A potentially original take on piracy? Probably not, but interesting.

[FieryTrainwreck]

Summary at the end.

Piracy is more or less rampant at this point, right? I mean the games industry is throwing out numbers that suggest almost as many people are stealing the games as buying them. Pretty much everyone I know pirates like a ************, and most of them aren't even all that savvy.

As someone who actually pays for my games, I can't fucking stand the pirates. I hate their bullshit arguments, none of which can really stand up to this simple chain of logic:

1. Games don't exist without someone paying for them.
2. I pay for games.
3. You don't.
4. My honest business provides free games for you.
5. That's bullshit.

You can hate the publishers all you want, and you can feel totally justified in stealing from them. But you will never be justified in stealing from me. End of story. Whatever other arguments you might concoct will never sidestep this one simple truth: paying customers subsidize the entertainment of the freeloaders, and that is entirely wrong.

But it's never that simple, is it? Even in my utter certainty that pirates are a bunch of assholes, I can't help wondering about the relationship between the rise of piracy and the stagnation (and frequent termination) of American employment income.

A recent study showed that fully half of all Americans live at or below 200% of the poverty line (commonly referred to as "low income"). 20% of New Yorkers fall below even the poverty line. These are staggering figures, and yet the mood in this country isn't exactly toxic. Yes, there's Occupy, but that didn't exactly touch off a revolution. We've got third-world levels of wealthy disparity in America, but people aren't burning down mansions. Why not?

The answer, IMO, is that even the nearly poor enjoy a relatively decent standard of living, and a big part of that quality of life is easy access to plenty of entertainment. No, you don't have a big house or a swimming pool or a fancy car. But you do have a relatively affordable HD TV and all the games, music, and movies you can pirate. All that entertainment serves as distraction from the fairly obvious truth: we're not a wealthy nation anymore. Not as concerns our average citizen, anyways.

Enter SOPA, PIPA, DMA, etc. The government is trying its damnest to crack down on piracy because they see nothing but lost dollars (taxable revenue) in every download. This is certainly folly - ***but not for the reasons your average forum-going pirate suggests***. Typically, a self-righteous pirate asshole will say something along the lines of "w/e, I wasn't going to buy it anyways". This might even be true, but I don't believe such people contribute even a significant fraction to our total piracy.

I think the vast majority of piracy, at home and abroad, is committed by people who cannot otherwise afford the product.

Do these people deserve the product when they cannot pay for it? Short answer: no. Long answer: revolution.

If the government could snap its fingers and eliminate all piracy tomorrow, what would happen? Well you'd have tens of millions of former pirates, poor people who simply couldn't afford to pay for games, music, and movies, sitting on their fucking hands as they finally realize how poor they've actually become. Sure, they never had the house/car/pool, but they were watching and playing the same shit as everyone else - and it was enough. Now, though, in our hypothetical world free of piracy?

Summary: I think there's at least an off chance that piracy, as a whole, might be a critical form of wealth redistribution, and its elimination might have drastic and unforeseen consequences for the United States and the world.

 

[Lilani]

Was the game you purchased the one that was cracked and uploaded as a torrent? No? Then they didn't it steal from you.

This is the sort of analogy you're trying to make: You buy a pair of sunglasses. Right after you pay for your sunglasses, somebody shoplifts a pair. That person didn't steal the sunglasses from you, they stole it from the store. It would have made no difference if you had bought orange juice or a nice sweater instead of the sunglasses. They stole the sunglasses, and the sunglasses belonged to the store. End of story.

 

[cliffski]

the point is that the store is only in business, with shelves full of sunglasses for people to steal, because of the honest people who shop there.

 

[Bostur]

So your theory is that Piracy acts as kind of a 'panem et circenses', 'bread and circuses' phenomenon?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses

Someone more revolutionary than me might claim that the drastic and unforeseen consequences that you imagine could happen, would be a natural and necessary development. But that the population is held back by superficial entertainment.

My own take is that easy access to entertainment probably is necessary for all societies, since poverty will always be a factor no matter how benevolent the rulers are. Keeping the worst consequences of poverty in check with entertainment, is probably better than the alternatives. I think you are right that piracy might act as kind of a safety valve. I think in general people buy the entertainment they can afford, and pirate the rest. So the total amount spent is a constant. The only thing that varies is how much entertainment is available to the populace.

Fighting piracy will most likely just move the problem to areas that are harder to protect. The music industry will probably be hit the hardest if game piracy can be completely eliminated. But that was a bit of digression, sorry about that.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Was the game you purchased the one that was cracked and uploaded as a torrent? No? Then they didn't it steal from you.

This is the sort of analogy you're trying to make: You buy a pair of sunglasses. Right after you pay for your sunglasses, somebody shoplifts a pair. That person didn't steal the sunglasses from you, they stole it from the store. It would have made no difference if you had bought orange juice or a nice sweater instead of the sunglasses. They stole the sunglasses, and the sunglasses belonged to the store. End of story.

I like how people say 'end of story' like their analogy solves the world's problems. Analogies are almost always flawed. (Hint: This includes yours)

What OP is saying is this: Let's say The Darkness was released. The OP and many others pay for a copy of The Darkness. Enough that there is enough money and demand for a sequel. So they make The Darkness 2. Anyone who pirates The Darkness 2 will technically be stealing from all of the people who bought The Darkness because without them, The Darkness 2 would never have been created in the first place, and The Darkness 3 might not be created, or may not have a long enough dev cycle to be good because of the decreased revenue from piracy. (This is ignoring other market factors, yes, but this is supposed to just be a simple explanation)

 

[Bema Jinn]

I have only ever pirated if i was curious about a game, but there was no demo (or the demo wasn't enough to show off the game).

Every game i have ever pirated, and liked, i bought.

If i had bought every game that i wasn't too sure about, then games like Duke Nukem would have been a commercial success - although i did bite the bullet and buy it on release day without pirating - big mistake, but reinforces my point.

My argument is, if there wasn't pirates the games industry would be flooded by crap games, because they would be making money off of it.

Another example - i pirated Skyrim, because i hated oblivion, so i thought i'd give skyrim a try. I LOVE it, and immediately went out and bought it brand new!

Having said all this, i rarely do pirate.

 

[Lilani]

I like how people say 'end of story' like their analogy solves the world's problems. Analogies are almost always flawed. (Hint: This includes yours)

I simply use the phrase to indicate I see no other ways the situation can be spun, or any other "ifs" or "maybes" to be addressed. Any other pretension you see in there is of your own design, and thus your problem.

What OP is saying is this: Let's say The Darkness was released. The OP and many others pay for a copy of The Darkness. Enough that there is enough money and demand for a sequel. So they make The Darkness 2. Anyone who pirates The Darkness 2 will technically be stealing from all of the people who bought The Darkness because without them, The Darkness 2 would never have been created in the first place, and The Darkness 3 might not be created, or may not have a long enough dev cycle to be good because of the decreased revenue from piracy. (This is ignoring other market factors, yes, but this is supposed to just be a simple explanation)

The most anyone could have pre-paid for Darkness 2 was a pre-order, and even then those don't become available until a good ways into the production. Otherwise, it was "made" without a single dime from players, legitimate or not. Games are made upon investments, like movies in that sense--you have the budget, you make the product, and then you try to earn your money back plus more as a profit. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. The game was made in full, regardless of whether or not a single soul would pay for it. The only people the pirates are short-changing are the developers, the publishers, the investors, and maybe the retailers (though now with digital distribution they're not always in the picture).

 

[TheDooD]

I pirated games because you realize how long would it take to track down and legally buy. All the NES, SNES, Genesis and Arcade games. The companies overall don't give a shit about. Hell without some piracy, good games that we're never translated into different languages would have never happen. A lot of games would have just vanished into the sands of time because those that played them in the arcades most likely don't remember what's it's called now.

It's all a bullshit cash grab. IF companies had legit testers there wouldn't be constant FULL game leaks weeks and even months before the release date. Or if games wouldn't be SO fucking easy to dump there wouldn't be such a problem. If companies released more demos instead of shitty trailers every other day it might strike more interest. If the prices of production and sells wasn't so goddamn insanely high, maybe more people would be willing to buy.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I like how people say 'end of story' like their analogy solves the world's problems. Analogies are almost always flawed. (Hint: This includes yours)

I simply use the phrase to indicate I see no other ways the situation can be spun, or any other "ifs" or "maybes" to be addressed. Any other pretension you see in there is of your own design, and thus your problem.

What OP is saying is this: Let's say The Darkness was released. The OP and many others pay for a copy of The Darkness. Enough that there is enough money and demand for a sequel. So they make The Darkness 2. Anyone who pirates The Darkness 2 will technically be stealing from all of the people who bought The Darkness because without them, The Darkness 2 would never have been created in the first place, and The Darkness 3 might not be created, or may not have a long enough dev cycle to be good because of the decreased revenue from piracy. (This is ignoring other market factors, yes, but this is supposed to just be a simple explanation)

The most anyone could have pre-paid for Darkness 2 was a pre-order, and even then those don't become available until a good ways into the production. Otherwise, it was "made" without a single dime from players, legitimate or not. Games are made upon investments, like movies in that sense--you have the budget, you make the product, and then you try to earn your money back plus more as a profit. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. The game was made in full, regardless of whether or not a single soul would pay for it. The only people the pirates are short-changing are the developers, the publishers, the investors, and maybe the retailers (though now with digital distribution they're not always in the picture).

But those people can't make games and investors won't put money into gaming without paying customers. The money for games development doesn't come out of thin air, It comes from honest gamers. That's the point the OP was trying to make.

Overall I think Neelie Kroes of the European Commission has it right

I've said that we have to safeguard the benefits of an open internet and that Sopa is not the model for Europe. What we need instead is laws that are effective, proportionate and preserve the open internet we cherish.

Or, as I put it on Twitter, speeding is illegal but you don't stop it by putting speed bumps on the motorway.

In the digital age, our current copyright system is not succeeding in its objectives. I agree we should fight against piracy. But it's becoming increasingly hard to legally enforce copyright, and enforcement is only one side of the coin.

On top of that virtually all artists are earning under £800 a month from copyright. That's pretty devastating, for the artists themselves and for Europe as a whole.

There are lots of potential ideas out there for new systems of recognition and reward - but too often they are killed stone dead by rigid, pre-digital legislation.

Meanwhile legislation can discriminate against innovative forms of distribution - for example, e-books don't benefit from the same VAT reduced rates as "physical" books.

Overall, I have been clear that we need to go back to basics and put artists back at the centre of copyright law.

We need to ensure internet access is as widespread as possible. And we need to deal with piracy from both angles. Piracy won't be minimised until the amount of legally available content is increased.

Neelie Kroes is the vice president of the European Commission and is responsible for issues relating to the Digital Agenda

(from the BBC website)

 

[Epona]

I can't fucking stand the pirates.

I don't think it's healthy, especially in this economy, for gamers to be hating on pirates because they care so much about the bottom line of some company that they don't receive a paycheck from. For example, do you hate Wal Mart shoplifters as much as you hate video game pirates? Why not?

As someone who actually pays for my games

You know, when I buy something at Wal Mart, I give no thought at all to shoplifters. Why do you care how others acquire games? Jealous that they are saving money?

 

[Zhukov]

I find it a bit hard to believe that the unwashed masses are being held in check by bitorrent and bootleg DVDs.

Oh, and I hate pirates too, but for a completely different reason. I hate them because they make me feel like an idiot for buying games. I could be getting them for free, and the removal of DRM and associated bullshit means I would even be getting a superior product.

 

[burningdragoon]

"A recent study showed that..."

Well that's nice, what study would that be? I don't care if you want to speculate, but if you mention a study, you should bring it with you to a discussion.

There are plenty of different reasons someone is going to pirate something. Some I am okay with, some I am not. The problem I have with the 'can't afford it' crowd, which I don't think is the biggest type of pirate (based off of nothing of course), is that there is quite a bit free entertainment available that's does not involve piracy. It might not be of the same caliber as other entertainment, but why does that matter if what they need is just some form of entertainment to keep them busy?

And just to mention a different side of things that I don't necessarily agree with, why should we accept piracy as legitimate 'good' part of society just so the poor people don't have to sit around twiddling their thumbs while they pity themselves? To be clear, I understand that being poor is no picnic and it's not as simple as 'work hard until you aren't poor anymore' but don't you think time would better spent to do something other than playing pirated games?

Fun fact: You know what my 'favorite' type of pirate is? The ones who do so simply because they see something they want and can get for free, so they take it and are honest about why they are doing it. No bullshit claims to justify it, just piracy for it's own sake. (note I am not condoning this behavior, just appreciating the lack of bullshit)

 

[Vegosiux]

Come on we've been down this road so many times. I don't support piracy, but as always, there are silly and stupid people on both sides of the chasm.

Out of curiosity though, I'd one day like to ask EA a question: "Would you prefer people to play a pirated Battlefield 3 or a genuine Modern Warfare 3?"

Do these people deserve the product when they cannot pay for it? Short answer: no. Long answer: revolution.

So nobody should dare give them a *gasp* gift. Since, if they can't afford it, they don't deserve to have it. So if someone gives it to them for free, they're the scum of the earth. Right. *ticks off another on the 'blanket statements shot down this week'* list.

This is what I mean with stupid silliness. You're weakening your own position by generalizing.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

I really can't buy the whole "can't afford the product" if those people have the hardware to play this games. If you can afford a TV + console or a PC strong enough to play the games than you can also afford the games.

TV's are cheap as hell these days and a PC is pretty much a requirement if you want to do ANYTHING.

 

[geK0]

What about obscure asian movies that aren't available where I live?

What about old games that are hard to find which there developers aren't seeing another dime from then anyway?

What about TV shows that I can watch for free anyway(assuming I have satellite or cable), but just want to watch during breaks at school (seriously, I have 4 hour breaks between classes sometimes)

What about really old TV shows that are hard to find and the developers aren't seeing a dime out of

What about games which are only available in japan?

What about old games I have owned in the past which I would like to play again?


If I have a reasonable means of paying for a product, I always do, sometimes piracy is the only viable means.
Megaman Legends 2 for example, a game which I would really like to own, sells on Ebay for a lot more than anyone would consider reasonable; Capcom doesn't make any profit from me being gouged by some Ebay douche, so why would I let myself be gouged?

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

You're weakening your own position by generalizing.

That's exactly what you are doing though. Surely you see the difference between receiving a gift and taking something you haven't paid for. Morally, and arguably in literal terms, they aren't the same thing.

I'd agree with the person in this thread that says pirates that at least admit what they are doing are considerably less irritating people. They do it because they can get something for free that they would otherwise have to pay for, anything else is just empty self justification.

It annoys me that I pay for games honestly and perpetuate an industry that could be doing more creatively and producing more varied games if they weren't losing money to piracy. If EA and Activision weren't wading in with their 'appeal to the casual market' because video games are too much of a risk financially.

There is the other side of it as Ms Kreos, and indeed the success of Stream in Russia, pointed out. That if availability and pricing improves piracy will decline and legitimate sales will rise.

That's the way we should be combating piracy not with bludgeons like SOPA. Until that happens it would be nice if less honest gamers didn't screw the rest of us over so much. The majority of DRM is in place because the industries knee jerk reaction to pirates after all.

 

[Vegosiux]

Surely you see the difference between receiving a gift and taking something you haven't paid for. Morally, and arguably in literal terms, they aren't the same thing.

Of course they aren't, that's my freaking point!

Tell that to people who keep going "If you didn't buy it, you shouldn't have it." because, a gift is something you didn't pay for, and those people have the gall to tell you that you don't deserve to have it, cause you didn't pay for it! That "getting stuff for free" is bad is a blanket statement, and a lousy argument.

Clear?