Jimquisition: When Piracy Becomes Theft

[Epona]

Sorry, Jim. Can't have it both ways.
Whatever they may say above the line, a pirate does not pick a title thinking "I wanna stick it to developer X", but they pick a title thinking, "game X looks cool. I want it, but I don't wanna pay for it."
Stealing is not dependent upon the victim. It is dependent upon the perpetrator.

I hope you don't work in law enforcement because you would miss many a thief if you limit your thinking like this. Sometimes people pirate BECAUSE they don't want to give money to EA, sometimes it's because they want free shit, sometimes it's because they want to demo it, etc...

Open your mind a little, it really isn't so black and white.

 

[mjc0961]

Hell, I'd vote for Jim to be president. I'd vote for him long before I'd vote for Gingrich or Romney.

Sorry dude, but there's no "middle ground" and it's still not "theft"... you can't apply the concept of "theft" to intellectual goods, it may be cockmongery or dickery, douchebaggery or something like that and I always make sure to pay at least 5? even if I already own most games, but it's still not theft.

WRONG. Like he said in the video and I'll repeat, this isn't about using proper legal terms. We already know that it's technically not theft, we just don't care. It's about calling people who take things without paying for them what we always call people who take things without paying for them: THIEVES. BURGLARS. ROBBERS. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't care what they'd be legally charged with if charges were brought upon them. I don't care that the "original copy" is still there. They took something without paying for it. THEY STOLE IT. They're dirty thieves. And like the video says, in the event when they stole a game that was already dirt cheap, contains no DRM, and 100% of the sale money goes to the people who created the game, they deserve to be treated with the same scorn we would treat a person who commits actual burglary and would actually be charged in a court of law as a thief.

It's just sad that so many people are missing the point of the video so they can sit here and defend these bastards who would take even cheap, DRM free indie games without paying for them with this nonsense about proper legal terms that nobody should care about. These people are truly villains. There is no justification for their actions. Stop trying to make them sound more dignified and start hurling as much shame as possible at them.

 

[dbenoy]

Whatever, I doubt that anyone can just add zeros as they see fit and then go shopping and no one will lose anything. If that's your argument then what is stopping you from doing that?

Me personally? That I'm honest. I know, that might be hard for you to understand the concept, but there it is.
In general? Excellent hacking protection, essentially, working DRM.

I like economics and money theory Here's an interesting thought experiment. You're on a deserted island with a few other people, and you're using bottle caps for money. Let's say you got some bottle caps for your coconuts and instead of spending the caps, you smash them into little bits and toss them in the sea.

Where does that value go? There's still just as many coconuts and wooden huts and volleyballs with faces on them as there were the day before, so you can't say that you destroyed any wealth. So who gets the wealth?

The answer is that everyone else's bottle caps just became more valuable, because there's fewer of them to represent the value of the same amount of stuff on the island.

It works in reverse too. If you somehow find a way to mint new bottle caps on your island, you get free stuff, but everyone else on the island's bottle caps become less valuable than they were before, because now there's less stuff on the island available for everyone else to buy (less supply, same demand, means higher prices)

 

[dbenoy]

The people on the island are wise to select bottle caps as currency, though. They're rare things, and difficult to fake.

For that same reason, the people of the modern world are unwise to use fake government "money" because you can easily add extra zeros, and that person benefits at the expense of the entire economy.

 

[Carnagath]

What I get from this video is that for some people it's unthinkable that there are countries in the world where credit cards/debit cards are highly uncommon. Like, they can't even imagine it. Where even the wide-spread broadband internet is a thing that mostly happened in the last 5 years. Guess what, it's true. I belong in such a country. I do not use a credit card for online purchases, because it's not that useful here and I am too scared of hackers and don't want to spend mornings of my life trying to do damage control when my card eventually gets physically stolen or digitally compromised. After PSN, I never bothered with credit cards again, and so did most of my friends. There's a nifty little payment method for people like us called PaySafe. It's a prepaid code that comes on a receipt and is sold by any local small store. Steam supports them. GOG doesn't. Neither does PayPal, meaning that you can't top off your PayPal account with one of those, and I'd rather burn in hell than let ANY internet company anywhere near my actual bank account.

So, in short, if you see any extremely cheap bundles and people still pirate them, that's because they don't have a choice and the developer/publisher/distributer did not care enough to make them easy to obtain for those people. It's as simple as that. I can guarantee to you that, if you are selling something only via credit card and paypal, very VERY few people in the whole of Eastern Europe are going to buy them. This is why there are pirated versions of 1 cent games. So, to all publishers and distributors, if you really are interested in selling worldwide, take your heads out of your American and NW European asses and LEARN who you are selling to and how to approach them.

 

[Raesvelg]

Except that copyright infringement and theft aren't the same thing so those who are saying that are simply telling the truth. That's not dishonest. What is dishonest is trying to use a stronger term that doesn't apply just to make it sound worse.

And equally dishonest is trying to use a weaker term that does apply, just to make it sound better.

Much like how a "Search and Destroy" operation, in military parlance, became a "Sweep and Clear" operation. Technically correct, but much more... sanitized.

Or how the British, during the Second World War, rather than referring to their carpet-bombing campaigns over German cities, designed expressly to kill civilians as "civilian-murder-raids", referred to it instead as "dehousing". As in, "Oh no, we're not killing Germans! We're just... burning their houses down. With them inside, perhaps, but that's not the goal! Truly! We're just after their houses!"

It is entirely possible to turn honesty towards dishonest ends. I reiterate: the people who are up in arms over calling copyright infringement theft aren't doing so out of some bizarre grammatical crusade. They're doing it because "copyright infringement" doesn't carry the same moral weight as saying "theft" does.

That's it. That's the only reason. End of story, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

They're just trying to avoid the moral responsibility of their actions.

 

[Marmooset]

I hope you don't work in law enforcement because you would miss many a thief if you limit your thinking like this. Sometimes people pirate BECAUSE they don't want to give money to EA, sometimes it's because they want free shit, sometimes it's because they want to demo it, etc...

Open your mind a little, it really isn't so black and white.

They can say whatever rationalization they want. And it is pretty much black and white. This isn't the middle ages where someone serves 20 years for stealing a loaf of bread. "your honor, I never would have done it, but my poor Dell was starving!" Stealing is stealing. Save your extenuating circumstances for the sentencing.

And I have opened my mind to it. And what I see is people using junkie logic to defend an indefensible position.

 

[Epona]

Except that copyright infringement and theft aren't the same thing so those who are saying that are simply telling the truth. That's not dishonest. What is dishonest is trying to use a stronger term that doesn't apply just to make it sound worse.

And equally dishonest is trying to use a weaker term that does apply, just to make it sound better.

Much like how a "Search and Destroy" operation, in military parlance, became a "Sweep and Clear" operation. Technically correct, but much more... sanitized.

Or how the British, during the Second World War, rather than referring to their carpet-bombing campaigns over German cities, designed expressly to kill civilians as "civilian-murder-raids", referred to it instead as "dehousing". As in, "Oh no, we're not killing Germans! We're just... burning their houses down. With them inside, perhaps, but that's not the goal! Truly! We're just after their houses!"

It is entirely possible to turn honesty towards dishonest ends. I reiterate: the people who are up in arms over calling copyright infringement theft aren't doing so out of some bizarre grammatical crusade. They're doing it because "copyright infringement" doesn't carry the same moral weight as saying "theft" does.

That's it. That's the only reason. End of story, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

They're just trying to avoid the moral responsibility of their actions.

How is a term that does fit equally as dishonest as a term that doesn't fit?

 

[Raesvelg]

How is a term that does fit equally as dishonest as a term that doesn't fit?

And now we're back to semantics.

You argue that "theft" doesn't fit, based on a particular definition of theft. Others argue that it does, based on a different definition of theft.

Interestingly, the United States government supports both definitions.

 

[MB202]

I like the new intro, BTW! I feel so lucky to have found you, Jim, you truly have opened my eyes to the reality of some situations.

 

[Furrama]

Sorry No, Indie devs are not special and copyright infringement doesn't become theft when it involves an Indie developer.

In fact, I place a lower value on Indie games because most are ugly, simplistic and repetitive. I don't pirate them though, I watch them on YouTube and decide to skip them. I guess this show was required though, given the anti-piracy stance of the escapist.

BTW, when I hear people talk about castrating and torturing people (I guess only males are pirates), I assume they are not to be taken seriously.

So as long as the whores are usually ugly and stupid it's okay to treat them like crap? I mean, YOU don't treat them like crap, but it's OKAY if others do because they're ugly... and stupid. Who cares about them? It's not like they're PEOPLE or anything.

Indy games need player support far more than a big publisher would. They're hungry little people holding up cardboard signs and trying to do the best with what they have while standing next to Mr. Bigg Moneybags and his neon signs and slave labor. This is a morality issue, and there comes a point when the line between copyright infringement and theft blur, and the term "intellectual rape" can be applied.

That guy. Don't be that guy.

 

[Jimothy Sterling]

The "one cent" thing is acknowledged, though it still dodges the actual issue in an attempt to make torrenting seem more noble. Just pay the minimum to keep them afloat. Something tells me those pirating it don't exactly care who loses money in this equation.

If that penny is eaten by PayPal or credit card fees, then what difference does it make? You aren't helping the devs by giving PayPal or Visa a penny.

And I totally acknowledge that. But I was just making a point that, even when faced with the choice of paying a tiny amount, some people are still dickish enough to rip it off.

I see what you're saying, and yeah, I would urge people not to pay a cent in light of this new thing I know. However, saying "One cent is worse than torrenting" does not instantly elevate pirating the bundle to a noble act. It's still sleazy and they ought to either pay a safe minimum amount or leave the shit alone.

That's all I am saying.

 

[Ariyura]

snipped for length

I do have a question about your post. You say that importing is piracy? Can you explain that to me? How is it piracy when you've legally paid for it and the large shipping fees that come along with importing from another country.

 

[dbenoy]

Whereas their opponents are equally dishonest, attempting to avoid a word with a strong negative connotation in order to evade the moral responsibility inherent to their actions...

As one such opponent, that's not my intention at all. To properly understand the issue, you must understand that copyright infringement, and 'stealing' (as classically defined) are separate concepts, and opposing one does not automatically mean opposing the other, just as supporting one does not automatically mean supporting the other.

I share your distaste for the semantical bickering, Raesvelg. This manipulation of language caused some people to believe in an equivocation fallacy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation#Fallacious_reasoning ) and rather than acknowledge and avoid that logical trap, people sometimes insist on trying to 'win the argument' and declare the 'correct' definition of 'theft'.

 

[lord.jeff]

Piracy discussions are the only time I see the "that's not technically theft" come up, no one bothers to correct anyone when they says "That game stole it's story from..." there's no loss of the original product so it can't be theft yet no one seems to care unless it's misused in regards to piracy.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Jim says these developers don't use DRM or copy-protection measures. But then he said that pirates "cracked" the games to copy them. That doesn't make any sense, because if there were no copy-protection measures, then the games wouldn't need to be cracked.

Also, the argument that piracy isn't theft because "the owner still has a copy" doesn't stand up. The definition of theft does not require the owner to be deprived of anything. The definition of theft is "taking possession of someone else's property without permission" - with digital goods, you can steal something and still leave the owner with a copy. It's the taking a copy for yourself which is the act of theft, not the depriving someone of a copy.

Are copyright laws fucked up? Sure. Should piracy be punished less harshly than breaking into someone's house and stealing their jewellery? Sure. But those claiming "they still have a copy so it's not theft" simply don't understand what the definition of theft is. It is both copyright infringement and a form of theft.

 

[Strain42]

As someone currently in the process of working towards making indie games, I thank you for this episode.

You also get some bonus points for throwing in the Judge from Ace Attorney.

Yay.

 

[mdqp]

I think they should add a "thank God" button below the video.

Hilarious and original as always.

 

[The Great JT]

All hail the coming of the Superking, Jim Sterling!