How do you feel about illegal game downloads?

[axia777]

I really love how people try to use logic to justify stealing. Just admit it is stealing and be done with it all ready. Obviously if a person is stealing then they are ok with the act of stealing. It is so simple. All they have to say is "Yes, I stole this game, so piss off...".

 

[Jimmyjames]

Also the average game in NZ runs $$100-120. So whoever said games are not that expensive is either very rich or talking out their ass.

Oh, BOO-HOO... that's about $65 US, dude. The same as what we pay here.

 

[Jimmyjames]

Obviously if a person is stealing then they are ok with the act of stealing. It is so simple. All they have to say is "Yes, I stole this game, so piss off...".

That's about the most accurate thing anyone's said here, yet. I hate listening to people trying to justify something that they obviously know is wrong.

 

[Altorin]

I'm obligated to say that I think illegal game downloading is wrong.

 

[N-Sef]

I for one like to buy my games, I don't like it when people 'acquire' games but I can't really stop them.

 

[JMeganSnow]

I don't think stealing can be justified because there is no reason for it that couldn't be applied to other forms of stealing which oddly enough, piracy offenders seem to be objected to.

Good for you, arguing from principle!

Applause, applause, applause.

Yes, you're 100% correct that it doesn't make sense to treat piracy any differently from any other form of theft. Theft isn't wrong because you're "hurting" someone, it's wrong because you are taking something that someone else made *without their permission*. You have no right to do it. You may as well argue that it's okay to rape as long as you drug the woman unconscious first and use a condom because you're not "forcing" her and you didn't "hurt" her by giving her a disease or an unwanted pregnancy. It doesn't matter! It's still her body and you don't have any right to put your hands on it without her permission!

 

[EzraPound]

A)Umm, could you not say exactly the same about shoplifting, amoung other orms of stealing? I have yet to meet a theif who wanted to pay for the product they stole. Funnily enough, thats one of the reasons they stole it in the first place.

Nope, I don't remain friends with anyone who does this. It is theft, and I find it particularly vile as I am someone who hopes to make a living by producing the kinds of things these people imagine they have a "right" to take without compensation.

It is theft, pure and simple. If a person is ok with stealing is another matter all together. I like to buy my games used on EBay. It is much cheaper that way and I don't have to steal.

It's debateable whether downloading media is even stealing, since 'stealing' in traditional terms usually entails committing an act that's material in nature - the Canadian Supreme Court, for example, ruled that downloading mp3s for personal use was no different than photocopying the pages of books in the library (the CDs in the store aren't 'gone' because you've downloaded them - get it?). Corporations, however, have done a fairly good job promoting the idea to the public that downloading media is stealing, which is - after all - in their interests.

D) Does stealing something because you cannot afford to pay for it make it any better? In my opinion, no (unless it is needed to survive, maybe).

So Robin Hood wasn't a good guy, after all? Ethics aren't definable on the basis of black and white dichotomies; the statement 'stealing is bad' is only true insofar as that, philosophically, some greater good arises from not stealing than stealing. Robin Hood is an apt example because his 'theft' was a protest again the institutionalized stealing that occured in the time period he is cited as living in. The metaphor applies to today: if Microsoft controls a monopoly that drives up prices exponentially, is it better or worse ethically 'steal' Windows (forgetting for a moment that downloading isn't even neccessarily stealing)? If the game industry has suffered artistically from overcommercialization, is it 'constructive' to pay for titles by big-name publishers that've contributed to the problem? Etc.

Again, there is alot of societal indoctrination that urges us to participate unquestioningly in the institutions around us - and furthermore, to condemn those who don't - but that doesn't neccessarily mean the 'moral absolutes' that are so often advocated are pervasively correct. Healthy skepticism is important: the predominant forces in society, we must always remember, are acutely aware of what ethics favour the status quo. For example: is it worse to pirate a game, or to fight for the United States in Iraq doing what is as tantamount to murder as downloading is to stealing? I don't know - but I doubt JMeganSnow would tell someone they weren't her friend any longer if they did the latter.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

I don't really mind, game companies make quite enough money. Unless it's and indy game, then torrents are BAD. Though it doesn't really matter these days with steam lowering the prices of games by 80%.

 

[stompy]

Oh, BOO-HOO... that's about $65 US, dude. The same as what we pay here.

That's now, with the New Zealander and Australian dollar down the shitter. A few months ago, before the Wall Street Crash, the exchange rate was $US0.98=$AU1.00... and we'd still be paying $AU100 for our games. Actually, scratch that. This generation (PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii), the standard game's price actually rose, from the $100 from last gen to $110 this gen. That means people in Australia (sorry, but no figures for NZ, though the currency is quite close) would have to pay $US107.00 per game. Yeh, that's real close to $US55.00...

As for the OP, I will admit that I have pirated games with me at the moment, given to me by friends. They total about 10, and, well, I'm not going to say what I'm doing is right. However, I'm not a regular pirate. I regularly buy my games, and am happy to do so (even if the inflation is ridiculous here in Australia).

Edit:

Post

You raise some good points there. I'm glad someone has brought up the 'piracy is different from traditional theft' idea, I forgot about that.

 

[santaandy]

I think it's funny that people don't realize DRM isn't there to stop piracy (which if it is it is utterly and epically failing at), but to kill the secondhand market. Not all companies are evil, wanting to make money is not evil, but invading customer's privacy and trying to extort the full purchase price out of someone is. Cutting off the ending of a game to extort the extra $20 out of preowned purchasers is. Cutting off support for those who don't pay full retail is. Interrupting my game to force me to watch advertisement videos between levels is. Not giving me a legal option to purchase certain games based on where I live is. Charging me more if I don't live in America is. Treating me like a criminal instead of a customer is. When companies committ illegal and or unethical acts, I don't feel sorry for them. They drive people to piracy just as much as cheapness and laziness does.

Now what I really do not tolerate is counterfeitting. Think what you will of downloading, and call it what you want. Counterfeitting actually *is* theft unequivocally. That *is* stealing other's profits. And counterfeitters use money to committ other worse crimes against other human beings. I doubt very much downloaders do. If I am actually willing to pay for a copy then it had better be legitimate.

 

[Jimmyjames]

That is one of those wonderfully fucking stupid things people say all the time. I dont care one whit that its 65USD. I am in NZ. So here its 100-120.

Right... so if you took your $120 NZ funds over here and got them exchanged for $65 US, you could buy the game for $65. So.... how's that stupid?

 

[Altorin]

laws are based off the idea of precedence.

It starts as a general idea "You can't steal"

then the first person who's accused of stealing, the details of that incident are entered into precedent. If that guy steals a goat and the judge finds him guilty of stealing a goat, then the next person who steals a goat, the lawyers can say "remember that guy who stole the goat before? This is what happened to him." and then unless there is other evidence as to why it's different to the prior goat napping, the punishment would be the same.

There isn't very much precedent yet when it comes to downloading software for personal use.

 

[JMeganSnow]

It's debateable whether downloading media is even stealing, since 'stealing' in traditional terms usually entails committing an act that's material in nature -

Whose tradition and why should we listen to them?

Let me put this backwards: you'd be happy if you went to the store to buy a game and got: a box, a blank booklet, and a funny-looking piece of round plastic? No--so the VALUABLE part of the game isn't the physical parts but the intellectual property, which had to be created by someone and, therefore, is owned by that someone.

Physical objects per se have little value, and the concept of intellectual property recognizes this fact. It is the complex and sophisticated recognition of people who have moved beyond the "tradition" of digging for food in the dirt. Anyone who rejects this fact deserves to return to the existence of a cave man somewhere far away from the rest of us.

So Robin Hood wasn't a good guy, after all? Ethics aren't definable on the basis of black and white dichotomies; the statement 'stealing is bad' is only true insofar as that, philosophically, some greater good arises from not stealing than stealing. Robin Hood is an apt example because his 'theft' was a protest again the institutionalized stealing that occured in the time period he is cited as living in.

Robin Hood as he is portrayed today is not a good guy, because he isn't portrayed as a champion of justice (returning what was stolen to the original owners), but as a champion of the POOR--his acts would be considered as benevolent if he was stealing from wealthy people who had EARNED their wealth and giving it to any sort of poor, regardless of *why* they were poor.

The philosophically "greater good" of not stealing is the creation and maintenance of a civilized society where people happily expect to be rewarded for the incredibly demanding skill of making a good game, writing a novel, or building a new invention. That's the society *I* want to live in.

For example: is it worse to pirate a game, or to fight for the United States in Iraq doing what is as tantamount to murder as downloading is to stealing? I don't know - but I doubt JMeganSnow would tell someone they weren't her friend any longer if they did the latter.

How is what the U.S. is doing in Iraq "tantamount to murder"? I object to the way the war has been conducted, but I certainly don't consider killing enemy combatants to be "murder". Or are you talking about the civilians? It's not murder to kill civilians--even intentionally--in a war, either, because the purpose of the military isn't and can't be to protect everyone, only to protect American citizens (or alliance citizens if more than one country is involved in the war on your side) by disposing of the enemy as efficiently as possible and appropriate.

While I don't think we should be fighting Iraq because Iraq wasn't a direct threat to us and it's not our business to save the world, deposing a dictator who had people tortured and thrown into a wood chipper can't be considered anything but a public service.

 

[Jimmyjames]

also I did legal, the law is not black and white, in fact statutes are written in General English, which makes them all open to interpretation, for instance the courts interpreter statutes all the time. So no, it is not Black and White, there is a Grey area.

Yeah, I'd expect that from a law student (which I noted). I believe you're referring to constitutional interpretation? In civics we learned that ideally civil law is not open to interpretation and that a+b=c. Society depends on constant.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

I was going to blow this off, then I read your replies... and WOW. You pretty much proved my point.

A) Depends on your definition of stealing. I'm not depriving someone else of the payment for their product if I was never planning to pay for it in the first place.

Wow, this logic is bad... so, if you don't ever plan on buying a BMW, does that make it OK for you to steal one? How do you reason that pirating software isn't stealing?

B) Legality isn't a black/white thing. When do the rights of the consumer come into play with stuff like DRM or companies selling you products infested with spyware and malware? And what's "legal" isn't always what's "right."

No- by their very nature, laws are a black and white set of rules NOT open to interpretation. If they weren't society would not function. It's why there are court cases that set PRECEDENT. They further firm the rules. (now- the way a lawyer can manipulate the law is another issue) IF YOU DON'T LIKE DRM, DON'T BUY THE SOFTWARE!!!!!

C) Why? Why not? Just 'cause you say that doesn't make it true.

It's a moral truth that it's NOT OK to steal. You should know better. If you get your car ripped off, how would you respond if the thief said, "well, it's a shitty car so I thought it would be OK to steal it."

D) Not true. There are many reasons, and you can't make a blanket statement like that. Some people simply cannot afford to play the game any other way. Others are too poor to buy more than one or two new games at a time, and must make their purchases count.

If a person can't afford it, guess what... THEY CAN'T HAVE IT. That's the problem- this "entitled" attitude. Why should you be able to have something that you can't afford to buy? Such a typical attitude. I'd personally really like to live in a house instead of an apartment, but that doesn't mean I have the RIGHT to a house.

E) The fact that you don't like pirating doesn't make it okay for you to gripe about the people who do it. See how well that logic works?

No, you're wrong. That's a circular argument, and I have the moral imperative. Technically you lose. I disapprove of people that are doing something illegal. Therefore I win. Someone that thinks otherwise has the invalid viewpoint.

F) Serves the employees right for not making a game that people would like enough to buy. If the game's good, people WILL buy. Period.

No... because according to your own logic, piracy isn't hurting anyone. So why should someone feel "obliged" to buy it if they can just download it free? Your own viewpoint will hurt a company even if the game is good.

G) Okay, fine, but at least they aren't lining the pockets of the companies who are doing whatever they disagree with.

They can avoid "lining the pockets of the companies who are doing whatever they disagree with" by NOT BUYING THE GAME. Doesn't mean they can rip it off.

H) How so? In what way is it less lazy to head over to Half.com and click "Buy?"

Uhhhhh... wow, that doesn't even make sense. If they're BUIYING it, they aren't being LAZY, are they? Maybe I should swap "BEING LAZY" for "BEING A DOUCHEBAG".

I) Flawed argument. "True" gamers? How does this have any bearing on anything? Go check out the wiki list of logical fallacies. This is a "cool kids do this" argument, and it fails hard.

You're right. That's the most subjective and fallacious of my statements. You win that round. But I would argue that the fans that are supporting their hobby by buying the games they play are bigger fans that those that are not.

J) Not convincing you, maybe, but it's still the truth in many cases. Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it's wrong.

OK, I'll buy that, although you're interpreting that statement rather literally. I'll restate it, then. I personally have NEVER known anyone that has bought a game AFTER they pirated it. Therefore, I do not believe people when they say they pirate it to see if they will purchase it later.

K) So? Your point is? It's entirely true, anyway. Some games change a LOT in the time between the release of the demo and the release of the actual game.

If you want to argue it that way- there are many, MANY games where the demo allows a player a VERY generous chunk of the game (Crysis and Left4Dead, for example) How much of a game do you need to see before you know you want to purchase it? If you're going to pirate a game instead of downloading a demo, won't you ruin the play value if you play too much?

L) Yes? And? What's wrong with this? It's the way of Capitalism. Why is it bad to want companies that you hate to fail in business? Why is it bad to not buy things from them? As stated before, good games WILL sell regardless of piracy. If they made enough good games, maybe they'd be in the black more, and wouldn't need to resort to blaming piracy.

It's bad not to buy things from them WHEN YOU STEAL IT INSTEAD. And just because YOU DON'T THINK IT'S GOOD, doesn't give you the right to play it WITHOUT PAYING. Does the same logic work with a movie theater? You should definitely walk up to the ticket-taker and tell them, "I don't like Warner Brothers, but I'm going to walk in to their movie anyway". See how far you get. What's the difference?

Prove that Morality is a black and white thing, and not a product of social structure and maybe some of your arguments will have weight. You don't have the moral high ground unless you can prove moral high ground EXISTS.

You say you've never met anyone who bought a game after pirating it? Meet ME. Hi, I'm me, I bought several games after pirating them. If I had not pirated them, I would never have bought them.

Don't equate downloading electrical media with stealing cars. There are degrees of right and wrong. Stop going for the extreme all the time. It gives your posts emotional fervor, but sacrifices accuracy for it. Stealing a BMW is NOT the same as pirating an old GBA game.

So if you can't afford something, you shouldn't have it? I guess I agree with that, but what about piracy for the purpose of research? You say you don't believe anyone actually does that, but they DO. Why buy crap when you can test it first? Years ago, you could play a game before you bought it.

E) Moral Imperative? What?!? How would that prove you "won," even assuming you DID have such a thing? Again, prove that morality is a black/white thing and not a social construct. You lose. People that disagree with you are wrong? Wow, you're so great at thoughtful debate, aren't you?

F) Pirates will buy a good game JUST TO OWN THE PROPER VERSION. Especially with portable games.

G) Can't they? Obviously they do.

H) Buying is no less lazy than pirating. It's actually LESS work, because pirating is often much more difficult than clicking the "buy" option. Very poor word choice, as you noticed. Anyway, your personal opinion of the quality of someone who does pirate is irrelevant. Argument failed.

J) Again, meet me.

K) Actually I DO know people who pirate a game, then only play enough to decide whether or not they like the core gameplay, then they buy it. I'm not trying to justify these people to you (I couldn't care less what you think about it), but it's worth noting that you're once again wrong.

L) This is debatable. You equate piracy with out-and-out stealing, and I don't. Your other points are just more extremely exaggerated comparisons. As for the whole "piracy on principal" issue, I don't really care one way or another. I'll admit their logic is a bit flawed, but it doesn't make you right about all your other rant points.

Finally, stop arguing from your moral high horse. Have you ever downloaded licensed music illegally? Ever stolen something in real life? Ever lied? Then get off it. Yet again, I repeat that you define morality as an ABSOLUTE (prove it, don't just say it) before you continue this line of argument any further.