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

[boag]

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.

IF you would be so kind to indulge some of us

I would like you to expand on this point, I want you to take into consideration everything in this thread and explain how PIRACY = WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION.

I want to see a logical step by step analysis, about how you reached this conclusion.

 

[ResonanceSD]

snip

This is a well written post, and I agree with you for the most part.

It's fact that the biggest consumers of pirated content are countries that are either poor, or where there's great economic disparity between social classes. It's my opinion, however, that the number one cause for piracy worldwide, is the lack of price adjustment for different economies.

I live in Romania, where a triple A game can cost half, or in some cases over half, of the minimum wage here. Add to that the overall poor economic state of the country (low income, few jobs, so on), and it's little wonder that legitimate consumers end up being in the minority. Such is the case in many countries in Eastern Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.

Thankfully, there are a number of great digital distributors out there, who are making entertainment more affordable for all, particularly on the videogames front. Having said that, however, even a Steam promotion is not affordable enough for many people, and this just goes back to my original point.

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.

A PC that can play most of the games coming out right now are around 500-600 dollars at the lowest settings.

Dude, if you can't afford a luxury item given the low income, don't buy it. You don't buy cars or clothes you might really want but can't afford. games are a luxury. If the income is that low to begin with, why is there some ridiculous priority on games?


It's like there's some sort of general denial in society that entertainment is a right, rather than a luxury.

 

[TheDooD]

in that scenario, the idea was that the artist didnt WANT to share his work in that way, he wanted to share it in a different way. And the masses have no say in what that way is. Nor should they be able to force the artist simply because "most artists dont care".

Actually, artists can't just choose "any" way to profit from their work. They can choose several, and righ now, selling copies happens to be one of them.

But, for example, what if an artist feels that they want to publically display their work, and let the government support them financially from tax money that is collected for that purpose? They can't do that, because there is no such system in effect.

Or what if a game developer wants to earn profits by putting an ad on the loading screen, just like TV shows make a profit from ad segments? Again, they can't do that, because realistically, ads don't pay enough for that.

They can't do ANYTHING with their work, they are limited by the reality around them. And if in the near future, reality would be that getting payed for copies becomes unrealistic, that wouldn't be some great moral crisis, just a system change.

Im simpley responding to the idea that in a utopian future all art will be freely available to all and that anyone in the way of this dream by preventing piracy is a "bad egg". To which i responded the above. That although, as you say, the possibilities are grounded in reality the artist gets to look at what they can do and decide whats better. The idea that we deserve this free unlimited information doesnt sound utopian, as many artists do not want their work given away for free to everyone.

Selfish? Maybe. But its their choice. I was simply pointing out that it isnt utopian to force artists to give up their work as the person i quoted implied it was. Its very dictator like, the artist having only a single option of "Make available to all for free" and nothing else. And although utopian for us, the consumer, it isnt utopian for the artist who now has no control over the work. It sounds VERY dystopian and brutal to forcefully strip an artist of all their creations, sure they get credit but the second that "brush" leaves the paper its out of their hands in terms of where it goes and what happens to it. That seems wrong to me.

If the system changes all consenting artists can take part. No moral dillema in the system. All moral dillemas here arise from the artists desires being defied for selfish greed on the part of the consumer. Sure the artist probably should just want to be heard. But we cant tell them that, or make them think it. Its all about choice.

The artist isn't stripped of all their rights. They uploaded it to DeviantArt then people save it and or spread it around that doesn't belittle the artist's work a bit. Or somebody makes an few Songs, posts them on YT and leaves a megaupload link for anybody could DL it. It doesn't strip away the artist rights for what other people do to it when it's out there.

The original will always keep it's value. Hell the most of the money these musicians make are from gigs, concerts and touring. With artists it's from commissioned work. So what people do with the work after it been uploaded is pretty moot. They been paid for what they did and then they leave it for anybody to do with what they want.

If you think about the current systems placed now are much worse because the artist doesn't come first it's the label they're working under. That's why most indie guys are just happy with people know wow they are.

 

[Spitfire]

Dude, if you can't afford a luxury item given the low income, don't buy it. You don't buy cars or clothes you might really want but can't afford. games are a luxury. If the income is that low to begin with, why is there some ridiculous priority on games?

This is why I talked about the need for games to be priced for local economies. In some countries, you could have a modest, or even high income, and still not be able to afford a new triple A game, due to it being priced for a completely different economy.

It's like there's some sort of general denial in society that entertainment is a right, rather than a luxury.

I never said that entertainment is not a luxury.

 

[Alterego-X]

Im simpley responding to the idea that in a utopian future all art will be freely available to all and that anyone in the way of this dream by preventing piracy is a "bad egg". To which i responded the above. That although, as you say, the possibilities are grounded in reality the artist gets to look at what they can do and decide whats better. The idea that we deserve this free unlimited information doesnt sound utopian, as many artists do not want their work given away for free to everyone.

Selfish? Maybe. But its their choice. I was simply pointing out that it isnt utopian to force artists to give up their work as the person i quoted implied it was. Its very dictator like, the artist having only a single option of "Make available to all for free" and nothing else. And although utopian for us, the consumer, it isnt utopian for the artist who now has no control over the work. It sounds VERY dystopian and brutal to forcefully strip an artist of all their creations, sure they get credit but the second that "brush" leaves the paper its out of their hands in terms of where it goes and what happens to it. That seems wrong to me.

If the system changes all consenting artists can take part. No moral dillema in the system. All moral dillemas here arise from the artists desires being defied for selfish greed on the part of the consumer. Sure the artist probably should just want to be heard. But we cant tell them that, or make them think it. Its all about choice.

And just like you were previously exaggerating how artists can do "anything" with their work, now you are assuming that if they can't charge for copies, then they can do "nothing" with them.

You might as well say that the TV industry is "dystopian and brutal", because there, artists can't force out paayment just for selling copies of their own work, but for either ads, or from prmium channel subscriptions. The same goes for the Internet, like webcomic artists, article writers, etc. Or the Anime industry, where works are first aired for free on TV, and then the more dedicated fans can optionally also buy the DVD. There are entire basic media formats, that are inappropriate for expecting "total artist control" over unit sales.

Of course these artist don't lose "total control" over their work in general. Just as I said, it wasn't ever *total control*, and personal copy control just one element of control. These artists still keep their control to prevent other people from distributing the work as their own, to borrow the characters/settings for another commercial work, or to be the sole merchandize distributor.

I don't think that I have an inherent right to copying those works, but I don't think that artists have an *inherent* right to stop me from copying them either. It was just one of the practical ways to make money in-between the Gutenberg era and the Zuckerberg era, when most copies of stuff were made in factories, that the authorities could easily shut down. But when any of a billion internet users can post what can lead to infinite copies, and shutting it down means censoring the whole system, and slowing down it's development, then the artists, publishers, and authorities who keep insisting on laws enfocing it, instead of moving on, are foolish.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Im simpley responding to the idea that in a utopian future all art will be freely available to all and that anyone in the way of this dream by preventing piracy is a "bad egg". To which i responded the above. That although, as you say, the possibilities are grounded in reality the artist gets to look at what they can do and decide whats better. The idea that we deserve this free unlimited information doesnt sound utopian, as many artists do not want their work given away for free to everyone.

Selfish? Maybe. But its their choice. I was simply pointing out that it isnt utopian to force artists to give up their work as the person i quoted implied it was. Its very dictator like, the artist having only a single option of "Make available to all for free" and nothing else. And although utopian for us, the consumer, it isnt utopian for the artist who now has no control over the work. It sounds VERY dystopian and brutal to forcefully strip an artist of all their creations, sure they get credit but the second that "brush" leaves the paper its out of their hands in terms of where it goes and what happens to it. That seems wrong to me.

If the system changes all consenting artists can take part. No moral dillema in the system. All moral dillemas here arise from the artists desires being defied for selfish greed on the part of the consumer. Sure the artist probably should just want to be heard. But we cant tell them that, or make them think it. Its all about choice.

And just like you were previously exaggerating how artists can do "anything" with their work, now you are assuming that if they can't charge for copies, then they can do "nothing" with them.

You might as well say that the TV industry is "dystopian and brutal", because there, artists can't force out paayment just for selling copies of their own work, but for either ads, or from prmium channel subscriptions. The same goes for the Internet, like webcomic artists, article writers, etc. Or the Anime industry, where works are first aired for free on TV, and then the more dedicated fans can optionally also buy the DVD. There are entire basic media formats, that are inappropriate for expecting "total artist control" over unit sales.

Of course these artist don't lose "total control" over their work in general. Just as I said, it wasn't ever *total control*, and personal copy control just one element of control. These artists still keep their control to prevent other people from distributing the work as their own, to borrow the characters/settings for another commercial work, or to be the sole merchandize distributor.

I don't think that I have an inherent right to copying those works, but I don't think that artists have an *inherent* right to stop me from copying them either. It was just one of the practical ways to make money in-between the Gutenberg era and the Zuckerberg era, when most copies of stuff were made in factories, that the authorities could easily shut down. But when any of a billion internet users can post what can lead to infinite copies, and shutting it down means censoring the whole system, and slowing down it's development, then the artists, publishers, and authorities who keep insisting on laws enfocing it, instead of moving on, are foolish.

You keep missing the point that the system where the artist not getting paid per copy isnt dytopian and brutal, im pointing out that the system where the artist has no choice but to give out free copies is dystopian and brutal. This is the completely hypothetical "utopian" scenario discussed in the first post that i quoted.

Megaupload was making a shit tonne of money from trafic brought in from illegal uploads of others work. This was fine for a long time and people are VERY angry its down. In the current system piracy is a case where the artist is basically stolen from, not because they lose money, but because you are taking control over what happens to their work against their will.

In the case of they have no inherent right to stop you id say they do. Its wrong and should be wrong to sneak into a museum and photocopy every single piece you can see before handing them out outside for free. They made it, and honestly you have NO rights when it comes to enjoing someone elses hard work. You enjoy it because they want you to. And if you are doing that by distrubuting the work in a way they DO NOT WANT at all and have not agreed too then thats an issue.

In the TV industry i think you will find that all those artists agreed to have that system used. Again this comes back to the hypothetical utopian scenario in which artists had only a single choice of free entertainment for all and nothing else. Its not dystopian and brutal to use that system you described at all, because it happened at the artists consent. Its not about the systems to be honest, its about the artists control over their work. And when pirated the artist might not feel like they are being credited. And if they feel that way they can just stop making stuff. It seems ungratefull to purposefully go against someones wishes when they are doing something that you want to enjoy.

I wasnt exhaggerating, i was talking about the original discussion that involved the "utopian" future where artists had no control over their work and it all became freely available. I was commenting on how it wasnt utopian. Im not saying that if they dont sell copies they can do nothing with them, im saying if they choose to sell copies and nothing else, its wrong to do anything else with them, the artist made their decision on their hard work and thats really the end of it.

 

[Alterego-X]

Megaupload was making a shit tonne of money from trafic brought in from illegal uploads of others work. This was fine for a long time and people are VERY angry its down. In the current system piracy is a case where the artist is basically stolen from, not because they lose money, but because you are taking control over what happens to their work against their will.

And if we quote a line from a book that was made up by an artist, or use a character in our avatars that was invented by an artist, or make a gag dub parody on youtube with original scenes, we also use an artist's work without paying for it. Except that this way it's legal, becausee it's called "fair use". Its basically one big arbitary line, beyond which artists have no control over their work, and "stealing" it is fair.

Ignoring that is just reactionariness. You are not thinking about the rational limits of artists' rights, just automatically define whatever rights they happen to have right now as "total control", and anyone who tries to redefine it is "taking away all their control".

In an inverted situation, if there *would* be a central "entertainment tax", and the government would give artists paychecks from, it for freely distributing works, but someone would propose that the government should stop paying and artists should sell their own work instead, you could still argue against it as well, that "it's wrong to stop giving artists paychecks, and force them to sell their own copies".

In the TV industry i think you will find that all those artists agreed to have that system used. Again this comes back to the hypothetical utopian scenario in which artists had only a single choice of free entertainment for all and nothing else. Its not dystopian and brutal to use that system you described at all, because it happened at the artists consent. Its not about the systems to be honest, its about the artists control over their work. And when pirated the artist might not feel like they are being credited. And if they feel that way they can just stop making stuff. It seems ungratefull to purposefully go against someones wishes when they are doing something that you want to enjoy.

Yet, if you have certain skillset appropriate for a job, for example being a 2D animator, you have no other way to work in the industry, than to accept that you won't have control over the copies of the creative work that you make, or stop making stuff.

So, if by your definition, that lack of control means "working for free", then already many artists are "working for free". Except that, you know, they still get paid, just not for copies, because that is impractical in that system.

With internet piracy, it might become impractical in other systems, too. But there is nothing dystopian about artists having to find a new business model.

 

[Vegosiux]

That is complete bull and you know it, you aren't fixing the definition you are saying "theft is bad but piracy is not theft therefore piracy is not bad". Even so you twist both the definitions of piracy and theft to try to make them look dissimilar. Not only is that outright dishonesty appalling but you often fail at making them look different. Newsflash: you will succeed because piracy is theft. There is no two ways about it. People make a living selling digital files and you are stealing them for yourself without paying. Sure some people give away their files for free but those are not the files you are stealing now are they?

Piracy isn't theft, if you don't understand why it isn't then you shouldn't be talking about it. "Not paying for something" is not the definition of theft and no one is saying piracy isn't bad because it's not theft, we're saying it's not theft! The people who are saying that it isn't aren't defending it, they just want people to use correct terms and not resort to using emotive language (i.e. calling them thieves) to try and put someone who downloads a few MP3s on the same footing as someone who mugs old ladies.

Thank. You.

Really now, that's basically it.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Piracy isn't theft, if you don't understand why it isn't then you shouldn't be talking about it. "Not paying for something" is not the definition of theft and no one is saying piracy isn't bad because it's not theft, we're saying it's not theft! The people who are saying that it isn't aren't defending it, they just want people to use correct terms and not resort to using emotive language (i.e. calling them thieves) to try and put someone who downloads a few MP3s on the same footing as someone who mugs old ladies.

Thank. You.

Really now, that's basically it.

Except it isn't.

Piracy isn't theft from distributors, publishers, or artists. It's theft from paying customers. Yes, you need to think with a modicum of abstraction in order to process the relevant circuitry, but that doesn't make it any less true.

I believe this is why piracy debates become so heated. You have one side standing up against the perceived evil of the publishers (buggy products, no demos, high prices, etc.) and the other side becoming justifiably upset because the piracy really just hurts them.

Bottomline: necessarily, any profitable company is going to get paid. Will piracy put such a company out of business? Can't say for sure. What we can say is that said company could afford to charge less money for its products if more people bought it, and it really does follow that the paying customers are ponying up more money than they would otherwise have to if piracy weren't rampant.

You could make some sort of twisted argument that companies wouldn't lower their prices without piracy, and that piracy almosts acts as a sort of check against publishers charging too much money. Unfortunately, I think "competition" and "demand" are supposed to determine prices - not self-righteous quasi-theft.

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.

IF you would be so kind to indulge some of us

I would like you to expand on this point, I want you to take into consideration everything in this thread and explain how PIRACY = WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION.

I want to see a logical step by step analysis, about how you reached this conclusion.

Seemed abundantly clear in the OP, but okay...

1. Video games cost money to produce.
2. This money comes from paying customers, without whom the industry wouldn't exist.
3. Possession without payment means someone else is footing the bill for your enjoyment.
4. Read 1-3 as many times as you need to. Go slow if you have to.

What exactly do you think weatlh redistribution is?

 

[Vegosiux]

Unfortunately, I think "competition" and "demand" are supposed to determine prices - not self-righteous quasi-theft.

Unfortunately, in case of software the supply is basically unlimited, therefore the supply and demand logic breaks apart.

Also, what I think is that quality is supposed to determine prices. Not "competition". And well, "demand" is, in case of software, irrelevant because the supply is not limited.

If you feel like pirates are stealing from you, fine, you feel that way. I know they're not stealing from me. I never actually lost something I owned to them, so...no, nobody stole anything from me, except a few years ago when I got mugged at night. But those weren't pirates, they were petty thieves.

Wake me up when people understand that saying "Piracy isn't theft" is not an attempt at justifying piracy.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Unfortunately, in case of software the supply is basically unlimited, therefore the supply and demand logic breaks apart.

Just because supply and demand often appear in the same sentence doesn't mean they are the same thing.

If there is no demand for a game, the publisher will lower the price. If there is great demand for a game, the publisher will maintain the price. Supply has nothing to do with either case.

Not to be overly aggressive here, but I'm not sure you grasp this stuff as well as you think you do.

Also, what I think is that quality is supposed to determine prices. Not "competition". And well, "demand" is, in case of software, irrelevant because the supply is not limited.

"Quality" is implied in the term "competition". I mean what do you think it actually means to compete?

And again, in determining the asking price, demand is basically the primary factor.

If you feel like pirates are stealing from you, fine, you feel that way. I know they're not stealing from me. I never actually lost something I owned to them, so...no, nobody stole anything from me, except a few years ago when I got mugged at night. But those weren't pirates, they were petty thieves.

You earn money.
You use that money to buy things.
Some of those things are games.
The prices of those games are impacted by how many people buy them.
People who pirate don't have to buy them.
The prices for you are higher than they have to be because of piracy.
You now have less money to spend on other things.

How can you honestly not put these pieces together?

I'm starting to realize why white collar criminals get off so easy. Apparently no one takes you seriously as a thief unless you deploy violence. Nevermind that the longterm economic consequences are basically the same.

Here's a question for all the "piracy doesn't hurt the game industry" people: if everyone did it, what would happen? If someone has to pay for the games to be made, why should it be me and not you? Because you're cooler or smarter or more cutthroat than I am?

Fuck that.

 

[AMMO Kid]

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.

The point he was trying to make is that the games he buys make it possible for more games. for example, he buys Mass Effect 1 and 2 which give BioWare enough to make 3. Pirates just steal it and if everyone stole games then no more games would be made. I know they aren't stealing it from him, but that's as close as it gets without actually stealing from him.