Canadian Study: Piracy Created by Greedy Capitalists

[zehydra]

"Well, my basic problem with the logic here is that these things are by no means a nessecity. Yes, the media industry is corrupt and greedy, but at the same time people in developing nations that can't afford things like this shouldn't feel justified in simply stealing them, or performing knock offs"

This this this this this.

People do NOT deserve entertainment they cannot afford.

Yes, corporations are always right. Bow down to our corporate overlords. Do not question them. Obey, OBEY, OBEY!!!

I guess I worded that wrong. What I meant is that people do not have the right to the creations of others for free. Does that make more sense?

What about freeware? Also, sure they do. If it is not reasonably priced, why should they be rewarded for ripping people off?

Freeware is given away with the consent. When a game is pirated for free, then a person gets someone's intellectual property without their consent. It's wrong for the same reason plagiarism's wrong.

If I make something, and it's desirable, and I put hard work into it, then I have the right to do with what I want, right? Is it so wrong that I demand monetary compensation for hard work that I've done, especially in this harsh Capitalist climate?

If you demand a reasonable monetary compensation, sure, go ahead. If you're a price gouging douchetard asswagon, you don't. Note: I'm not a fan of capitalism.

lol all aboard the asswagon!

Well then, fair enough. All we have to do then is create a system where people are only allowed to sell anything up to a certain price, depending on who can afford it.

The result of course, would be that "free" would be the maximum allowable price, because there are those who cannot afford anything at all.

Not saying everyone should be able to afford everything, but you should do the math to figure out what a good equivalent to $60 is in those countries.

96.4799 in Brazilian (one of the countries mentioned in the article).

83455 in Brazilian for a brand-new porsche.

Would you say that the makers of Porsche do not deserve to be allowed to sell their cars that high?

Not in conversion rates alone, but also in what the average income is.

I'm afraid I'm not sure where to find that information (found something on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure that's what you're talking about). But I think your point is clear enough. However, what about the porsche? I'll reiterate the question: Would you say that the makers of Porsche do not deserve to be allowed to sell their cars that high?

They should be allowed to only because it is intended as a luxury version of a needed item.

and how are not the AAA $60 titles not a luxury item? You seem to arbitrarily ascribe the term "luxury".

Because games, these days, are as non-luxury as TV shows.

And how do you determine that?

 

[zehydra]

"Well, my basic problem with the logic here is that these things are by no means a nessecity. Yes, the media industry is corrupt and greedy, but at the same time people in developing nations that can't afford things like this shouldn't feel justified in simply stealing them, or performing knock offs"

This this this this this.

People do NOT deserve entertainment they cannot afford.

Yes, corporations are always right. Bow down to our corporate overlords. Do not question them. Obey, OBEY, OBEY!!!

I guess I worded that wrong. What I meant is that people do not have the right to the creations of others for free. Does that make more sense?

What about freeware? Also, sure they do. If it is not reasonably priced, why should they be rewarded for ripping people off?

Freeware is given away with the consent. When a game is pirated for free, then a person gets someone's intellectual property without their consent. It's wrong for the same reason plagiarism's wrong.

If I make something, and it's desirable, and I put hard work into it, then I have the right to do with what I want, right? Is it so wrong that I demand monetary compensation for hard work that I've done, especially in this harsh Capitalist climate?

If you demand a reasonable monetary compensation, sure, go ahead. If you're a price gouging douchetard asswagon, you don't. Note: I'm not a fan of capitalism.

lol all aboard the asswagon!

Well then, fair enough. All we have to do then is create a system where people are only allowed to sell anything up to a certain price, depending on who can afford it.

The result of course, would be that "free" would be the maximum allowable price, because there are those who cannot afford anything at all.

Not saying everyone should be able to afford everything, but you should do the math to figure out what a good equivalent to $60 is in those countries.

96.4799 in Brazilian (one of the countries mentioned in the article).

83455 in Brazilian for a brand-new porsche.

Would you say that the makers of Porsche do not deserve to be allowed to sell their cars that high?

Not in conversion rates alone, but also in what the average income is.

I'm afraid I'm not sure where to find that information (found something on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure that's what you're talking about). But I think your point is clear enough. However, what about the porsche? I'll reiterate the question: Would you say that the makers of Porsche do not deserve to be allowed to sell their cars that high?

They should be allowed to only because it is intended as a luxury version of a needed item.

and how are not the AAA $60 titles not a luxury item? You seem to arbitrarily ascribe the term "luxury".

Because games, these days, are as non-luxury as TV shows.

And how do you determine that?

The fact that third world countries know what they are and pirate them.

but why does that mean that they're a luxury? I missing how the fact that third world countries can't afford something leads to something not being a luxury.

 

[shado_temple]

But (and note: I don't even support game piracy, just the other things), look at it this way: They make millions off the other sales, they don't need yours.

This reminds me of an Onion article [http://www.theonion.com/articles/how-bad-for-the-environment-can-throwing-away-one,2892/] I read a while ago, where the title reads "'How Bad For The Environment Can Throwing Away One Plastic Bottle Be?' 30 Million People Wonder."

The logic you're using may work now, but it will be a sad day when no one does the "right" thing simply because they assume the next person will.

 

[ShadowKirby]

Aren't all our problems caused by greedy capitalists?

Yeah, but this guy, and really the entire offices of The Escapist, hate pirates (and will often suspend you if you don't).

Do they, or do they just not condone stealing? I think they have to be against piracy. If games make no money, publishers stop making games, if publishers stop making games, Escapists have no job.

Also, I should mention that all our problems are created by greedy capitalists and ignorance. Capitalists don't get all the credit.

Stealing =/= Piracy. Here's a helpful guide to the differences:

Stealing starts out with the store having 1 copy and you having 0 copies. You then gain that one copy without paying.

Store - 0, You - 1

Piracy starts out with the store having 1 copy and you having 0 copies. You then make a a copy of the data.

Store - 1, You - 1.

Also, they are opposed to ALL piracy, not just games.

I seriously hate that logic. Try to see it this way:

In case of theft:

Store (and in turn devs) - -40$, You - X+40$ of worth.

In case of piracy:

Store (and in turn devs) - 0$, You - X+40$ of worth.

Sure, in one case money is lost and in the other money stays the same, but at the end of the day, you get what you want and the devs get nothing.

Also try keep in mind that they've only lost a potential sale, not a definite one.
EG;
I wont buy Dragon Age 2 on principle of being an awful, dumbed down game.
But I might pirate it, sure.
After all...

But this is just a hypothetical situation. Obviously.

Sure, it's a "potential" sale lost, but you "hypothetically" still get your 40$ (or whatever the cost) worth of content.

 

[Mortuorum]

Aren't all our problems created by greedy capitalists?

Probably. All our solutions are created by them as well, though, so it pretty much evens out.

Lifesaving medical research? Greedy capitalists. Cutting-edge technology? Greedy capitalists. High-yield crops? Greedy capitalists. Sure, governments and nonprofits fund some basic reasarch, but most of the significant breakthroughs have been the result of a profit motive. (Lest you bring up DARPA, it was specifically designed by the DoD to be run like a corporation.)

And video games? It's no coincidence that the premniere console manufacturers are located in the USA and Japan, two of the most aggressively capitalist nations in the world. You're not going to see that kind of innovation in a command economy.

So greedy capitalists? They stink, but they beat the ever-living shit out of the alternative.

 

[Gindil]

Aren't all our problems caused by greedy capitalists?

Yeah, but this guy, and really the entire offices of The Escapist, hate pirates (and will often suspend you if you don't).

Do they, or do they just not condone stealing? I think they have to be against piracy. If games make no money, publishers stop making games, if publishers stop making games, Escapists have no job.

Also, I should mention that all our problems are created by greedy capitalists and ignorance. Capitalists don't get all the credit.

Stealing =/= Piracy. Here's a helpful guide to the differences:

Stealing starts out with the store having 1 copy and you having 0 copies. You then gain that one copy without paying.

Store - 0, You - 1

Piracy starts out with the store having 1 copy and you having 0 copies. You then make a a copy of the data.

Store - 1, You - 1.

Also, they are opposed to ALL piracy, not just games.

I seriously hate that logic. Try to see it this way:

In case of theft:

Store (and in turn devs) - -40$, You - X+40$ of worth.

In case of piracy:

Store (and in turn devs) - 0$, You - X+40$ of worth.

Sure, in one case money is lost and in the other money stays the same, but at the end of the day, you get what you want and the devs get nothing.

But (and note: I don't even support game piracy, just the other things), look at it this way: They make millions off the other sales, they don't need yours.

That's kind of a weak argument. It's okay to steal/pirate people if they are rich? Where do you draw the line?

It should be noted that there are different goods at work with the theft vs piracy argument.

CDs are cheap to make and that you get in a game on sale in a store, is a tangible good.

Getting the game online doesn't mean you've stolen from Best Buy for a game, and there's other factors at work that people choose to simplify. There's a huge process and hassle of getting the game, breaking it, and being able to play it which can be a huge time waster.

 

[zehydra]

There's a difference. Who owns water? Why does anyone own water? People need water to survive.

PEOPLE DON'T NEED VIDEO GAMES TO SURVIVE

It's the same argument really... "entertainment" and "fun" (you said entertainment... you then back-pedaled further down after being called out on it to "video games", you also used the word "deserve") is also a basic need for human beings, only working all day and being serious will make you get depressed and possibly die young... who the hell do you think you are to tell people (whose living conditions you can not judge and who you apparently know very little about) what they do and do not "deserve"?

You have a point, and most people do deserve some kind of way to relax from the stress of hard work. But don't they have any affordable entertainment in these places? Couldn't they make their own entertainment? They certainly don't need to pirate video games to make their lives more meaningful or more relaxing.

 

[zehydra]

"Well, my basic problem with the logic here is that these things are by no means a nessecity. Yes, the media industry is corrupt and greedy, but at the same time people in developing nations that can't afford things like this shouldn't feel justified in simply stealing them, or performing knock offs"

This this this this this.

People do NOT deserve entertainment they cannot afford.

Yes, corporations are always right. Bow down to our corporate overlords. Do not question them. Obey, OBEY, OBEY!!!

I guess I worded that wrong. What I meant is that people do not have the right to the creations of others for free. Does that make more sense?

What about freeware? Also, sure they do. If it is not reasonably priced, why should they be rewarded for ripping people off?

Freeware is given away with the consent. When a game is pirated for free, then a person gets someone's intellectual property without their consent. It's wrong for the same reason plagiarism's wrong.

If I make something, and it's desirable, and I put hard work into it, then I have the right to do with what I want, right? Is it so wrong that I demand monetary compensation for hard work that I've done, especially in this harsh Capitalist climate?

If you demand a reasonable monetary compensation, sure, go ahead. If you're a price gouging douchetard asswagon, you don't. Note: I'm not a fan of capitalism.

lol all aboard the asswagon!

Well then, fair enough. All we have to do then is create a system where people are only allowed to sell anything up to a certain price, depending on who can afford it.

The result of course, would be that "free" would be the maximum allowable price, because there are those who cannot afford anything at all.

Not saying everyone should be able to afford everything, but you should do the math to figure out what a good equivalent to $60 is in those countries.

96.4799 in Brazilian (one of the countries mentioned in the article).

83455 in Brazilian for a brand-new porsche.

Would you say that the makers of Porsche do not deserve to be allowed to sell their cars that high?

Not in conversion rates alone, but also in what the average income is.

I'm afraid I'm not sure where to find that information (found something on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure that's what you're talking about). But I think your point is clear enough. However, what about the porsche? I'll reiterate the question: Would you say that the makers of Porsche do not deserve to be allowed to sell their cars that high?

They should be allowed to only because it is intended as a luxury version of a needed item.

and how are not the AAA $60 titles not a luxury item? You seem to arbitrarily ascribe the term "luxury".

Because games, these days, are as non-luxury as TV shows.

And how do you determine that?

The fact that third world countries know what they are and pirate them.

but why does that mean that they're a luxury? I missing how the fact that third world countries can't afford something leads to something not being a luxury.

The fact they know about them and care enough to pirate means they aren't a luxury. You don't see many third world countrymen trying to steal Porches.

but I still don't see how that means that it's not a luxury. How does knowing that something exists mean it's not a luxury?

 

[nipsen]

..news?

The way it's been for a long while now is that if you buy the popular products, you also support the framework in place for restricting sales across regions. Which in turn causes, in the extreme cases - like in India, etc. - less products to become available.

For example - there are many different entertainment products that I cannot legally buy, in the middle of Europe. So piracy does have some sort of explanation for existing - even though it's abused by some, of course.

 

[Dastardly]

Permalink

This study is tackling a different kind of piracy than the one that causes so much hate and consternation in the states. Despite the ethical idea that piracy is in fact bad, most people aren't concerned about a guy in Thailand pirating a game that isn't otherwise available in Thailand and never will be.

The type of piracy that bothers people is the kind that happens when something is available, yet people choose to pirate because free is always the cheapest option.

(There does exist an in-between form of piracy. Let's say that currently prices in Korea are through-the-roof for new releases. But a company wants to release its new title there at a more reasonable price. So, they release it in the Western world first, and a few months later they release it in Korea when the price has come down.

If the people of Korea have waited and then buy it legit, everyone wins. If they get impatient and pirate the Western release, this is no longer that "forgivable" piracy. Relief and understanding were on the way, and they chose to scoff at it.)

In either case, this study is answering a question not that many people are asking.

 

[zehydra]

"Well, my basic problem with the logic here is that these things are by no means a nessecity. Yes, the media industry is corrupt and greedy, but at the same time people in developing nations that can't afford things like this shouldn't feel justified in simply stealing them, or performing knock offs"

This this this this this.

People do NOT deserve entertainment they cannot afford.

Yes, corporations are always right. Bow down to our corporate overlords. Do not question them. Obey, OBEY, OBEY!!!

I guess I worded that wrong. What I meant is that people do not have the right to the creations of others for free. Does that make more sense?

What about freeware? Also, sure they do. If it is not reasonably priced, why should they be rewarded for ripping people off?

Freeware is given away with the consent. When a game is pirated for free, then a person gets someone's intellectual property without their consent. It's wrong for the same reason plagiarism's wrong.

If I make something, and it's desirable, and I put hard work into it, then I have the right to do with what I want, right? Is it so wrong that I demand monetary compensation for hard work that I've done, especially in this harsh Capitalist climate?

If you demand a reasonable monetary compensation, sure, go ahead. If you're a price gouging douchetard asswagon, you don't. Note: I'm not a fan of capitalism.

lol all aboard the asswagon!

Well then, fair enough. All we have to do then is create a system where people are only allowed to sell anything up to a certain price, depending on who can afford it.

The result of course, would be that "free" would be the maximum allowable price, because there are those who cannot afford anything at all.

Not saying everyone should be able to afford everything, but you should do the math to figure out what a good equivalent to $60 is in those countries.

96.4799 in Brazilian (one of the countries mentioned in the article).

83455 in Brazilian for a brand-new porsche.

Would you say that the makers of Porsche do not deserve to be allowed to sell their cars that high?

Not in conversion rates alone, but also in what the average income is.

I'm afraid I'm not sure where to find that information (found something on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure that's what you're talking about). But I think your point is clear enough. However, what about the porsche? I'll reiterate the question: Would you say that the makers of Porsche do not deserve to be allowed to sell their cars that high?

They should be allowed to only because it is intended as a luxury version of a needed item.

and how are not the AAA $60 titles not a luxury item? You seem to arbitrarily ascribe the term "luxury".

Because games, these days, are as non-luxury as TV shows.

And how do you determine that?

The fact that third world countries know what they are and pirate them.

but why does that mean that they're a luxury? I missing how the fact that third world countries can't afford something leads to something not being a luxury.

The fact they know about them and care enough to pirate means they aren't a luxury. You don't see many third world countrymen trying to steal Porches.

but I still don't see how that means that it's not a luxury. How does knowing that something exists mean it's not a luxury?

It's the fact that they can easily aquire them, legally or not, that makes them no longer a luxury.

Well I suppose that one could easily rob a porsche dealer.

 

[Trogdor1138]

That downloading someone's work without paying for it is tantamount to stealing?

Just like how rape is tantamount to murder? Oh wait, no it's not. It's completely different.

Your rethoric is tiresome, Greg Tito, and your opinion has no place in newsposts.

I could not possibly agree more sir.
I hate this bullshit "piracy is stealing and if you disagree then you are a bad person" nonsense that gets spread around.
And news articles should be about the news. Not the posters opinion. Cramming your own point of view and defining what makes a person good/bad in a "news" article is exactly the sort of shit Fox does.
We do not let them get away with it so why should we let the escapist get away with it?

You wanna post this sorta shit "news" then do what normal users do and post it in gaming discussion.

I'm with you 100% on your post.

A proper discussion can't even be had because as soon as one admits to piracy around here or mentions it in any sort of personal light they seem to get immediatly dismissed as some sort of inhumane criminal not worthy of their time. Which disgusts me a lot more than "theft of intellectual property" ever will.

Also, nice job linking a non-legit version of the report in the article guys. Does this mean you're going to get put on probation?

 

[jpoon]

Oh damn, this is hilarious. Totally what I already knew, greedy fucks (i.e. all corporations) are going to get the shaft like this and I can't say they don't deserve it.

 

[Gindil]

There's a difference. Who owns water? Why does anyone own water? People need water to survive.

PEOPLE DON'T NEED VIDEO GAMES TO SURVIVE

It's the same argument really... "entertainment" and "fun" (you said entertainment... you then back-pedaled further down after being called out on it to "video games", you also used the word "deserve") is also a basic need for human beings, only working all day and being serious will make you get depressed and possibly die young... who the hell do you think you are to tell people (whose living conditions you can not judge and who you apparently know very little about) what they do and do not "deserve"?

You have a point, and most people do deserve some kind of way to relax from the stress of hard work. But don't they have any affordable entertainment in these places? Couldn't they make their own entertainment? They certainly don't need to pirate video games to make their lives more meaningful or more relaxing.

To the water:

If someone owns a well, and it's the only source of water, prepare to have a hard lesson in monopoly economics.

Two, piracy really isn't about "survival". There's a lot of factors that make people pirate games in my view. Relevancy with friends (think about if you're the only one that hasn't played Portal 5 years after the fact), hassles with DRM (Spore anyone?), or lack of income (college students are the filthiest pirates out there, along with Brazil because the price is too high)

I could go into the various types of gamers and how they find relevance in breaking DRMs or just wanting to add to their collections of games but I'm just trying to stick to piracy for now.

 

[Canadish]

But this is just a hypothetical situation. Obviously.

Sure, it's a "potential" sale lost, but you "hypothetically" still get your 40$ (or whatever the cost) worth of content.

Is it $40 worth of content? The value of something like a piece of entertainment is subjective really.
Something like Mirrors Edge, which was a great game, just did not have enough content to justify a full price tag. Which is kinda sad, as it was a fresh idea. I still bought that (I'm in a situation fortunate enough to be able to). Mostly just to try and support the industry taking a fresh direction.

On the other end of the spectrum, we have Homefront, another game that has no where near enough content to justify full price (5 hour campagin? What!?). AND its just a samey brown shooter, where you kill non Americans. yay.
That game is not worth full price. Not even close.

Point is, we're expected to pay 40-50 quid, regardless of the game in the box. And not all games are created equal. Some are worth way more (Say, Dragon Age Origins), and some are worth way less (the above two examples).