta are not for players only, it actually helps developers a lot. Once the game is released, beta usually can't be used anymore.



The singleplayer free/multiplayer paid is just an example of one of the many ways a dev can separate it's game into pieces to provide for both a paying consumer and one that doesn't. There are other methods that have proven themselves already. However, in this case, the single player game (probably not as fleshed out as Deus Ex) can introduce the mechanics and gameplay attributes to the player to allow him to settle into the game, wanting more when he's finished. The "free" aspect of the game can also act as a longer demo . . . so that the player experiences say 25% of the story, like the DXHR beta. It can all be changed in accordance to the game being developed.

This, I can agree with (finally :D)
I think that a good way would be to activate the game for like 24 hours. For the player point of view, you know that the developers didn't optimize the part in the demo (in a technical way, or in a interesting way gameplay wise, or both :D) like they usually do. If you finish the game, well, too bad for them. If you don't like the game because it's ****, too bad for them.
And there, they would get paid only if they don't do crappy games, and it would be a good thing. The only real problem is that they would have to give you the full game, so it would be a lot easier to crack it and all.

El Zoido
26th Sep 2011, 21:29
Music at a party is not fine. That's my point. It's technically illegal. About the same way as buying a DVD then allowing a group of people to watch it is. It's ridiculous.

Wow, which country are you from? It's perfectly fine in mine to play as much of your music as you want on any private party.
Non-private, public events are different thing, understandably, but in private no one can object.

zenstar
26th Sep 2011, 22:17
Wow, which country are you from? It's perfectly fine in mine to play as much of your music as you want on any private party.
Non-private, public events are different thing, understandably, but in private no one can object.

That was my understanding too.
Watching a dvd with firends in your own house or playing music at a private party is fine as far as I know, as long as you're not charging admission. If it's open to the public then you start running into issues.

I mean what worth would a DVD be if you can't watch it with your wife unless she's also bought a copy of it. That doesn't make sense really. (or husband or partner or significant other or family pet or potplant... whatever you're into).

Ofc I didn't say "private party" in my post exactly, but that's what I meant. Public events require all sorts of permits etc.

drunkrussian9
27th Sep 2011, 02:19
Wow, which country are you from? It's perfectly fine in mine to play as much of your music as you want on any private party.
Non-private, public events are different thing, understandably, but in private no one can object.
US. I must be misinformed. So you can legally buy a movie and invite 200 people to watch it in your private theater? And from my understanding you can also dj for those 200 people too?

neoWilks
27th Sep 2011, 02:42
Haahahahahahahah.
The irony of this.
No irony. It's very reasonable to assume that there exist those who've pirated a game and then gone on to purchase a copy later. It's not reasonable to claim that this never happened. The latter claim requires evidence because it is extraordinary.

No, because the basic action of piracy is to copy something illegally.
The basic action of a sit-in is sitting down.

Again, no. Sitting is to sit-ins as computer use is to piracy. You can't boil one down to the most basic form while not doing the same for the other. The commonality between piracy and sit-ins is specifically the illegality behind them.

Furthermore, the illegality of the action is exactly what matters. We are discussing only illegal protest. It doesn't matter if there exists a legal form of sitting, piracy, or whatever because that is not and has never been what I've been talking about.

This is essentially what you're saying:

"Illegal sit-ins are acceptable because sitting isn't illegal."

This makes no sense. Sit-ins are still illegal. Unless you believe illegal sit-ins ought not to be illegal, then why does it matter whether sitting*in general* is legal or not?


... because it's illegal...?

So are sit-ins, email leaks, etc. Since you seem to think the former is an acceptable form of protest (at least, you've been arguing it's nothing like piracy), I don't see why the legality of the act matters in terms of the morality of the act. Unless you believe that we're morally obligated to uphold all laws (and in that case, who's?) then simply saying, "Well, that's illegal," is not an argument.


Because there are plenty of legal ways of doing it.

There's plenty of legal ways to protest pretty much anything. That doesn't change the fact that illegal protest is often seen as necessary or acceptable. It also ignores the fact that legally, a company (or industry since we're talking industry trends) is often going to have far greater leverage than any average consumer.


No. It's directly related to wanting a game without paying for it.

Not what I am talking about. I've said this about a billion times now and you keep ignoring it and start talking about other things. Let me spell this out one more time:

THIS IS NOT ABOUT PEOPLE PIRATING A PRODUCT FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GAINING FREE CONTENT. THIS IS ABOUT PEOPLE PIRATING OUT OF PROTEST.

Unless your position is that no one has ever pirated out of protest, then please refrain from speaking of piracy as a whole. I am only talking about one, highly specific type of piracy.


You're enforcing my opinion, without even seeing it. You are, yourself, saying that the people you wish to affect, are the ones that are the least affected.

No I'm not. I'm simply recognizing that protest that hurts a companies bottom-line will always affect the more vulnerable party more than the people at the top. The goal of protest is not to have a company fire it's work staff, it is to compel them to alter their policies or course of action. If instead of making those changes, the company opts to suffer the monetary hit and fire employees that is 100 percent on the company, not the protesters.

You might want to revise your position here unless you really mean to advocate never protesting anything.


Nope. Didn't say that. Didn't even imply it. Are you being deliberately obtuse? It is never acceptable! It's just that in a case like that, you would at least be targeting the right people. You couldn't really miss... at least not as spectacularly as you are doing otherwise.

You were saying that a reason one shouldn't pirate out of protest is because publishers are affected less than developers. Therefore it would make sense that you view self-published games a fairer target. Otherwise, why bring this up at all if it doesn't actually matter in regards to whether something is acceptable or not.

You can't blatantly appeal to emotion ("Won't anyone think of the poor developers!") and then say, "Well, it doesn't matter anyways because you're still wrong," when it's illustrated that sometimes those developers are the ones setting prices and deciding on DRM.


I don't need statistics for that. One pirated copy of a game is still illegal - which means one is enough.

Which has nothing to do with what you said. You said if a protester pirates a game based on bad information and later learns they were uninformed then they do not seek to correct their mistake. Your comment had nothing to do with what was wrong to begin with as you were explicitly comparing how different protesters respond to a mistaken protest.


And like Romeo said:
What this all boils down to is that you want a game, but you don't want to pay for it. If you truly wanted to protest something, you'd be actively getting others to boycott the game. You'd be picketing outside the publisher's HQ.

But, no. You still want to play the game - you just don't want to pay for it.

Of course I want to play it. I never said I didn't. The protest is not, "I hate this game," it's, "I hate this DRM/pricing/delivery system." This is what you're still ignoring. Pirating a game out of protest allows for greater nuance by indicating it is not the actual content that is objectionable, but all the extra bull**** the seller has packaged along with it.

Fluffis
27th Sep 2011, 03:55
Wilks... No matter what kind of rationale you use, the simple fact is that you're acting like a spoiled child. You don't like the way a game is delivered, but you think you're entitled to have it. So you copy it, because you think that because the game companies don't conform to your wishes, they owe you something. But they don't. Unless you pay for the product, they don't owe you one damn thing.

So, no. You don't have any right whatsoever to illegally download games. Ever. And no matter how much people like you may consider themselves some kind of champions of the people, they are nothing more than petty criminals.

Can you give me one valid reason for why you should be exempt from paying for a game, but still be allowed to have it?

Pinky_Powers
27th Sep 2011, 04:05
Can you give me one valid reason for why you should be exempt from paying for a game, but still be allowed to have it?

Because rules are for chumps and he roll with da gods.

0Dyjnqc0J28

itsonyourhead
27th Sep 2011, 06:07
Because rules are for chumps and he roll with da gods.

0Dyjnqc0J28

Because they are the pirates...

XaWU1CmrJNc

... who don't do anything.

El Zoido
27th Sep 2011, 08:19
THIS IS NOT ABOUT PEOPLE PIRATING A PRODUCT FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GAINING FREE CONTENT. THIS IS ABOUT PEOPLE PIRATING OUT OF PROTEST.

Fine, but in the big scope of things I think we can rest assured that the amount of people who really pirate a game for that reason is negligible. Might be that many say so afterwards, but that's just to make them feel better about it and give them some justification for it.
Again, my position is that protest should be done in form of boycott, not by pirating a game.

There's an interesting article on Tweaking Guides on the issue. I absolutely don't agree with everything he says, most of all I've got the feeling most of his numbers are from some industry paper used to lobby for stronger laws, but still, some might find it worth to read:

www.tweakguides.com on Piracy (http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html)

zenstar
27th Sep 2011, 08:27
US. I must be misinformed. So you can legally buy a movie and invite 200 people to watch it in your private theater? And from my understanding you can also dj for those 200 people too?

It has to be a private gathering and you cannot charge admission. If it's considered "open to the public" in any way then you need permits and whatnot.
But if you have a mansion with a movie theatre in the back that seats 200 people and you have 200 friends (and not random people) then I believe you can have a showing (and DJ for them if you wish).

I doubt you'll find there are many people who are able to share a movie like this with 200 people and the people that can probably rarely do.

There may be some sort of upper limit to what is considered a private party but I'm pretty sure private functions amongst friends are fine.

Romeo
27th Sep 2011, 08:39
Keep the context in mind, Cars =/= Digital Information.

The cost of making one copy of Photoshop is the same as making a million, we cannot say the same about cars.

That being said we live in an imperfect world, pirates shouldn't steal programs, but at the same time legitimate buyers SHOULD NOT be subjected to DRM.

There was already talk of doing this with cars, giving them built in kill switches that police could activate with remote. Obviously criminals would remove these and still lead the police on a chase, while law abiding citizens would be left with the burden.
I recognize this, but people seem to put the entertainment industry in a league of it's own. 7 pages in and I'm still waiting on a reason why taking a product someone built up and created is any different then taking a car, money, food, etc...

You list off Photoshop. You realize, of course, that to devellop, distribute, advertise and take over enough market to be profitable cost millions, right? Just because something is digital doesn't mean it just popped out of thin air. When I make parts, the majority of my time is spent on the computer (CAD). The final product itself might only cost me $0.25 in metal, but rest assured, I'm going to be charging approximately 100X that amount, in order to pay off the time wasted figuring it out. Same goes for music, games, movies, etc...

I am with you. As much as I think pirates are pathetic, I don't believe it to be justification for intrusive DRM (I don't mind "behind the scenes" kinds of DRMs, nor do I mind games that use multiplayer as a stand in DRM). In a perfect world, we wouldn't need the damn stuff. Personally, I'd like to see more stuff like what the original Deus Ex, Arkham Asylum and apparently the new Dark Souls games are doing: Saboutaging parts of the games for pirates.

There isn't talk of it, it's in almost every modern car these days. Criminals can't "remove them", as it's a part of the ECU itself. It'd involve quite literally re-tuning the entire car before stealing it. And the law-abiding citizen picks up the burden of... Nothing. It only records vehicle data. Namely, if you're doing 140MPH in a school zone, then the vehicle detects a crash, it prevents one from saying they were swerving to avoid a child whilst doing the speed limit, and crashed as a result. Comparable to DRM, it is much, much less intrusive. The only people who have to worry about it are people like myself, who have to be careful not to upset the ECU when tuning, lest the vehicle put itself in to a shutdown state.

Romeo
27th Sep 2011, 08:44
US. I must be misinformed. So you can legally buy a movie and invite 200 people to watch it in your private theater? And from my understanding you can also dj for those 200 people too?
So long as it's not for profit, generally speaking.

Invite 200 friends over for a party, and play every Daft Punk song in existence? AOK.

Invite 200 friends over for a party with a $2 door charge, and play every Daft Punk song in existence? Jail time.




Oddly, Cracked.com just ran an article over some of the sillier things that are technically illegal. Singing a copyrighted song for anyone outside your nuclear family is subject to royalties, if you read the law to the letter.

Fluffis
27th Sep 2011, 09:32
Because rules are for chumps and he roll with da gods.

[epic video #1]


Because they are the pirates...

[epic video #2]

... who don't do anything.

Thanks guys. I needed that little boost of faith in mankind. :)

El Zoido
27th Sep 2011, 09:35
Singing a copyrighted song for anyone outside your nuclear family is subject to royalties, if you read the law to the letter.

Which sounds like something from a music industry lobbyist wet dream.
It's exactly the reason why we shouldn't leave the field to the lobbyists. Performing illegal acts like piracy as a from of protest however only means grist for the mill of them, as it indirectly seems to confirm everything they say.

MaxxQ1
27th Sep 2011, 09:36
Thanks guys. I needed that little boost of faith in mankind. :)

I could have done without the Veggie Tales crap. I dislike pretty much everything about them.


Which sounds like something from a music industry lobbyist wet dream.
It's exactly the reason why we shouldn't leave the field to the lobbyists. Performing illegal acts like piracy as a from of protest however only means grist for the mill of them, as it indirectly seems to confirm everything they say.

Lobbyists are one step below lawyers in the pond scum scale of things.

Kodaemon
27th Sep 2011, 09:44
Performing illegal acts like piracy as a from of protest however only means grist for the mill of them, as it indirectly seems to confirm everything they say.

It's a Catch 22, a vicious circle. Games get pirated. Companies implement DRM to prevent that. This invariably causes problems to some legit customers...
...who sometimes turn to piracy out of sheer frustration. Companies implement even more draconian DRM.

And so on.

zenstar
27th Sep 2011, 11:02
It's a Catch 22, a vicious circle. Games get pirated. Companies implement DRM to prevent that. This invariably causes problems to some legit customers...
...who sometimes turn to piracy out of sheer frustration. Companies implement even more draconian DRM.

And so on.

Yep. Neither more DRM nor more piracy will make the situation better.

It's kinda like the Prisoner's dilema.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma


Two men are arrested, but the police do not possess enough information for a conviction. Following the separation of the two men, the police offer both a similar deal- if one testifies against his partner (defects), and the other stays quiet (cooperates), the betrayer goes free and the cooperator receives the full one-year sentence. If both remain silent, both are sentenced to only one month in jail for a minor charge. If each 'rats out' the other, each receives a three-month sentence. Each prisoner must choose to either betray or remain silent; the decision of each is kept quiet. What should they do?


Imagine the 2 men being a pirate and a publisher and instead of jailtime we're talking more DRM and more pirating vs less DRM and less pirating.



If it is supposed here that each player is only concerned with lessening his time in jail, the game becomes a non-zero sum game where the two players may either assist or betray the other. In the game, the sole worry of the prisoners seems to be increasing his own reward. The interesting symmetry of this problem is that the logical decision leads both to betray the other, even though their individual ‘prize’ would be greater if they cooperated.


Basically most pirates are only interested in getting stuff for free and so choose "betray". Publishers are mostly conserned with making money and to do that they think they need to stop all piracy (in the context of this problem. ofc more advertising and community events etc come into it in other contexts) and so they choose "betray".

If both sides were to cooperate then there'd be less piracy, less DRM and possible lower game prices as more units begin to ship and publishers can go for volume over price to make their bottom lines.

Of course trying to get all the different variables in this dilema to actually work together is nigh on impossible especially when publishers tend to misunderstand the costs of piracy involved and pirates tend to be self-centered and selfish.

And even when publishers take the first step in being the good guy pirates still take advantage. Anecdotal example: A bunch of indie devs released the "pay as much as you want" bundle (self published) where you could pay as little as 0.01 for a bundle of games and you got to choose how the money was split between charity and the developers. There was no DRM and you could install as many times as you wanted on as many machines as you wanted. Obviously copyright still holds here. You're only allowed to play if you bought the game, it's just that they're trusting you to be self-policing.
Turns out that the download link was being handed around and that there was a _lot_ of piracy where people didn't even bother paying 0.01 and just skipped straight to the download. This didn't even count the piracy of the games being copied via torrents etc where they didn't try tracking downloads. This was merely off their ftp (which, incedently they paid for based on traffic so the piracy straight off their ftp actually cost them).
Luckily there were enough people willing to pay (and donate more than the worth of the games on places like steam) to more than call it a success and the indie devs were all pretty relaxed about the piracy aspect, but it really does go to show that some people will pirate no matter how many demands you meet.
"The game wasn't worth the price" and "I didn't like the DRM" don't hold water in that situation. It kinda boggles the mind.

Romeo
27th Sep 2011, 23:01
Yep. Neither more DRM nor more piracy will make the situation better.

It's kinda like the Prisoner's dilema.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma


Imagine the 2 men being a pirate and a publisher and instead of jailtime we're talking more DRM and more pirating vs less DRM and less pirating.



Basically most pirates are only interested in getting stuff for free and so choose "betray". Publishers are mostly conserned with making money and to do that they think they need to stop all piracy (in the context of this problem. ofc more advertising and community events etc come into it in other contexts) and so they choose "betray".

If both sides were to cooperate then there'd be less piracy, less DRM and possible lower game prices as more units begin to ship and publishers can go for volume over price to make their bottom lines.

Of course trying to get all the different variables in this dilema to actually work together is nigh on impossible especially when publishers tend to misunderstand the costs of piracy involved and pirates tend to be self-centered and selfish.

And even when publishers take the first step in being the good guy pirates still take advantage. Anecdotal example: A bunch of indie devs released the "pay as much as you want" bundle (self published) where you could pay as little as 0.01 for a bundle of games and you got to choose how the money was split between charity and the developers. There was no DRM and you could install as many times as you wanted on as many machines as you wanted. Obviously copyright still holds here. You're only allowed to play if you bought the game, it's just that they're trusting you to be self-policing.
Turns out that the download link was being handed around and that there was a _lot_ of piracy where people didn't even bother paying 0.01 and just skipped straight to the download. This didn't even count the piracy of the games being copied via torrents etc where they didn't try tracking downloads. This was merely off their ftp (which, incedently they paid for based on traffic so the piracy straight off their ftp actually cost them).
Luckily there were enough people willing to pay (and donate more than the worth of the games on places like steam) to more than call it a success and the indie devs were all pretty relaxed about the piracy aspect, but it really does go to show that some people will pirate no matter how many demands you meet.
"The game wasn't worth the price" and "I didn't like the DRM" don't hold water in that situation. It kinda boggles the mind.
I remember that. They said they had around 25-30% piracy from their own site, and they suspected a similar amount from Torrents. A penny. Pirates are such pathetic jerks they stole from someone willing to sell multiple games for approximately one-fifth the cost of a stale candy at 7-11.

You are right in your larger example though. Piracy and publisher over-reaction have spiralled out of control, that at this point it's essentially pointless to ask either side to back down. Publishers wont back down, for fear that the game will be pirated even further, which isn't an unrealistic assertion. Unfortunately, this brings ridiculously stringent DRM, which ultimately negatively impacts every player. Otherwise it leads to devellopers introducing multiplayer in games that don't particularly need it, such as the Bioshock series.

The otherside of the coin, of course, is the teeming masses who you'd be asking to stop pirating games. Everyone thinks that their one download isn't that big a deal, and that others will buy. They don't seem to see a problem, as they're often oblivious to the fact that millions are also downloading and not contributing. And of course, if you asked most of them to stop being selfish, they'd simply scoff and continue the activity.



Personally, it'd be nice if there was a "value stolen vs money owed" kind of rule:

On the download side, however much pirated stuff you had would have it's value assessed, and you'd be fined the appropriate amount (As in, you downloaded ten games worth $70 each, you owe $700 in fines).

On the uploader side, the fine would be assessed on how much value was taken from the company (100,000 downloads of a $70 games, you owe $7000000 in fines). In cases where the value was far beyond the scope of being payable (See previous example), one year in jail per million owed could be substituted in.

...Harsh? Yes. But I suspect it'd make a few people a touch more leery of being the one to crack and upload a game/album/movie.

zenstar
28th Sep 2011, 08:28
Personally, it'd be nice if there was a "value stolen vs money owed" kind of rule:

On the download side, however much pirated stuff you had would have it's value assessed, and you'd be fined the appropriate amount (As in, you downloaded ten games worth $70 each, you owe $700 in fines).

On the uploader side, the fine would be assessed on how much value was taken from the company (100,000 downloads of a $70 games, you owe $7000000 in fines). In cases where the value was far beyond the scope of being payable (See previous example), one year in jail per million owed could be substituted in.

...Harsh? Yes. But I suspect it'd make a few people a touch more leery of being the one to crack and upload a game/album/movie.

While I agree there should be harsh penalties for the guys uploading, in reality it's really difficult (especially here in the UK) to get them for more than the price of a single copy (for some legal reasons I don't fully follow or understand). In most cases the amount of stuff these guys have would land them in some crazy fines anyway, but then each and every copyright holder has to sue him individually since copyright infringement is not a felony.

Someone who downloads something should be held accountable to RRP of each thing they downloaded, I agree with that completely.

The problem is that with so many people leeching it's nearly impossible for a company to hunt them down and nail them because it costs more than $60 in legal fees to extract the price of a game from a pirate. Even if the pirate is made to pay the legal fees it's still treating the symptoms and not the cause (and still not cost effective).

I'm not sure what the answers are here tbh. Some pirates deserve to be slammed, but some deserve a rap on the wrists and distinguishing between the two is difficult. There needs to be some major paradigm shifts on both sides of the fence to get us to a better place.
Hopefully the new attempts in the industry (f2p and subscription mmo and crazy indies and episodic gaming) will help reshape the publishing side of things into something more community friendly.
We'll never get rid of pirate completely but that doesn't mean that we can't work towards a better goal for everyone. (I sound like such a hippy there :rolleyes: I'm really not.)

El Zoido
28th Sep 2011, 12:25
In somewhat related news, ACTA, the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is supposed to be signed this weekend.

This is really an outstanding example (at least in it's earliest incarnations) how massive lobbying and anti-democratic sentiments in the governments can result in a piece of law that is only serving the interests of industry and those who would like to extend their control over the people.
The negotiations have initially been conducted in secret, without any participation of the public.

Since then the whole thing has improved a bit, but still, it's one of those occasions when I really doubt just how democratic our governments really are...

Romeo
28th Sep 2011, 23:39
While I agree there should be harsh penalties for the guys uploading, in reality it's really difficult (especially here in the UK) to get them for more than the price of a single copy (for some legal reasons I don't fully follow or understand). In most cases the amount of stuff these guys have would land them in some crazy fines anyway, but then each and every copyright holder has to sue him individually since copyright infringement is not a felony.

Someone who downloads something should be held accountable to RRP of each thing they downloaded, I agree with that completely.

The problem is that with so many people leeching it's nearly impossible for a company to hunt them down and nail them because it costs more than $60 in legal fees to extract the price of a game from a pirate. Even if the pirate is made to pay the legal fees it's still treating the symptoms and not the cause (and still not cost effective).

I'm not sure what the answers are here tbh. Some pirates deserve to be slammed, but some deserve a rap on the wrists and distinguishing between the two is difficult. There needs to be some major paradigm shifts on both sides of the fence to get us to a better place.
Hopefully the new attempts in the industry (f2p and subscription mmo and crazy indies and episodic gaming) will help reshape the publishing side of things into something more community friendly.
We'll never get rid of pirate completely but that doesn't mean that we can't work towards a better goal for everyone. (I sound like such a hippy there :rolleyes: I'm really not.)
No, you don't sound like a hippy. You need at least twenty more "woahs" and "hey mans".

As to your points, I know what you mean. Legally, it's not worth going after almost anyone. And I also realize the weakness in my point (Namely, that companies wont be re-imbursed through my course of actions). The hope wouldn't be to make piracy repay any debts it incurs. The purpose would be to make it too dangerous to be involved with it. A comparable example would be selling tobacco to minors here in Canada. It's so easy to get caught, and the punishment is severe enough, that almost no one partakes in it anymore.

In somewhat related news, ACTA, the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is supposed to be signed this weekend.

This is really an outstanding example (at least in it's earliest incarnations) how massive lobbying and anti-democratic sentiments in the governments can result in a piece of law that is only serving the interests of industry and those who would like to extend their control over the people.
The negotiations have initially been conducted in secret, without any participation of the public.

Since then the whole thing has improved a bit, but still, it's one of those occasions when I really doubt just how democratic our governments really are...
That's a good first step, hopefully they'll have enough pull to make a difference.

zenstar
29th Sep 2011, 13:29
Stumbled across and interesting article about Music piracy in Sweden:
http://torrentfreak.com/music-piracy-continues-to-decline-thanks-to-spotify-110928/
Apparently there's been a steady decline in music piracy (about a 25% drop since 2009) due to Spotify. People are willing to put up with a few ads or even pay a little money to get access to massive amounts of media in one easy and convenient place.
This is the sort of thiking we need. I don't necisarily mean a rental service for games, but figuring out what people want from their entertainment / media and providing it to them in new and affordable ways is what publishers and distibutors need to think about.
There are so many people who pirate because it's easy to get what you want, sometimes easier than trying to buy it. If they were given an even easier and more secure option than torrenting a lot of them would gladly take it.
It won't solve the hardcore pirates or the packrats who just like having shiny discs full of data they never use (I knew a guy who collected tv shows. He watches less than 1/2 of what he downloads and he has to complete the collections even if he doesn't watch the show. He just likes having the massive pile of DVDs), but it certainly hooks the less commited pirates and generates a revenue stream (both advertising and subscriptions).

Jason Parker
29th Sep 2011, 14:13
Stumbled across and interesting article about Music piracy in Sweden:
http://torrentfreak.com/music-piracy-continues-to-decline-thanks-to-spotify-110928/
Apparently there's been a steady decline in music piracy (about a 25% drop since 2009) due to Spotify. People are willing to put up with a few ads or even pay a little money to get access to massive amounts of media in one easy and convenient place.
This is the sort of thiking we need. I don't necisarily mean a rental service for games, but figuring out what people want from their entertainment / media and providing it to them in new and affordable ways is what publishers and distibutors need to think about.
There are so many people who pirate because it's easy to get what you want, sometimes easier than trying to buy it. If they were given an even easier and more secure option than torrenting a lot of them would gladly take it.
It won't solve the hardcore pirates or the packrats who just like having shiny discs full of data they never use (I knew a guy who collected tv shows. He watches less than 1/2 of what he downloads and he has to complete the collections even if he doesn't watch the show. He just likes having the massive pile of DVDs), but it certainly hooks the less commited pirates and generates a revenue stream (both advertising and subscriptions).

My talking. Steam provides this for PC-Games. It's so convenient and with the holiday sales they're doing and places like g2play offering unbeatable prices I just can't be bothered downloading from slow torrents waiting for new cracks after each new patch and loading my PC with viruses, trojans and worms from stupid keygens. If it wasn't for overly restrictive DRM that forces online mode, buying legit copies allways beats pirating games except for the factor of not having to pay. Same goes for VOD services that usually have the newest movies available quite some time before a Disc-release and 1,99 to 4,99 per view for me is a reasonable price.

I still think piracy wouldn't be the problem it is today if the entertainment industry had not remained so ignorant of the opportunities the growing internet offered for far too long.

zenstar
29th Sep 2011, 14:31
I still think piracy wouldn't be the problem it is today if the entertainment industry had not remained so ignorant of the opportunities the growing internet offered for far too long.

I completely agree with you there. Old-school mentalities from publishers and distibutors need to change and they need to realise that the internet provides more opportunities for them than hazards. It's all in how they run with those opportunities.

Stop crying over spilt piracy and start baking an internet cake of awesome distribution!

Jason Parker
29th Sep 2011, 15:46
Stop crying over spilt piracy and start baking an internet cake of awesome distribution!

"The cake is a lie!!!"

TheUnbeholden
30th Sep 2011, 01:28
Hmm moddb had something on this let me find it.
They have never had piracy due to mods being free, but after the creation of Desura and therefore indie games which require a small fee.... apparently have high piracy rates.

edit. http://www.moddb.com/news/how-can-we-lower-game-piracy

DemonKing
30th Sep 2011, 01:35
Read carefully kids!

Ever seen Fight Club? Know it's rules? No? Here you go.

The Tutorial:

1: You don't tell anybody ever ever never ever never ever never that you
download illegal software. You never know who's listening.

2: never!

3: You don't ask for advice regarding illegal matters to total strangers. Why not!? Because they might perform a felony by NOT taking you in. Got that?

4: You never ever never ever tell what programs you use, what your isp is, what your family name is and how old you are. ANY INFORMATION will be used against you.

FAQ:

Q: I don't get it

A: Can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Q: Is everything i say cached?

A: Ever heard of Google!?

Q: Is everything i do on the internet logged?

A: Ever heard of router tables for instance?

Q: Am i anonymous?

A: No. You are NEVER anonymous. You use at least one ip address.

Q: But that can be an anonymous ip!

A: Sure. Keep thinking that while the feds show up.

Q: So, in basic if you want to obtain illegal stuff you just teach yourself, ask knowledge among trusted people and keep a very low profile?

A: Tadaaa!

Q: Can i trust you?

A: Do i know you? Do you know me?

Fluffis
30th Sep 2011, 02:32
http://skepticalteacher.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/conspiracy.jpg

Romeo
30th Sep 2011, 03:37
I completely agree with you there. Old-school mentalities from publishers and distibutors need to change and they need to realise that the internet provides more opportunities for them than hazards. It's all in how they run with those opportunities.

Stop crying over spilt piracy and start baking an internet cake of awesome distribution!

"The cake is a lie!!!"
Both of you are completely right. While I don't agree with the act of piracy, I will wholly admit that staying at home sounds significantly better than wandering down to EB Games (Which is about a half hour trip when there's no traffic). I think Steam is a massive step forward here, as are downloadable movies (And services). I can attest to Steam's annoying DRM on occasion. Once that's corrected, I think games will be as easy as they possibly can be to get. Do I think it'll stop piracy? No. But I think you're both right in saying it'll stem a few people from doing it.

http://skepticalteacher.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/conspiracy.jpg
God I love that picture. lol

Pinky_Powers
30th Sep 2011, 03:55
Read carefully kids!

Ever seen Fight Club? Know it's rules? No? Here you go.

The Tutorial:

1: You don't tell anybody ever ever never ever never ever never that you
download illegal software. You never know who's listening.

2: never!

3: You don't ask for advice regarding illegal matters to total strangers. Why not!? Because they might perform a felony by NOT taking you in. Got that?

4: You never ever never ever tell what programs you use, what your isp is, what your family name is and how old you are. ANY INFORMATION will be used against you.

FAQ:

Q: I don't get it

A: Can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Q: Is everything i say cached?

A: Ever heard of Google!?

Q: Is everything i do on the internet logged?

A: Ever heard of router tables for instance?

Q: Am i anonymous?

A: No. You are NEVER anonymous. You use at least one ip address.

Q: But that can be an anonymous ip!

A: Sure. Keep thinking that while the feds show up.

Q: So, in basic if you want to obtain illegal stuff you just teach yourself, ask knowledge among trusted people and keep a very low profile?

A: Tadaaa!

Q: Can i trust you?

A: Do i know you? Do you know me?

Do you go around the internet registering at random forums to make posts like this? You're like a public servant, right? :D

Jason Parker
30th Sep 2011, 10:32
Read carefully kids!

Ever seen Fight Club? Know it's rules? No? Here you go.

The Tutorial:

1: You don't tell anybody ever ever never ever never ever never that you
download illegal software. You never know who's listening.

2: never!

3: You don't ask for advice regarding illegal matters to total strangers. Why not!? Because they might perform a felony by NOT taking you in. Got that?

4: You never ever never ever tell what programs you use, what your isp is, what your family name is and how old you are. ANY INFORMATION will be used against you.

FAQ:

Q: I don't get it

A: Can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Q: Is everything i say cached?

A: Ever heard of Google!?

Q: Is everything i do on the internet logged?

A: Ever heard of router tables for instance?

Q: Am i anonymous?

A: No. You are NEVER anonymous. You use at least one ip address.

Q: But that can be an anonymous ip!

A: Sure. Keep thinking that while the feds show up.

Q: So, in basic if you want to obtain illegal stuff you just teach yourself, ask knowledge among trusted people and keep a very low profile?

A: Tadaaa!

Q: Can i trust you?

A: Do i know you? Do you know me?

Assuming what you say is true, then the entertainment industry does obvisouly not have much interest in stopping piracy right away, because we all know the trackers, we all know the forums where the RS, NL ... links and torrents are shared. They're easy enough to find using google. Yet those places hardly go down, nor do the people posting vanish suddenly.

The explanation is quite easy: With piracy in place it's a lot easier for their lobbyists to punch through thing's like ACTA and the like.

Discoman
30th Sep 2011, 17:04
SquareSoft does a good job on cracking down, even it means going after people that were modding an old game of yours for free. They also find and close down people that share their soundtracks too.

Used games are more of a problem and so is renting a game. That's cause people are actually paying for the game, except its not to the makers.

Jason Parker
30th Sep 2011, 23:14
Used games are more of a problem and so is renting a game. That's cause people are actually paying for the game, except its not to the makers.

No that's just because in most countries it's not against the law to resell things you legally obtained through purchase. I think I already stated before that in a lot of countries the obligatory EULA coming with games on discs simply is void because there are paragraphs in them that are not covered or in some cases are even breaking the local laws.

You can stamp "not for resale" on your discs as much as you like. If the laws of my country do not prohibit selling my property it's totally fine to resell my games on ebay as I see fit (a shame though that the reselling value of PC Games is close to none due to piracy, my Wing Commander 5 Box only got me 3€).

Romeo
30th Sep 2011, 23:22
Used games are more of a problem and so is renting a game. That's cause people are actually paying for the game, except its not to the makers.
No. Not at all.

Here's an example of two people in both situations...

Selling a used game:
Someone had bought the game new to begin with, so the develloper made money there.
The seller makes money back, possibly enabling them to buy a new game.
The buyer might consider downloading DLC and whatnot, supporting the develloper.

Downloading illegally:
Neither one bought a game. No money to the develloper.
Neither one is going to make money back, and likely wont go out and buy a game when they can get it illegally for free.
Chances are, one isn't going to download DLC for a pirated game either (Risk of getting caught, lack of functionality, spending money on a free product).



Which one of those two looks "worse" to you?

itsonyourhead
1st Oct 2011, 00:35
No. Not at all.

Here's an example of two people in both situations...

Selling a used game:
Someone had bought the game new to begin with, so the develloper made money there.
The seller makes money back, possibly enabling them to buy a new game.
The buyer might consider downloading DLC and whatnot, supporting the develloper.

Downloading illegally:
Neither one bought a game. No money to the develloper.
Neither one is going to make money back, and likely wont go out and buy a game when they can get it illegally for free.
Chances are, one isn't going to download DLC for a pirated game either (Risk of getting caught, lack of functionality, spending money on a free product).



Which one of those two looks "worse" to you?

Consider this one...

Used game sale:
Consumer goes into store intending to buy game
Consumer sees cheaper used version
consumer buys cheaper used version - EM loses that consumer's money.

Pirate:
Consumer never intends to buy game
Consumer pirates game. - EM gets nothing.
Some small fraction of those who pirate the game end up liking it so much they buy it and it's sequel to support the developer, since they understand what it means to buy a game and where the money goes.

In both cases the player gets the game and plays it.
In one case EM loses money it would otherwise have had.
In the other case EM gains some revenue from fans it wouldn't have otherwise had.

Which one looks worse now?

jd10013
1st Oct 2011, 01:57
Used games are more of a problem and so is renting a game. That's cause people are actually paying for the game, except its not to the makers.

that and countries like china that do not offer any copyright protection to anybody.

now I know this isn't games http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/21/us-china-apple-fake-idUSTRE76K1SU20110721
but that shows just how bad the problem is over there. they have factories pumping out millions and millions of software titles being sold not just in china, but all over that region of the world. and though the official government position is to stop it, they pretty much just look the other way. these aren't pirates making a few copies at home or putting software up on a server. these are actual factories pumping out disks in boxes with all the books and and everything.

drunkrussian9
1st Oct 2011, 04:47
Pirate:
Consumer never intends to buy game
Consumer pirates game. - EM gets nothing.

I wonder... If piracy stopped dead in it's tracks, and no sales increase was noticed, would things really be better for the manufacturer?

Oh and btw your ISP can track your illegal downloads, I've gotten two letters:p

Romeo
1st Oct 2011, 05:28
Consider this one...

Used game sale:
Consumer goes into store intending to buy game
Consumer sees cheaper used version
consumer buys cheaper used version - EM loses that consumer's money.

Pirate:
Consumer never intends to buy game
Consumer pirates game. - EM gets nothing.
Some small fraction of those who pirate the game end up liking it so much they buy it and it's sequel to support the developer, since they understand what it means to buy a game and where the money goes.

In both cases the player gets the game and plays it.
In one case EM loses money it would otherwise have had.
In the other case EM gains some revenue from fans it wouldn't have otherwise had.

Which one looks worse now?
Again, the reason that game is even in the store used is because someone bought it new. On top of that, used games usually don't show up until a game has been in stores for a little while, which means someone who had the intention of buying the game probably would've done so already.

If the customer never intends to buy the game, they don't deserve to play it - case closed. Actually, no, to add one more point on to that, the person downloading a game knows what they're downloading. They aren't going to hop online and download a multi-gigabyte file on a whim. Which means when the sequel comes out, they're probably just going to do the same thing as they did the first time. To believe otherwise is naive.

Piracy still looks worse. Your turn.

Tverdyj
1st Oct 2011, 07:36
I wonder... If piracy stopped dead in it's tracks, and no sales increase was noticed, would things really be better for the manufacturer?

Oh and btw your ISP can track your illegal downloads, I've gotten two letters:p

i've gotten an email complaint for an mp3 file I didn't download 9I had issues with my router, so I had it running un-passworded at the time). I told them that was the case, and that i'll slap a password on the wi-fi. never heard from them again.

although i'll never forget about how my floormate got a threatening letter from Universal studios for getting a copy of "fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" of the rez DC++ hub in first year uni.

Jason Parker
1st Oct 2011, 08:00
I guess you didn't quite get discoman's point: He did not want to say used games and game rental was a bigger problem than priacy. He wanted to say it is a bigger problem for publishers to prevent their games from being sold as used copies or rented than it is preventing their games from being pirated because in latter case they have backup by laws which they don'T have in the former.

Actually that's a good thing. You have yet to make it plausible to me why reselling used games should be forbidden. There is no valid reason at all to do it. Those EULAS telling you you only obtained licence to use the software on the discs but not ownership are a nice try though ;-).

Kvltism
1st Oct 2011, 11:21
...used games usually don't show up until a game has been in stores for a little while, which means someone who had the intention of buying the game probably would've done so already.

Not necessarily. For one, there are plenty of people who don't rush out to purchase a game on release-day. And I know from experience that the day after release, stores like EB will be peddling pre-owned copies if they can. This should come as no surprise when you consider how short a lot of games can be these days. *cough Kane & Lynch 2 cough* Worse, I know they like to deliberately under-stock titles, as it encourages customers to consider purchasing a pre-owned copy.

El Zoido
5th Oct 2011, 10:25
Found this interesting (for all german speaking people here):

An interview in the CC2 podcast with a lawyer specialized in all things connected with file-sharing and intellectual property in german law. He seems to be working mostly as a defense lawyer for people accused of copyright infringement due to file-sharing.
A lot of interesting information about what's going on in german courts right now:

www.cczwei.de Podcast Ausgabe 290 (http://www.cczwei.de/index.php?id=issuearchive&issueid=373#a761)

zenstar
5th Oct 2011, 11:30
Not necessarily. For one, there are plenty of people who don't rush out to purchase a game on release-day. And I know from experience that the day after release, stores like EB will be peddling pre-owned copies if they can. This should come as no surprise when you consider how short a lot of games can be these days. *cough Kane & Lynch 2 cough* Worse, I know they like to deliberately under-stock titles, as it encourages customers to consider purchasing a pre-owned copy.

I hate when shops try push their used copies on me. I understand that they make more (sometimes crazy amounts more) profit on used games but if I'm trying to buy a new game I do not want to be offered the used copy. I like buying my games new for various reasons including: no missing bits, supporting the devs, no hassle with locked off content.

You can't blame a company for trying to maximise it's profits, but I can blame them for annoying the hell out of me by peddling their grubby copies with missing manuals and scratched up discs when I'm trying to buy a sealed copy.

I remember falling for their bull when I bought a gameboy advance game once and discovered that it kept stats and unlocked things based on stats and I couldn't reset those stats so everything was unlocked. Completely removed the fun of working towards unlocks and ruined a part of the game for me. I searched online for reset procedures and it seems that there were none. Since then I bought new. If I can't afford new then I'll wait until I can.

In a utopian world games would be worth hanging onto because they're good and fun and new games would be affordable enough that people would need to buy second hand. Personally I don't like the second hand market for games. Especially with the retailers shoving it on you and downplaying new copies as much as possible.

I've actually been told to wait a few days to buy a game because it's cheaper second hand and there'll be second hand copies in a few days, when I'm trying to purchase the game new on release day. That "genius" obviously thinks that the publisher must print special "second hand copies" for them. How else do you get them if you never sell new copies? :hmm:

Romeo
6th Oct 2011, 00:15
I hate when shops try push their used copies on me. I understand that they make more (sometimes crazy amounts more) profit on used games but if I'm trying to buy a new game I do not want to be offered the used copy. I like buying my games new for various reasons including: no missing bits, supporting the devs, no hassle with locked off content.

You can't blame a company for trying to maximise it's profits, but I can blame them for annoying the hell out of me by peddling their grubby copies with missing manuals and scratched up discs when I'm trying to buy a sealed copy.

I remember falling for their bull when I bought a gameboy advance game once and discovered that it kept stats and unlocked things based on stats and I couldn't reset those stats so everything was unlocked. Completely removed the fun of working towards unlocks and ruined a part of the game for me. I searched online for reset procedures and it seems that there were none. Since then I bought new. If I can't afford new then I'll wait until I can.

In a utopian world games would be worth hanging onto because they're good and fun and new games would be affordable enough that people would need to buy second hand. Personally I don't like the second hand market for games. Especially with the retailers shoving it on you and downplaying new copies as much as possible.

I've actually been told to wait a few days to buy a game because it's cheaper second hand and there'll be second hand copies in a few days, when I'm trying to purchase the game new on release day. That "genius" obviously thinks that the publisher must print special "second hand copies" for them. How else do you get them if you never sell new copies? :hmm:
I actually really liked the way EA handled the situation with Mass Effect 2: Giving bonus content to those who bought the game new.

For those who don't know, the game came with a code for "Cerberus Intelligence Network" (Or some such thing). The code could only be redeemed once, and when it was redeemed, gave access to a new character, multiple new weapons, multiple missions and daily information updates. If you bought the game used, chances are the original owner would've already redeemed their code, leaving you with a $15 cost if you wanted to buy it.

Some people hated it, but frankly I thought it was a completely non-intrusive way to garauntee the develloper at least some revenue, regardless of whether or not the game was bought new.

itsonyourhead
6th Oct 2011, 02:58
Again, the reason that game is even in the store used is because someone bought it new. On top of that, used games usually don't show up until a game has been in stores for a little while, which means someone who had the intention of buying the game probably would've done so already.

If the customer never intends to buy the game, they don't deserve to play it - case closed. Actually, no, to add one more point on to that, the person downloading a game knows what they're downloading. They aren't going to hop online and download a multi-gigabyte file on a whim. Which means when the sequel comes out, they're probably just going to do the same thing as they did the first time. To believe otherwise is naive.

Piracy still looks worse. Your turn.

I'm not talking about which is worse from a moral stand-point, I'm talking about which is worse for the profits of the developer/publisher.

Used games are not really morally wrong, like piracy is. But used games, being not morally wrong, still hurt developers/publishers more than piracy does.

Developers/publishers could see it as just "the cost of doing business". But then they could also see black-market piracy as also "the cost of doing business".

Romeo
6th Oct 2011, 03:04
I'm not talking about which is worse from a moral stand-point, I'm talking about which is worse for the profits of the developer/publisher.

Used games are not really morally wrong, like piracy is. But used games, being not morally wrong, still hurt developers/publishers more than piracy does.

Developers/publishers could see it as just "the cost of doing business". But then they could also see black-market piracy as also "the cost of doing business".
...Did you read my reply? It was designed around the fiscal impacts of both - of which I consider used games to be less damaging than piracy. Read it again, you'll find I addressed the point of profits by mentioning that 75 used games being sold still means 75 people bought that game new to begin with. 75 people pirating a game means at most, one person (The original seeder) bought that game.

mahmoudd
6th Oct 2011, 16:23
oh yeah, and don't forget kids

anyone who doesn't buy the game is a potential pirate!

Again, the reason that game is even in the store used is because someone bought it new. On top of that, used games usually don't show up until a game has been in stores for a little while, which means someone who had the intention of buying the game probably would've done so already.

If the customer never intends to buy the game, they don't deserve to play it - case closed. Actually, no, to add one more point on to that, the person downloading a game knows what they're downloading. They aren't going to hop online and download a multi-gigabyte file on a whim. Which means when the sequel comes out, they're probably just going to do the same thing as they did the first time. To believe otherwise is naive.

Piracy still looks worse. Your turn.
out of all the people i know that play video games (extensively on console and pc) happen to also be the biggest pirates i know and the biggest buyer of video games i know

so, huh, yeah.

Romeo
6th Oct 2011, 17:13
oh yeah, and don't forget kids

anyone who doesn't buy the game is a potential pirate!

out of all the people i know that play video games (extensively on console and pc) happen to also be the biggest pirates i know and the biggest buyer of video games i know

so, huh, yeah.
You just lowered the entire community's IQ. By a large amount.

As has been said by dozens of individuals in this thread so far: Nothing wrong with not buying a game. Just don't buy it. But then you don't deserve to play it, so, huh, yeah.

lhaymehr
7th Oct 2011, 11:51
I'll just quote a game dev that posted on our PC forum.


I don't post here very often, but I figured I'd throw my two cents in on this subject.

I've worked in the video game industry (Bay Area, C.A.-based company) and I can say that (a vast majority of) developers really couldn't give two ****s less about piracy. Every so often someone in the industry will pop off about piracy or DRM or whatever, but it's mostly just to make it look like they're being "tough on crime/piracy" so it'll look good for investors, i.e. the people who really do give a **** about every penny.
The profits the developers lose to piracy (if any, depending on their contract with the publisher, who are the ones who typically see the actual losses from piracy) is an infinitesimally small fraction-of-a-fraction. They're so small that they're never even on the radar at board meetings. They lose more money on buying office supplies.
That being said, any perceived move to a more console-centric business model has little to do with piracy and more to do with market saturation. Far more people own consoles than people do high-end gaming rigs, so it stands to reason that one would make more money developing games for a wider customer base.
As for the argument against the QUALITY of PC games in the recent past, I wouldn't say they're any better or worse than the ones that come out on consoles. Blame for this issue lies square at the feet of publishers that impose ridiculous deadlines and quotas on over-stressed developers that could force them to work 18-hour days for up to three months to meet a deadline. You ever try to build character rigs for 18 hours straight after maybe three hours of sleep while your art director is constantly pissing nails down your neck? It's even worse on the code end of things.
Instead of complaining about the quality of games and blaming it on piracy, y'all may want to take a minute to think about how the industry works as a whole and not put too much stock into what the PR guys tell devs to say in interviews.

Oh and..


You just lowered the entire community's IQ. By a large amount.

Whoever made you a moderator made a mistake. Your outbursts rival those of who you're insulting.

zenstar
7th Oct 2011, 12:55
I'll just quote a game dev that posted on our PC forum.
That is an interesting viewpoint from the developer.
I wonder how many developers feel that way. I remember the humble indie bundle guys reporting on the interesting aspects of piracy they encountered. They obviously had some feelings sbout piracy since they had no publisher buffering them from it, and they concluded that it didn't hurt them that much.
I did read another small blurb somewhere (don't remember where) about a similar situation with a small indie co getting pirated a lot and they were upset about it.

We have to look at all evidence in context though. While what that quote might be saying is true, it is coming from his viewpoint where he's shielded behind the publisher who get impacted the most. The publishers risk a lot of their own money when they pick up a game in the hopes of making a lot more. Of course the publisher is going to be more annoyed by piracy than the devs. If the situation is bad enough then they'd be better off putting their money in a savings account because the interest would be a better return.
Ofc I doubt things'll ever be that bad for them (unless they publish a real stinker of a game but that is a different cause of loss) but they're still a business and if you can't blame the retailer for selling 2nd hand games because they're there to make money then you can't blame a publisher for trying to stop piracy because they are there to make money too.
You can blame both of them for going about it the wrong way though. And you can certainly blame the pirates for pirating and causing it to be a valid talking point (no matter how weak or misunderstood).

While I'm not a games developer I can give you my viewpoint as a developer of a business applications. I wouldn't want my work pirated. Luckily our software is contract based and we keep control of user accounts and store the data on our servers / do the computations via our webservices so our product is pretty hard to pirate, but if it weren't for these facts piracy could have closed the company in it's early days and every copy pirated would impact our revenue quite a bit if it were a standalone product. A bad spate of piracy would probably cost people their jobs here.
As I say: luckily we're a service provider more than a stand alone solution provider but we don't have the luxury of a publishing house to absorb the costs of piracy. I'm sure I'd care very little about piracy in a stand alone solution situation if it never affected me other than a fraction of a fraction.

Ashpolt
7th Oct 2011, 13:12
Of course developers don't care that much about piracy, especially at code-monkey level - their pay isn't dependent on game sales. They get paid a standard annual salary like any 9-5 office job whether the game sells 3 copies or 3 million. As zenstar said, it's the publishers who take the financial hit of a game selling badly. As long as a game still sells well - which is absolutely possible even with piracy, and will happen if it's a good game (remember, a game that sells 2 million and gets pirated 5 million times has still sold 2 million) - the dev (company) will still get funded to make more games, and the dev (person) will still have a job. It'll take a few poor sales figures in a row to endanger any serious amounts of jobs, and it'll take more than piracy to create that kind of situation.

Some individuals may have a bonus awarded which is dependent on sales, but they'll really be the high level execs. In rare cases everyone on the team may get a bonus based on performance, but it'll be such a small amount - smaller than a standard annual bonus, most likely - that it won't be a significant motivator for individual anti-piracy anger.

A developer's job is to focus on making the games, they don't have to worry about the company's financial health overall unless it reaches critical status. Piracy affects only on a company level, not an individual one, so no, most developers won't care about it.

lhaymehr
7th Oct 2011, 14:32
The only group that's a piracy menace is the technicaly competent teens. Older folks have enough ethics to try and reward the artists, and us PC dinosaurs will outright buy a good PC game if we sniff one out.

As soon as DXHR leaked, I leeched and played it, loved it, placed a pre-order.
Few days ago RAGE got released, there was no demo and I snatched it. I thought it was technically flawed and, to not go into details, offered poor and constrained gameplay and level design which was uninteresting and unappealing to me. So I deleted it after a few hours, but my "snatched +1" is still counted in some tracker site.

It's as simple as that. Bankers yelling "Piracy! Piracy!" is getting old. Take a hint from Occupy Wall Street. Outdated, obstructive, unfair, greedy and going down, hard.

If you want money, make better games and shut the **** up about piracy.

Romeo
7th Oct 2011, 14:57
The only group that's a piracy menace is the technicaly competent teens. Older folks have enough ethics to try and reward the artists, and us PC dinosaurs will outright buy a good PC game if we sniff one out.

As soon as DXHR leaked, I leeched and played it, loved it, placed a pre-order.
Few days ago RAGE got released, there was no demo and I snatched it. I thought it was technically flawed and, to not go into details, offered poor and constrained gameplay and level design which was uninteresting and unappealing to me. So I deleted it after a few hours, but my "snatched +1" is still counted in some tracker site.

It's as simple as that. Bankers yelling "Piracy! Piracy!" is getting old. Take a hint from Occupy Wall Street. Outdated, obstructive, unfair, greedy and going down, hard.

If you want money, make better games and shut the **** up about piracy.
Let's see...

Based upon your previous upset post, still waiting on a reply to the point. If you don't want to buy the game, that is entirely your perogative. But, having made that choice, then you've also made the decision not to play the game.

Unfair and greedy is a pretty laughable term in the context, don't you think? Before you condemn the actions of a publisher, I'd like to see you invests millions in to a project, and then not bat an eye when others go and take that for free.

zenstar
7th Oct 2011, 16:06
The only group that's a piracy menace is the technicaly competent teens. Older folks have enough ethics to try and reward the artists, and us PC dinosaurs will outright buy a good PC game if we sniff one out.

This is so not true.
The only reason why teens seem to be the culprit is because, in general, they play more games. But gamers of all ages pirate. I've worked with 40+s that still pirate everything and buy nothing.
And don't forget that some countries just don't have the market in place and so almost everyone there pirates to get their games (old and young alike).

There are no age restrictions on piracy.

And piracy "as a demo" is still piracy. It should still be counted as a +1 pirated because it's still a copy pirated. Whether or not you keep that copy or whether or not you would have bought the game is another story. You got to play the game through illegal means without paying for it. That's the gist of it. Congratulations for deleting it, but it was still piracy. =/

Making better games is not going to stop piracy either. Pirates will still pirate. And the cash impact to the publishers does affect their choice in whether or not they'll support another game. That impact may not be as big as they calculate, but there is still a tangible impact.
Why shouldn't the publishers be vocal about it? if someone agrieved you in some way you'd complain about it. What makes you special and them mute?

jd10013
7th Oct 2011, 21:27
It's as simple as that. Bankers yelling "Piracy! Piracy!" is getting old. Take a hint from Occupy Wall Street. Outdated, obstructive, unfair, greedy and going down, hard.




lol, thanks for the laugh.

zenstar
12th Oct 2011, 13:25
This is odd, but if it's true that company should be commended for thinking outside the box.
http://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-company-pirates-deus-ex-in-controversial-experiment-111010/

Obviously there are issues of bias around the questionnaire (esp if the pirates thought they may be being monitored) but it's still interesting information.

Jason Parker
12th Oct 2011, 13:55
This is odd, but if it's true that company should be commended for thinking outside the box.
http://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-company-pirates-deus-ex-in-controversial-experiment-111010/

Obviously there are issues of bias around the questionnaire (esp if the pirates thought they may be being monitored) but it's still interesting information.

Well I kinda have to agree to the guy that wrote the article: Trying to revive the shareware business-model is not an innovation or "out of box" thinking at all. And one would think that publishers have good reason not to use that model anymore.

On the other hand solely the fact that those guys think that this way they could make money from publishers by offering them to spread shareware copies of their games shows to me how little care for and knowledge of gaming (history and business) or plain reason those persons with the money and thus the decisive power in hand seemingly have. It just sheds more light to the reasons why so many indie devs are popping up in the last years and are being quite succesful.

zenstar
12th Oct 2011, 14:17
Well I kinda have to agree to the guy that wrote the article: Trying to revive the shareware business-model is not an innovation or "out of box" thinking at all. And one would think that publishers have good reason not to use that model anymore.

On the other hand solely the fact that those guys think that this way they could make money from publishers by offering them to spread shareware copies of their games shows to me how little care for and knowledge of gaming (history and business) or plain reason those persons with the money and thus the decisive power in hand seemingly have. It just sheds more light to the reasons why so many indie devs are popping up in the last years and are being quite succesful.

Well the way they managed to get the information was interesting and out-of-the box thinking.
The shareware business model is obviously old hat. Whether or not it's applicable to today's market I can't comment, but I'd like to see it make a comeback or at least see more demos.

I think their main aim isn't making money from publishers but getting publishers to change their perceptions of pirates. Treat them as potential customers and figure out how to make them buy something they like rather than just pirate it.

Either way, what they did was interesting. Hopefully publishers will start being more experimental with PC distribution. Innovation is always good even when it fails. Stagnation will lead to rot. At least the idie devs are always trying new things, but it's time the big boys became more agile too.

/shrug. Thought it was an interesting article and kinda relevant to this thread.

Jason Parker
12th Oct 2011, 17:19
/shrug. Thought it was an interesting article and kinda relevant to this thread.

It definetly is.

If the information they published is valid it supports what many here already stated: Accounting for every downloaded copy as a copy not baught and thus one to be incorporated into loss calculation is simply wrong. Also accounting for each pirated copy as a copy that would have been baught if no illegal copy was available is wrong.

From my perspective I agree that especially considering the lack of demos nowadays, shareware copies that let you play the first parts of a game for free and then lead you to a place to buy the full product to me seem like a much more suiting way to mitigate piracy than DRM is. Especially if you spread them through the warezsites.

jeyeichkey
12th Oct 2011, 17:36
I haven't read it all, I admitt it. But I say it anyway. Piracy isn't always bad. You should listen to what Niel Gaiman has to say about piracy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qkyt1wXNlI

Romeo
12th Oct 2011, 23:31
It definetly is.

If the information they published is valid it supports what many here already stated: Accounting for every downloaded copy as a copy not baught and thus one to be incorporated into loss calculation is simply wrong. Also accounting for each pirated copy as a copy that would have been baught if no illegal copy was available is wrong.

From my perspective I agree that especially considering the lack of demos nowadays, shareware copies that let you play the first parts of a game for free and then lead you to a place to buy the full product to me seem like a much more suiting way to mitigate piracy than DRM is. Especially if you spread them through the warezsites.
For sure. In fact, I'd say the opening post is off in the wrong direction. People always look at piracy as a 1:1 ratio will always be a false statement, as many people that downloaded wouldn't have bought the game in the first place. However, this still brings me to my original problem with piracy: Entitlement.

Back when I was still in my apprenticeship phase, I couldn't afford to buy two games within a given month, but the option was never "buy one, pirate the other". If I couldn't afford the second one, that was my problem. I couldn't afford it, I didn't deserve it, end of story. If I wanted the second game that badly, then the option went to me to buy less car stuff that month, or hold off a month to buy it. I can only imagine how much it would've sucked if people treated car mechanics like they treated devellopers: Oh, your oil change was good, but the shop across the street gives me a coffee while I wait, so I decided not to pay you for your work. :rolleyes:

I haven't read it all, I admitt it. But I say it anyway. Piracy isn't always bad. You should listen to what Niel Gaiman has to say about piracy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qkyt1wXNlI
Treating it as "free advertising" is so hopelessly naive, I'm surprised he could manage that with a straight face. Advertising and demos have a purpose - they tease you with various amounts of information about the game, hoping you like what you see enough to buy it. The inspiration to buy it is there because you haven't experienced the entirety of the game. Piracy nets you no money, and the person has the entire retail item already. To believe they're going to pay you, already having the full product, is an asanine belief.

zenstar
13th Oct 2011, 11:16
It definetly is.

If the information they published is valid it supports what many here already stated: Accounting for every downloaded copy as a copy not baught and thus one to be incorporated into loss calculation is simply wrong. Also accounting for each pirated copy as a copy that would have been baught if no illegal copy was available is wrong.

From my perspective I agree that especially considering the lack of demos nowadays, shareware copies that let you play the first parts of a game for free and then lead you to a place to buy the full product to me seem like a much more suiting way to mitigate piracy than DRM is. Especially if you spread them through the warezsites.

Yeah. I think everyone here agrees that the 1:1 philosophy is wrong. It's accountants wrangling the information for maximum impact.

If they did make shareware versions again (or demos or whatever) you'd probably find them being seeded by people on their own. I remember the amount of copying the free episode of Doom went through back in the day. Everyone who could play it got their hands on it to play it. Nowadays I think something like that would be shared through torrents just as speediliy.


I haven't read it all, I admitt it. But I say it anyway. Piracy isn't always bad. You should listen to what Niel Gaiman has to say about piracy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qkyt1wXNlI

There is an argument that states that piracy can be helpful. For example: MS can probably claim it's leading market domination in part to piracy on the home PC. If the options are a home computer running a competitor's OS or a pirated version of MS then the pirated version of MS benifits MS more.
It doesn't make piracy "not bad". It means there's a silver lining in that illegal raincloud.
It's a bit like saying murder isn't always bad... sometimes a bad person is murdered. Well... it makes a compelling argument but murder is still bad, it's just that sometimes the victim won't be missed by anyone. The murderer is still a murderer.
And yes... i'm not trying to equate piracy with murder at all. They are not even close on the scales of "bad things people can do". I picked the first illegal activity that popped into my mind (and yes: one is a felony and one isn't. another important distinction). I was just making an analogy about labeling things.
I'd much rather be surrounded by software pirates than murderers :)

Romeo
13th Oct 2011, 18:49
There is an argument that states that piracy can be helpful. For example: MS can probably claim it's leading market domination in part to piracy on the home PC. If the options are a home computer running a competitor's OS or a pirated version of MS then the pirated version of MS benifits MS more.
It doesn't make piracy "not bad". It means there's a silver lining in that illegal raincloud.
It's a bit like saying murder isn't always bad... sometimes a bad person is murdered. Well... it makes a compelling argument but murder is still bad, it's just that sometimes the victim won't be missed by anyone. The murderer is still a murderer.
And yes... i'm not trying to equate piracy with murder at all. They are not even close on the scales of "bad things people can do". I picked the first illegal activity that popped into my mind (and yes: one is a felony and one isn't. another important distinction). I was just making an analogy about labeling things.
I'd much rather be surrounded by software pirates than murderers :)
I'm sure a develloper would rather have them both be in close proximity. :hmm:

lol

jeyeichkey
13th Oct 2011, 20:07
@romeo
There are other people that has said the same. Mostly singers/bands, which I can agree that it might not be the best comparison.
Games are the most sold items, it is said. If I find the link I'm thining about I'll post it here.

zenstar
14th Oct 2011, 10:05
I'm sure a develloper would rather have them both be in close proximity. :hmm:

lol

Then we'd just have copies of murderers all over the place :rasp:

Jason Parker
14th Oct 2011, 11:11
Then we'd just have copies of murderers all over the place :rasp:

AYE, murderer pirate ahead. :p

Romeo
15th Oct 2011, 03:51
Then we'd just have copies of murderers all over the place :rasp:
Yeah, I didn't like the murderer enough to pay retail for him, but I still kinda wanted to see what he was like...

jeyeichkey
15th Oct 2011, 07:53
*heh* People are known to be drawn to the forbiddeon, or so it's said ;^)