Canadian Study: Piracy Created by Greedy Capitalists

[FoolKiller]

I think the worry that people might then try to import games from India back into Western markets is a little crazy, honestly.

Not necessarily. Many of my friends at university (in Canada) were quite pleased at really cheap textbooks that they imported as it was a fraction of the cost that we pay. With technology, it may be a bit more difficult but not impossible and if the savings are good enough it may be worth the effort.

 

[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.

But thousands of people couldn't.

yes they could. Why couldn't they?

 

[nYuknYuknYuk]

Guys, just stop... you know piracy is wrong. I don't care if you do it (free stuff is awesome), but don't try to cover your ass with loopholes in the written law. In the spirit of the law, you're stealing. And being a giant douche by convincing yourself you are entitled to whatever it is you are pirating.

 

[WolfEdge]

I can't really say this is a capitalistic problem, as capitalism focuses solely on property and material gain. To a capitalist (at least, to a capitalist in the purest sense of the word), property is borderline sacred, and thus property rights versus the perceived entitlement of a given individual play a big role. The people of most industrialized nations hold a deep sense of entitlement to things that they want. As an example, look at the lack of respect shown for personal property post-hurricane Katrina in comparison to the Japan tsunamis. Of course there were other factors involved as well, but the gist of the idea remains consistent.

A capitalist isn't supposed to feel entitled to someone else's property without proper recompense. Ever. So unless this study accounts for and makes the distinction between the sort of lip-service capitalism practiced today versus true capitalism, I'll have to take the bias with a grain of salt.

 

[Baldr]

I'm an extremist here, pirating because it unavailable is one thing, pirating because you can't afford it is wrong. All these countries agreed to the UCC/Burne Convention treaties. I say if they don't allow/start stronger protection of the laws then they should be revoked from the treaties. This would make all claimed copyrights in those countries would be invalid.

 

[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.

But thousands of people couldn't.

yes they could. Why couldn't they?

Because there aren't that many porche dealers.

Ok.

So your argument is essentially this:
1) For something to be a luxury, the only requirement is that few of the thing is produced.
2) Only producers of luxury items should be allowed to charge whatever they want.
3) Video games are not a luxury, because they are mass-produced
4) Therefore, Video games should have a maximum price cap, because they are widely available.
5) Therefore, in countries where, due to economic differences have more expensive video games, are in the right in not paying anything for them.

I suppose the only parts I really take issue with is #2. It seems rather arbitrary. If #2 were ever implemented, you'd see AAA game titles disappear. Producers of very expensive-to-produce games are not simply going to give away their games for free. They would work very hard to make sure that their video games would become a luxury in order to merely make a profit.

They would do this by ramping up the DRM, in an attempt to prevent their expensive games from getting pirated, and nullifying their non-luxury status. Since we know that DRM doesn't really seem to work well in preventing this, we would see the end of high-budget video games, leading to virtually the death of the video game market.

 

[Bon_Clay]

Guys, just stop... you know piracy is wrong. I don't care if you do it (free stuff is awesome), but don't try to cover your ass with loopholes in the written law. In the spirit of the law, you're stealing. And being a giant douche by convincing yourself you are entitled to whatever it is you are pirating.

This has never been the real argument or what these threads are about. You must have not fully read the posts that weren't just mindless arguing. Or it just went over your head.

The point is that piracy WILL NOT STOP BECAUSE YOU SAY IT IS BAD. This is a fact, you will not guilt enough people into giving up piracy, and making laws on it do nothing either. They are not going to deter people and are impossible to enforce properly.

So because of this, people can either be useless and stick their head in the sand and cry when people bring it up, or you can use your brain and have a discussion about it. The music industry for example is not able to continue doing things the way it has in the past. Yelling at the problem doesn't make it go away, introducing things like itunes can help though.

You have to offer a product people want at a reasonable price or you don't make money. Yes people are not entitled to products for free just because they want them, but neither are companies entitled to people buying their stuff just because they want money. So you have to come up with an actual solution to piracy, not just say its bad and that's that.

Oh and for the record its not stealing. That isn't a loophole, that's going by the definition of stealing. Not that it matters, but its just plain stupid to say one crime is another type of crime. Copying and downloading digital content is different from taking physical stuff. They're different actions, and the associated problems and solutions are completely different as has been demonstrated quite thoroughly.

 

[Saulkar]

"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?

A luxury item is one of excess. An everyday car focuses on practicality. It can only go so fast, it only costs so such to make, and it focuses almost exclusively on a large demographic. A luxury car on the on the other hand focuses on excessive and factors that deter it from the mainstream like excessive speed beyond what is needed or even allowed for the sole purpose of bragging rights. Possessing levels of comfort not actually necessary to enjoy ones ride (a more subjective point) like Ipod ports and mini refrigerators. A luxury item in addition is priced beyond the reach of the mainstream. A game as a luxury item is very hard to pin down. While it is not necessary to have fun it is immensely mainstream and aside from books provide the longest bouts of fun but unlike books provide as a general standard more re usability/replayability. But does one go so far as to say that all games are a luxury? Unless you are in the most poor of the poor regions a 5 dollar game vs a 30 dollar game is not that much of a deal in the long run. Even then a video game console like the Wii is usually limited to one purpose, fun over functionality but at the same time a home computer (you can still get a used decently powerful computers for playing games that are several years old for maybe a hundred or so bucks though whether you can get these in third world countries and in what quantity is beyond me) could provide additional productive purposes. Installing and playing computer games would be more convenient than say going for a bike ride since after you are done your break you can simply exit the game and resume say 3DS MAX or Microsoft Word. Thus for these reasons I feel the need to sum videogames as a luxury simply as a relative concept. While I am under no fallacy that I am completely correct in my observations, I feel decently confident that I hit the right points.

Edit: Forgot to mention that the reason I brought up the WII is that is tentatively a luxury item in these respects because it is expensive and only serves the purpose of enjoyment although a home computer on the other hand which can also play games can also be used productively.

 

[WolfEdge]

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 rather poor logic, though, and goes back to basic psychology. What you're experiencing here is called Diffusion of Responsibility. "Oh, someone else will solve that problem, so I don't need to worry about it..." is basically what that statement boils down to.

I would agree with you that piracy isn't physical theft, but it's still stealing. Ideas are property, and they have inherent value. And because they're property, the owner/owners OF that idea have a right to mitigate its access, for better or for worse. If someone wants you to pay 300 dollars for a worthlessly executed idea, then it's well within your rights to NOT pay for it, but what is NOT acceptable is to then turn around and siphon access to that idea without paying. That's intellectual theft.

 

[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.

But thousands of people couldn't.

yes they could. Why couldn't they?

Because there aren't that many porche dealers.

Ok.

So your argument is essentially this:
1) For something to be a luxury, the only requirement is that few of the thing is produced.
2) Only producers of luxury items should be allowed to charge whatever they want.
3) Video games are not a luxury, because they are mass-produced
4) Therefore, Video games should have a maximum price cap, because they are widely available.
5) Therefore, in countries where, due to economic differences have more expensive video games, are in the right in not paying anything for them.

I suppose the only parts I really take issue with is #2. It seems rather arbitrary. If #2 were ever implemented, you'd see AAA game titles disappear. Producers of very expensive-to-produce games are not simply going to give away their games for free. They would work very hard to make sure that their video games would become a luxury in order to merely make a profit.

They would do this by ramping up the DRM, in an attempt to prevent their expensive games from getting pirated, and nullifying their non-luxury status. Since we know that DRM doesn't really seem to work well in preventing this, we would see the end of high-budget video games, leading to virtually the death of the video game market.

I never meant to imply #2. Besides, you can't download a car.

but you said that the Porsche dealers, "They should be allowed to only because it is intended as a luxury version of a needed item.". Doesn't this imply #2?

 

[Seneschal]

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.

This has always been headache-inducing. There is no financial victim in piracy. Your $40 content springs out from nothingness, since intellectual property is a post-scarcity good. "Value" must be assigned arbitrarily to such products. It is in unlimited supply, cannot be damaged or stolen, can be conjured up from thin air and distributed at the speed of light almost for free.

Copyright infringement, on the other hand, is like trespassing. The author has control and authority over his IP, and the pirate has usurped that. Trespassing is also illegal, despite technically producing no damage.

In reality, of course, all of the above can BARELY apply, because intellectual property is sold like a typical product. It fakes its own scarcity. And in places where it isn't available, can you really blame people for turning to sources that provide it? Can you blame people in the prohibition for turning to blackmarkets? It's the same thing, a non-essential product that has demand, but no supply. In a typical free market, blackmarkets and piracy are just punishments for companies that ignore potential consumer bases. But IPs were always a piece of Star-Trek economy stuck in our primitive capitalist system. You can't really fix something like that.

 

[WolfEdge]

"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?

A luxury item is one of excess. An everyday car focuses on practicality. It can only go so fast, it only costs so such to make, and it focuses almost exclusively on a large demographic. A luxury car on the on the other hand focuses on excessive and factors that deter it from the mainstream like excessive speed beyond what is needed or even allowed for the sole purpose of bragging rights. Possessing levels of comfort not actually necessary to enjoy ones ride (a more subjective point) like Ipod ports and mini refrigerators. A luxury item in addition is priced beyond the reach of the mainstream. A game as a luxury item is very hard to pin down. While it is not necessary to have fun it is immensely mainstream and aside from books provide the longest bouts of fun but unlike books provide as a general standard more re usability/replayability. But does one go so far as to say that all games are a luxury? Unless you are in the most poor of the poor regions a 5 dollar game vs a 30 dollar game is not that much of a deal in the long run. Even then a video game console like the Wii is usually limited to one purpose, fun over functionality but at the same time a home computer (you can still get a used decently powerful computers for playing games that are several years old for maybe a hundred or so bucks though whether you can get these in third world countries and in what quantity is beyond me) could provide additional productive purposes. Installing and playing computer games would be more convenient than say going for a bike ride since after you are done your break you can simply exit the game and resume say 3DS MAX or Microsoft Word. Thus for these reasons I feel the need to sum videogames as a luxury simply as a relative concept. While I am under no fallacy that I am completely correct in my observations, I feel decently confident that I hit the right points.

Edit: Forgot to mention that the reason I brought up the WII is that is tentatively a luxury item in these respects because it is expensive and only serves the purpose of enjoyment although a home computer on the other hand which can also play games can also be used productively.

You do not need videogames to survive.

Videogames are a luxury.

 

[thublihnk]

I'm not a pirate, but that first little bit with the guilt-tripping and the snark was just mean, unnecessary and annoying. There's a much deeper, nuanced and complex conversation to have about piracy and that absolutely is not it.

 

[nYuknYuknYuk]

Guys, just stop... you know piracy is wrong. I don't care if you do it (free stuff is awesome), but don't try to cover your ass with loopholes in the written law. In the spirit of the law, you're stealing. And being a giant douche by convincing yourself you are entitled to whatever it is you are pirating.

This has never been the real argument or what these threads are about. You must have not fully read the posts that weren't just mindless arguing. Or it just went over your head.

The point is that piracy WILL NOT STOP BECAUSE YOU SAY IT IS BAD. This is a fact, you will not guilt enough people into giving up piracy, and making laws on it do nothing either. They are not going to deter people and are impossible to enforce properly.

So because of this, people can either be useless and stick their head in the sand and cry when people bring it up, or you can use your brain and have a discussion about it. The music industry for example is not able to continue doing things the way it has in the past. Yelling at the problem doesn't make it go away, introducing things like itunes can help though.

You have to offer a product people want at a reasonable price or you don't make money. Yes people are not entitled to products for free just because they want them, but neither are companies entitled to people buying their stuff just because they want money. So you have to come up with an actual solution to piracy, not just say its bad and that's that.

Oh and for the record its not stealing. That isn't a loophole, that's going by the definition of stealing. Not that it matters, but its just plain stupid to say one crime is another type of crime. Copying and downloading digital content is different from taking physical stuff. They're different actions, and the associated problems and solutions are completely different as has been demonstrated quite thoroughly.

I wasn't referring to the random pirates out there, I was referring to the numerous forum posters who post "Pirating isn't stealing lolz u dumbass! So that makes it okay!" My post was not related very much to the OP, or the issue as a whole, just the state of the forum. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Saulkar]

"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?

A luxury item is one of excess. An everyday car focuses on practicality. It can only go so fast, it only costs so such to make, and it focuses almost exclusively on a large demographic. A luxury car on the on the other hand focuses on excessive and factors that deter it from the mainstream like excessive speed beyond what is needed or even allowed for the sole purpose of bragging rights. Possessing levels of comfort not actually necessary to enjoy ones ride (a more subjective point) like Ipod ports and mini refrigerators. A luxury item in addition is priced beyond the reach of the mainstream. A game as a luxury item is very hard to pin down. While it is not necessary to have fun it is immensely mainstream and aside from books provide the longest bouts of fun but unlike books provide as a general standard more re usability/replayability. But does one go so far as to say that all games are a luxury? Unless you are in the most poor of the poor regions a 5 dollar game vs a 30 dollar game is not that much of a deal in the long run. Even then a video game console like the Wii is usually limited to one purpose, fun over functionality but at the same time a home computer (you can still get a used decently powerful computers for playing games that are several years old for maybe a hundred or so bucks though whether you can get these in third world countries and in what quantity is beyond me) could provide additional productive purposes. Installing and playing computer games would be more convenient than say going for a bike ride since after you are done your break you can simply exit the game and resume say 3DS MAX or Microsoft Word. Thus for these reasons I feel the need to sum videogames as a luxury simply as a relative concept. While I am under no fallacy that I am completely correct in my observations, I feel decently confident that I hit the right points.

Edit: Forgot to mention that the reason I brought up the WII is that is tentatively a luxury item in these respects because it is expensive and only serves the purpose of enjoyment although a home computer on the other hand which can also play games can also be used productively.

You do not need videogames to survive.

Videogames are a luxury.

Ah, but you need pleasure to relatively thrive (a state of being where an individual or like minded group can can say I am comfortable, at least for the foreseeable future) as survive unlike the concept of thrive is MORE broadly relative (does survive mean being in a state of living or a state of sustaining ones biological existence, and if so what extents does this individual need to go to to maintain this state? Also by survive does this include solely the act of maintaining physical health and neglecting mental health. A major contributor to mental health besides intellectual stimulation being happiness and pleasure. Achieved through natural and artificial means, the likes of which are just as relative to say which ones are more important) and while you can get pleasure from other things such as books, food, or a piece of shade from the sun, a videogame is still the same thing, pleasure. Video games as a luxury as far as I can pin it down is entirely relative. To a poor district where food is unfordable and everything bought must have a purpose they are a luxury, on the other hand from a district where basic essentials are met with ease and loose spending cash is plentiful it is not so much a luxury as a standard product to achieve a human goal of pleasure, a frill. It does indeed have a function but depending on the point of view in what situation, its function is either negligible or important.

 

[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.

But thousands of people couldn't.

yes they could. Why couldn't they?

Because there aren't that many porche dealers.

Ok.

So your argument is essentially this:
1) For something to be a luxury, the only requirement is that few of the thing is produced.
2) Only producers of luxury items should be allowed to charge whatever they want.
3) Video games are not a luxury, because they are mass-produced
4) Therefore, Video games should have a maximum price cap, because they are widely available.
5) Therefore, in countries where, due to economic differences have more expensive video games, are in the right in not paying anything for them.

I suppose the only parts I really take issue with is #2. It seems rather arbitrary. If #2 were ever implemented, you'd see AAA game titles disappear. Producers of very expensive-to-produce games are not simply going to give away their games for free. They would work very hard to make sure that their video games would become a luxury in order to merely make a profit.

They would do this by ramping up the DRM, in an attempt to prevent their expensive games from getting pirated, and nullifying their non-luxury status. Since we know that DRM doesn't really seem to work well in preventing this, we would see the end of high-budget video games, leading to virtually the death of the video game market.

I never meant to imply #2. Besides, you can't download a car.

but you said that the Porsche dealers, "They should be allowed to only because it is intended as a luxury version of a needed item.". Doesn't this imply #2?

I'm a bit tired and confused. Everything should have limits, stuff like porches should have less, but still be there.

ok.

Fixed then:
1) For something to be a luxury, the only requirement is that few of the thing is produced.
2) All things must have a price cap, Only producers of luxury items should be allowed to charge a higher amount, though still capped.
3) Video games are not a luxury, because they are mass-produced
4) Therefore, Video games should have a low maximum price cap, because they are widely available.
5) Therefore, in countries where, due to economic differences have more expensive video games, are in the right in not paying anything for them.

My response to the argument has not changed though. I still believe that implementation of #2 would result in the death of the mult-million-dollar budget game industry. Halo 3 had a 50 some million dollar budget.

 

[Risingblade]

Cheaper options wouldn't do anything. Look at the anime industry. Anime in japan costs easily 2-10x the amount it costs American consumers and yet Americans still pirate it like crazy despite steep discounting. Dirty pirates will be dirty pirates.

Anime doesn't come out in the US at least a year or so after it does in Japan though