How do you feel about illegal game downloads?

[Doug]

Meh (hoorah for the dictionary), I think it depends.

One scenario were I think its morally ok: Abandonware. Games that are no longer sold anywhere aside from eBay and the like, and/or the owning company has long since ceased trading. For example, much of the Interplay backlot has fallen away.

Second scenario: Backups. But thats not piracy you say? According to EA, and others, and the music industry, (see http://xkcd.com/488/ ) it is. Although legally, under UK law, its legal.

Third scenario: Getting rid of DRM. So, you purchased a legal copy of the game? But you don't want an DRM messing around with your system? Seems fair to me. To EA? You are a pirate of the highest calibre. Why? Because, the want you to never, ever sell on your game to return some of the over-the-top pricing you paid for it.

Fourthly, perhaps: No demo. Alot of games now aren't coming out with demos to play before you buy. EA seem to be the spearhead of this - perhaps because their games are never as good as promised. Personally, I'm not sure if I'd 100% support downloading for a demo, because I suspect its a lie people tell themselves so they aren't stealing.

Aside from that, I'd say its morally wrong, and almost certainly illegal. You might not like companies like EA, but that doesn't give you the right to steal. It'd be the same as saying 'I don't support... The team behind the Simpson, so I'll steal a copy of the movie to avoid supporting them whilst getting what I want.

 

[Jimmyjames]

Thanks. I actually was wondering. It's pretty much potato, potahto for how it applies to this argument, however. Either one can take the place of the other. It doesn't matter which word gets used in this context.

No, not really. The layman's way of explaining morals/etchics:

Morals are what you personally consider wrong, and are considered truths or character. ie: it's wrong to murder people. Wrong to steal, wrong to rape a woman...

Ethics are how morals apply to society. ie: You might consider it morally acceptable for you to sleep with a subordinate, but ethically society says it's inappropriate.

So yes, it does matter. Morally, I think it's wrong to pirate games and I consider piracy stealing. Ethically, it's debatable. Which is why I think we are arguing.

I find it very interesting that you're dancing around what you consider stealing. Especially your new "burden of proof" argument, which is completely irrelevant being that this is not a court of law. You're not being tried for a crime. It's a debate. We're discussing a moral issue here. And besides, in trying to prove me wrong.... aren't you also trying to prove yourself correct?

SO YES OR NO: IS STEALING WRONG?!?

To your second point, when you buy a game, are you buying the packaging and the disc, or are you buying the entertainment of the game itself? How about if you bought the game on Steam? What are you paying for? It must be the game itself, right? So how can you not consider pirating this game stealing?

Yes, I paid for each and every CD that was not a gift. I buy CDs and vinyl off Amazon, from used music stores like Amoeba here in L.A(mainly for out-of-print stuff), various small music shoppes and online stores. It's a passion of mine, what I collect besides old NES and SNES games.

Listen, honestly.... if you disagree with me, I don't care. Just tell me to fuck off. But don't justify that what you're doing isn't AT THE VERY LEAST, "SOME" DEFINITION OF THEFT. You can even steal Intellectual Property, which basically has no corporeal form, right? So how is a game different?

 

[Doug]

I hate Piracy and anybody who illegally downloads a game. I won't argue it's morality because people will justify anything.
However 3 little facts. Epic left the PC market because of Piracy. ID are leaving the PC market because of Piracy. Crytek will soon leave the market because of piracy.

Really now? Oh wait, no: its because XBox charges more, has a more uniform hardware, and they don't work within the market.

Stardock games have ZERO copy protection or DRM. The nearest they have to copy protection? They make you register with them before downloading updates. But if you use Impulse, its not required to enter your details more than once.

The 'famous' post on piracy:
http://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/post.aspx?postid=303512

And a follow up:
http://forums.galciv2.com/106741


And it should be noted "Sins of a Solar Empire", a stardock 'in-house' game, was at least number 3 on the UK sales charts at one point.

Even 2D Boy, with its 80-90% piracy rate, point out quite clearly that every 1000 downloads you stop, one sale results (i.e. if a game was going to be pirated 50,000 times, and you stopped them all, 50 extra sales would result). Put simply, devoting alot of effort to stopping piracy is not cost effective, and normally ended up alienating the paying customers, increasing future piracy.

I'm not saying its morally right, aside from the 3-4 scenarios I listed above, but the publisher/developer replies to this have been over the top, and ineffective (Spore was cracked BEFORE release day, and is set to become the most pirated game to date if rates continue).

 

[ksn0va]

Too expensive outside U.S

 

[Jimmyjames]

The 'famous' post on piracy:
http://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/post.aspx?postid=303512

And a follow up:
http://forums.galciv2.com/106741

And it should be noted "Sins of a Solar Empire", a stardock 'in-house' game, was at least number 3 on the UK sales charts at one point.

That is a damn good article. Mind you, it really touches only on the business end of the issue, but it's a fascinating read.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Thanks. I actually was wondering. It's pretty much potato, potahto for how it applies to this argument, however. Either one can take the place of the other. It doesn't matter which word gets used in this context.

No, not really. The layman's way of explaining morals/etchics:

Morals are what you personally consider wrong, and are considered truths or character. ie: it's wrong to murder people. Wrong to steal, wrong to rape a woman...

Ethics are how morals apply to society. ie: You might consider it morally acceptable for you to sleep with a subordinate, but ethically society says it's inappropriate.

So yes, it does matter. Morally, I think it's wrong to pirate games and I consider piracy stealing. Ethically, it's debatable. Which is why I think we are arguing.

I find it very interesting that you're dancing around what you consider stealing. Especially your new "burden of proof" argument, which is completely irrelevant being that this is not a court of law. You're not being tried for a crime. It's a debate. We're discussing a moral issue here. And besides, in trying to prove me wrong.... aren't you also trying to prove yourself correct?

SO YES OR NO: IS STEALING WRONG?!?

To your second point, when you buy a game, are you buying the packaging and the disc, or are you buying the entertainment of the game itself? How about if you bought the game on Steam? What are you paying for? It must be the game itself, right? So how can you not consider pirating this game stealing?

Yes, I paid for each and every CD that was not a gift. I buy CDs and vinyl off Amazon, from used music stores like Amoeba here in L.A(mainly for out-of-print stuff), various small music shoppes and online stores. It's a passion of mine, what I collect besides old NES and SNES games.

Listen, honestly.... if you disagree with me, I don't care. Just tell me to fuck off. But don't justify that what you're doing isn't AT THE VERY LEAST, "SOME" DEFINITION OF THEFT. You can even steal Intellectual Property, which basically has no corporeal form, right? So how is a game different?

I don't agree with you, and I don't accept that piracy is theft. I didn't realize this was a morality argument, rather than a rational one. With that in mind, I'm done. There's no winning an ethical/moral debate, simply because logic and rules of evidence apparently don't apply. Unfortunately, there's also no losing a moral debate, so this is pointless.

And I wasn't asking IF you bought CD's, but how much you paid per CD (if you had some idea.) Because I don't think I could afford that many CD's at any price.

The definition of "Intellectual Property" is a bit fuzzy. I mean, the full-fledged game, yeah, that's an IP, but what about the idea? At what point is "inspiration" an outright copyright violation? How much can somebody rip off someone else's ideas before it's too much? Where's the line?

I'll answer your stealing question when you present logical arguments, backed by FACT, that prove morality is an absolute. Have fun.

This isn't a court of law, but all I can say is that you're lucky it isn't. And no, I'm actually not proving myself right so much as I'm proving your "argument" is essentially just you repeating your opinion over and over again. Great debate. If proving you wrong proves me right, so much the better, but I'm not trying to prove piracy is right. Just that YOUR opinion is incorrect. And I think I've done that from every logical, non-emotion-cluttered viewpoint.

Well, that's it. I'm out.

 

[Praelanthor]

well i only download the really old games that you can no longer purchase i dont bother with the current gen of games cus there like 12GB in some cases and rape my bandwidth

 

[EzraPound]

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.

You're veering into territory that's far more complex than you present it. Firstly, I wouldn't misrepresent the concept of intellectual property "rights" as being anything other than highly nuanced, since the sheer notion of copyrighting abstracts a) has no historical precedent, to cite the omnipresence of overt 'stealing' in any artistic tradition as an example, b) is virtually limitless in terms of how it can be applied, as it is impossible to create virtually anything without synthesizing ulterior elements that could discernibly be covered under said laws, and c) has largely been advocated by large corporations, who have often been faced with legislative opposition when it's clear that their intentions are merely to erect legal barriers that they can profiteer from. Your cut and dry analysis - "oh downloading a game is still stealing because it's the work that went into it you're paying for" - is cliché and doesn't cover a hundredth of the ground you'd have to in order to arrive at an educated conclusion.

Moreover, the effects of heavy-handed intellectual property rights are more often detrimental than not: in Canada, for example, people used to have effective, government-fundred drug plans that were made affordable by the Canadian knock-offs of international drugs that were marketed, but after Brian Mulroney caved to the pressure of transnationals to ban imitations the program all but dissipated, agitating a healthcare deficit in the country. With music it's no different: the ads they run on television saying that downloading mp3s is "stealing" aren't there because file sharing will truly "kill the music industry" - music is an innate impulse that flourishes in every society, and the Internet and downloading has actually helped independent artists on a number of levels - but because downloading music erodes the corporate structure in place, thusly motivating the major record companies involved to rally against it. Like I said: the implications haven't proven bad in the least -there is a general consensus among critics that a renaissance in popular music (artistically, I mean) has occured roughly since the advent of file sharing.

Of course, I could go on, hopefully dispelling any romanticized notions you have about the nature of intellectual property rights. But the truth is this: when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled to allow the downloading of mp3s on the basis that copying products (not stealing) for non-commercial use is a commonality, they did so a) to protect the rights of citizens, who don't need to endure the prospect of being sued for photocopying short stories in a library or copying friends' casettes, and b) to rein in the authority of corporations, who have demonstrated a tendency to support the institution of draconian laws which would, among other things, greatly prohibit the freedoms of artists.

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.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. The story is this simple: Robin Hood was good and just because he restributed wealth from the rich - who didn't need it to the same extent, and were often exploitative - and gave it to the poor, who in the time period the fable is set were often living in a state of starvation. Admittedly, his methods may have been arbitrary, but no more arbitrary than taxation, which you could consider him a progenitor of. In any case, the point of the metaphor was to illustrate that the notion that it is 'wrong' to 'steal' is only a moral generality, and that there will be always be exceptions to these ideas on a case-by-case basis. You're about to prove this for me yourself, though.

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.

Yes, and I agree with you it's a nice thing to teach children in public school for the sake of social constructionism, but that doesn't negate my point that there are incidents wherein it is more just to steal than to not.

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.

Here is where you shoot yourself in the foot. Because by arguing that stealing is an "absolute" that is never appropriate, you've effectively ruled out the justifications you offer here for killing, which is equally if not more sacred an historical ethical precept. The contradictions are endless: it's okay for America to kill to protect its citizens (or annex oil fields)? Okay, then it's okay for me to pirate to protect my welfare and budget. It's okay for the U.S. army to only be accountable to its own citizens? Alright, then it's okay for me to only be accountable to my own family. Moreover, my original point was merely that it's no more hypocritical to assert that downloading a game is different than "stealing" than it is to assert that killing enemy combatants is different than "murder", which you failed to effectively respond to.

 

[Ago Iterum]

I know how to pirate PC games easily, and have done once before. But to be honest, it doesn't feel the same. When you play a pirated game, you feel dirty. DON'T DO IT!

 

[Jimmyjames]

I didn't realize this was a morality argument, rather than a rational one.

Well, sorry- I thought this was a perfectly rational debate about a moral issue.

There's no winning an ethical/moral debate, simply because logic and rules of evidence apparently don't apply. Unfortunately, there's also no losing a moral debate, so this is pointless.

"Logic and rules of evidence". WHAT logic and evidence did YOU bring to the table?

And I wasn't asking IF you bought CD's, but how much you paid per CD (if you had some idea.) Because I don't think I could afford that many CD's at any price.

If it matters... I've been collecting music since I was about 12(old enough to know what good music is). I'm 28. I have about 100 LPs and 45s, 500 CDs, and paid on average about $10 for each one(anywhere between $2 for a used CD and $80 for more rare vinyl)

The definition of "Intellectual Property" is a bit fuzzy.

No, an IP can be as little as a trademark, as much as an entire brand

I'll answer your stealing question when you present logical arguments, backed by FACT, that prove morality is an absolute. Have fun.

Wait- so you want me to PROVE that stealing is a moral absolute issue with FACT? Impossible. I can tell you that stealing is generally against the law... I can tell you that I believe it's wrong. Come on, man, that's like asking me to prove GOD exists. You're not making any sense when you say that.

This isn't a court of law, but all I can say is that you're lucky it isn't. And no, I'm actually not proving myself right so much as I'm proving your "argument" is essentially just you repeating your opinion over and over again. Great debate.

Yeah, well giving your opinion alongside a reason is generally the idea of an intellectual and philosophical debate (as opposed to a POLITICAL debate, which you'd probably want to support with facts)

You seem to be missing the fact that you haven't given me any information, either. You're telling me I'm wrong. OK, so WHY? You're not even telling me that. You just keep telling me my opinions are irrelevant. You won't even answer a straightforward question.

Let me remind you- the topic of this thread is "How do you feel about illegal game downloads?". You have yet to even give me yours, even after I straight-up asked.

Well, that's it. I'm out.

Thank god.

 

[Flour]

I hate Piracy and anybody who illegally downloads a game. I won't argue it's morality because people will justify anything.
However 3 little facts. Epic left the PC market because of Piracy. ID are leaving the PC market because of Piracy. Crytek will soon leave the market because of piracy.

Funnily enough, the developers you mentioned haven't produced a decent working game for the PC in the last 4 years.
To give two examples: Gears of War is still waiting for an official patch to fix game breaking bugs. Crysis barely runs on most pc's and every "DX10 exclusive" is available for DX9 with some file renaming.

I also like that people are comparing downloading a copy game to stealing a physical copy.
Taking a physical copy makes the store that's selling lose money since they are unable to sell the copy.
Downloading the game makes nobody lose money because:
1) you weren't going to buy the game.
B) you're taking no copy that could be sold to someone else.

I myself download new games to use as a demo, and old games because I can no longer find them.
Even though I download games I don't like it, but I see it as a necessary evil.
You can walk out of the theater and demand a refund(often even after you've seen the entire show), you can even return food and movies when something's wrong with it, but the second you've opened a cd/dvd case, you're treated a criminal when you try to return it.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

I'll answer your stealing question when you present logical arguments, backed by FACT, that prove morality is an absolute. Have fun.

Wait- so you want me to PROVE that stealing is a moral absolute issue with FACT? Impossible. I can tell you that stealing is generally against the law... I can tell you that I believe it's wrong. Come on, man, that's like asking me to prove GOD exists. You're not making any sense when you say that.

That's the point. You can't ever prove your position is right, hence why you keep trying to go to extremes and compare piracy with stealing cars. Your position is an opinion, but you keep trying to act like everybody who doesn't agree with you is evil, lazy and wrong. Get over yourself.

I really am going to leave this alone, but I thought I'd at least pick at that one point a bit. And your ideas about IPs are absurd, but I'll let EzraPound sort you out, as it's getting a bit late over here and I have things to do.

You sound like you'd make a good EA employee, though.

 

[TheSear]

I'm going to be honest and say I download virtually every game I play, HOWEVER, I only play multiplayer games. Downloading it first and playing the usually crappy single player (Like say.. fighting bots on battlefield 2, will usually give me a glimpse of what the game will be like online. If I think the online play will be good then I'll go and buy it, if I don't then I'll simply delete the game. I call it personal quality control.

 

[Jaythulhu]

Any company who states they're quitting pc's because of piracy are lying through their teats. Simple fact: piracy doesn't cost the economy anything. It may cost individual companies, but that money still goes into the community.

However, whilst piracy may be a crime in many countries, with the volume of crap software and console ports released, demos that rarely show what the final game is actually going to be like, and the ridiculous returns policy of most retailers, I can understand why people would download a game before parting with their hard earned.

I've got a drawer full of games I've purchased because reviews and demos made them out to be good games, when actual playing shows otherwise.

On a side note, if it is "immoral" for someone to pirate a game, does that make it immoral for a company who releases a crap game to take our money for it? In effect, the buyer is being conned out of their cash.

 

[vondy]

I download games but to an extent.
If i think the developers deserve the money from making a game i will buy it! (Forza, Fable, Half Life, Assassins Creed, Bioshock, Gears of War, Fallout) But only if the game is good and i have no problem on spending 600 krs on it ($74!)
I would download the game if i think its not worth spending money on. (Halo, Battlestations Midway, Cars, Civ Rev).

In time the developers would see that a real good game will sell and crappy mediocre games will be downloaded because they aren't worth the full price, same with films, i would happily by a DVD of a film i like, but if its a film thats crap then i wont buy it.

Also I'm more keen on DL single player games then Multiplayer games because they are harder to detect and there wont be a risk of getting caught when I'm playing offline.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

I love it! Being able to download ancient games that aren't in production anymore should be permitted by law!

 

[vondy]

Oh yeah and i live in Sweden so downloading is Legal
Can't touch me...

 

[Solo508]

I think its stealing and theres no excuse for it.

 

[Jimmyjames]

That's the point. You can't ever prove your position is right, hence why you keep trying to go to extremes and compare piracy with stealing cars. Your position is an opinion, but you keep trying to act like everybody who doesn't agree with you is evil, lazy and wrong. Get over yourself.

I really am going to leave this alone, but I thought I'd at least pick at that one point a bit. And your ideas about IPs are absurd, but I'll let EzraPound sort you out, as it's getting a bit late over here and I have things to do.

You sound like you'd make a good EA employee, though.

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!? IN WHAT WORLD DO YOU LIVE IN THAT STEALING IS NOT BOTH ETHICALLY AND MORALLY WRONG?!? EzraPound actually makes a good argument- she's saying something that makes sense, alongside distinctions and exceptions. I can listen to that, and it's sound logic.

YOU ARE GOING NOWHERE IN YOUR POSTS. You're criticizing me for comparing piracy to theft by giving examples, and you're telling me in the same breath to give you evidence?!?

YES. My position is OPINION. This THREAD is about opinion.

 

[incal11]

I mostly pirate old games , or games for which I know my money won't end up in the hands of the creators, but it the hands of worthless parasites who "bought" an "intellectual property" (but there aren't many I even want to try recently , anyway).

Intellectual property should always be the property of the creators alone , or of noone at all, that is to say everyone .

I recognise the right of a company to deliver a package to the stores and be paid for it, but if no part of this money is given to the creators , I don't see why I couldn't just reach for the simple data floating on the web if I think the package is not necessary to me.

I admit it is different for games who were made with millions of $ , and the employees were paid . If the game is really good , that company deserves to stay afloat, but when I see the recent games on the shelves I weep in despair ;and don't even want to try them anyway.

Also ,my hate for Steam is beyond words , but there are almost no games on it that interest me.


Well about theft and morality ; taking myself as an example I am free to choose not to adhere to the western concept of property
because there ARE other cultures with different concepts of property , and I can choose to follow them , why would they be wrong ?
, and I will assume the consequences if I ever get caught , because I know I am antagonizing (our) society.
Though it's not like I'm hurting it with my very occasional pirating.