let's debate piracy and the hypocrisy behind it

[shadow skill]

Calling Piracy stealing is just hype for effect. I thought we'd sorted all this out. Can people be a bit more mature and stop doing this maybe?

Obviously not. If you walk into a book store pick up a book on the shelf and sit down and read the whole thing you are not a thief. Oh and for the record no content creator or distributor can be said to have the right to make a profit.

That's a bit of a false analogy. Piracy is more akin to walking into a bookstore, picking up a book, making a copy of each page, and then walking out.

Also, what? You're saying people who work hard making content don't have a right to be rewarded for their effort?

No it isn't a false analogy. The underlying point is that you enjoyed the product and did not buy it. By the time you have enjoyed the product all that needs to happen has already happened. The content provider hasn't lost the book have they?

No, the difference is, you gained a copy of that product without paying for it. While the content provider may still have the original, that does nothing for them. The content provider has received no compensation despite you having received something from them. This is wrong.

So you haven't received anything by reading the book? They were not compensated for your reading the book either.

No, see, this is why your original post was a false analogy. You do not just read the book and leave. You make a copy and take it with you. You have obtained a copy that should have been paid for. Now another person walks in, makes a copy, and pays the provider for it. That is a normal customer. I realize trying to apply digital distribution to a physical example is a bit off, but it should be clear.

No it's actually an example of you applying an arbitrary distinction between two things that are in reality identical in that under both scenarios someone accessed the product without paying for it. The particulars of how this is done are completely irrelevant. Digital piracy has everything to do with data and the access to it. If you have read a book for sale without paying for it you have accessed the data within the book without paying for it, when you "pirate" a game you access the game data without paying for it.

 

[RathWolf]

The real question is: Why is piracy illegal? Supposedly it is because it leads to lost revenue for those who create the content. YES, in much the same way that libraries lead to lost revenue for books and are thus illegal. OH WAIT. To read an interesting viewpoint on online piracy from a content creator in general look up Eric Flint and the Baen Free Library (baen.com/library).

Yes, because books and video games totally cost the same to make. OH WAIT. Games cost millions of dollars in development.
Also, books and video games have the same shelf life OH WAIT. People will go and pick up new copies of hundred year old books that have been published, with royalties still going to the author or their descendants.
And libraries and piracy are the same thing. OH WAIT. Rental stores are the equivalent of libraries, not piracy, because actual copies of the games are purchased, so the developer actually receives money.
And because libraries don't pay for large quantities of books or ever replace them. OH WAIT. They do. You pirate and you don't pay anything.

So I guess you made a totally valid point. OH WAIT. You didn't.

 

[RathWolf]

Calling Piracy stealing is just hype for effect. I thought we'd sorted all this out. Can people be a bit more mature and stop doing this maybe?

Obviously not. If you walk into a book store pick up a book on the shelf and sit down and read the whole thing you are not a thief. Oh and for the record no content creator or distributor can be said to have the right to make a profit.

That's a bit of a false analogy. Piracy is more akin to walking into a bookstore, picking up a book, making a copy of each page, and then walking out.

Also, what? You're saying people who work hard making content don't have a right to be rewarded for their effort?

No it isn't a false analogy. The underlying point is that you enjoyed the product and did not buy it. By the time you have enjoyed the product all that needs to happen has already happened. The content provider hasn't lost the book have they?

No, the difference is, you gained a copy of that product without paying for it. While the content provider may still have the original, that does nothing for them. The content provider has received no compensation despite you having received something from them. This is wrong.

So you haven't received anything by reading the book? They were not compensated for your reading the book either.

No, see, this is why your original post was a false analogy. You do not just read the book and leave. You make a copy and take it with you. You have obtained a copy that should have been paid for. Now another person walks in, makes a copy, and pays the provider for it. That is a normal customer. I realize trying to apply digital distribution to a physical example is a bit off, but it should be clear.

No it's actually an example of you applying an arbitrary distinction between two things that are in reality identical in that under both scenarios someone accessed the product without paying for it. The particulars of how this is done are completely irrelevant. Digital piracy has everything to do with data and the access to it. If you have read a book for sale without paying for it you have accessed the data within the book without paying for it, when you "pirate" a game you access the game data without paying for it.

Really. So, let me get this straight: when you pirate, you are not creating your own copy of the data which you can access from your computer at any time?

You are not "accessing" the data. You are creating your own copy of it. Without rendering any compensation in return.

 

[chronobreak]

Do you take the property of another?

No?

No, you make a copy. It's not like someone walking into your house and taking your game.

Fine, so you are making an unauthorized copy. No need to get bogged down in semantics. You copy the property of another, that you have no rights to or no right to do.

 

[Petromir]

If you want to be pedantic then a pay car park, that alwyas has spaces in it, its still theft to use it. Theft can be of an idea, of an object or a service.

Again, the car park lost something. Even if it has always free space, it's still taking up space for someone who would have paid for it.

If its empty apart form my car how am i actually preventing anyone form using it legitimately?? Answer I'm not.

the car park owners would see their profits drop. perhaps they'll start to make a loss. and then one day, the car park closes, and nobody can park their car anymore.

answer: you DID prevent everyone from using the car park legitimately, only not immediately.

But that can be said for piracy, which is the point I'm making, I'm not preventing other people by my presence there, as the car park has spare capacirty, in the same way a pirate isnt preventing anyone p;laying the legitimate copy.....

 

[Babitz]

I don't really like that Jack guy. A thief is a thief.

Why don't you look up your mp3 folder and say that again? Or remember yourself calling someone a thief for pirating a game when you go to youtube and watch copyrighted material for free. Awesome, isn't it?

 

[numaiomul]

if you want to play games on steam you need a credit card. somethings that isn't so common in an ex-communist country in which all politician are degenerates who don't lie to people faces and no one says a thing.
secondly i see a trend here: Pirates are second-class citizens. everyone treats pirates like garbage. don't blame your problems on the only guys who are NOT ALLOWED to sustain their point. pirates don't have the right to write on a forum and declare their pirates without a risk of probation/ban or other sanctions.
Jack is from Roumania.

piracy is bad but so is sex and alcohol drinking underaged that doesn't stop people from doing it. and guess what, in those 2 situations adults act like the devil himself is in his child thus making the situation worse [more drinking and sex to relieve stress from fights with parents].

So, let me get this straight, because other people do bad things, it's okay for you to do bad things. Yeah, no.

piracy will forever be a problem but people can make it worse [by putting DRM sistems and the rest of stuff that has the draw-back of BUYING customers to pirate to get rid of the DRM feature] or accept it and treat it accordingly.

While DRM is by no means desirable, it doesn't put pirates in the right. The fact remains that DRM has gotten more and more restrictive BECAUSE of piracy.

i heard a game company actually went on torrent websites and gave advice in the comments section of their game. they said their sales we're not radically different but still a bit better.

That was ACE Team, a small independent developer, and while that certainly sounds nice, perhaps I should point you to the other side of the spectrum. Let's look at 2D Boy, company comprised of two people. They made a title you might know, "World of Goo", and went out of the way to remove all DRM. It has a 90% piracy rate. Hmm.

i never said piracy is bad because underaged kids drink alcohol i'm saying that people rezolve the problem in the same horrible manner. you don't resolve piracy by making more types of DRM because pirates and crackers see that as a challenge not as an obstacle. as i recall world of Goo had an event going like "pay how much you want" and they said they had an unprecedented success. why? they didn't care about piracy and people who don't buy, they occupied their brain power to attract the people that buy games but don't have money. a lot useful
.

secondly: jack's family doesn't have enough money a month to give him food at school [not the cordon-bleu type, i mean bread and some butter].

jack sounds like an egoistical bastard. if they don't have the money for food at school,
then maybe jack should sell his computer/console so they can at least eat decently.
also, if jack plays his original games in multiplayer, then that means either the rest of his family, or online. I'm guessing online, since you can play pirated console games multiplayer if you have a second controller (and the game supports splitscreen).
so maybe they should save money off of their internet.

seriously, jack should stop whining about being poor and get his priorities straight:
basic needs for survival (food) > secondary needs (internet)

then that means either the rest of his family, or online.=? please rephrase so i can argue properly
secondly jack's family has no gaming abilities. he plays multiplayer with the few games he has.

why are people so hateful on people like jack? :-/

Because he seems to think that it is perfectly ok to steal stuff because he doesn't have the money to buy it, maybe? Has he tried to get a job? Probably not. Well, I can't afford to live on my own, drive a nice car, or have the insurance for a nice car. Using Jack's logic that means it is perfectly ok for me to go steal a nice car and have a nice house without paying for any of it...

already discussed the job part and never said that stealing is good. but i repeat: piracy exist and if you continue to treat it with the same attitude we will never manage to do anything.

 

[Mr. In-between]

Doesn't emulation count as a form of piracy? Why do so many people think it's ok to emulate a game that didn't come out in their region? How do you know that the publisher wasn't going to release a version for your region? By the logic of many of the people in this thread, you just stole money from that poor developer!

(Keep in mind that I don't pirate games. 1. Because I don't play PC games & 2. Because I like having the case & manual for collector's purposes).

 

[secretsantaone]

Do you take the property of another?

No?

No, you make a copy. It's not like someone walking into your house and taking your game.

Fine, so you are making an unauthorized copy. No need to get bogged down in semantics. You copy the property of another, that you have no rights to or no right to do.

They're different crimes with different sentences. You wouldn't charge an arsonist with damage to public property, even if they are similar.

 

[chronobreak]

They're different crimes with different sentences. You wouldn't charge an arsonist with damage to public property, even if they are similar.

While you are right, an arsonist could be charged with that. At least in the American court system, say you were drunk driving, you could end up with a slew of charges like public intoxication, threatening the public, etc. Not trying to be a tool, just wanted to point it out.

 

[slopeslider]

You know, this is interesting when you think about it a bit more, isn't it? After all, if you go into someone's house and they watch as you take a twenty dollar bill out of their wallet, they'd be pissed, wouldn't they? But if you go into that same person's house, take a twenty dollar bill out out of their wallet, point a wand at it and magically make a duplicate appear, then hand the original twenty back to its owner, he probably wouldn't really care about you taking the copy.
So piracy really isn't theft. I'm not saying it's right, but you would be mistaken to call it theft. After all, we don't call using a copy or fax machine theft, now do we?

Except that's a bit of a false analogy. A more correct one would be: A person is selling art on the street. Now, as the creator, he already has a copy, and thus an extra copy provides no benefit for him. You really want that piece of art. Now, you could pay him in exchange for the results his hard work, but instead, you walk up, pull out your magic wand, make a duplicate of his painting, and walk off with it. He has not benefited at all, whereas if you didn't have your wand, you might have actually paid him.

If you weren't going to buy his paintings for $10,000 anyway then he had no potential money to gain. But if they were $50 maybe more people would be willing to help him out.
I do not like paintings. If someone offered me an exact replica of the Mona Lisa for free, I'd take it. If that person didn't exist and a store was selling the same replica to me for $100 I would not buy it. Because as I stated, I don't buy paintings, nor have I spent or ever will spend money on them. So how is the replica hurting someone? At best it got me interested in paintings.

Now, I do buy videogames. Mainly 360 titles. I don't buy music. I've never bought music. Yet for various reasons I have music. I pirate old videogames. And My piracy is depriving Nintendo of their Earthbound game profit on Wii virtual consol... oh wait they refuse to sell it to me.
I admit there are people who pirate new games and they would buy it if piracy was gone. But to say all piracy is evil...
How many of the pirates are the real customers frustrated with the drm? They get counted in the numbers too.

 

[Maibus]

I'm not a pirate, but expecting people to feel sorry for those HUGE conglomerates of video games for a few free bees is ridiculous, they don't give two shits about any of us, so why should we return the favor? Stealing is wrong, do not misread my statement, but trying to make people feel sorry for developers that make so much money that a few free games is a drop in an oil rig is somewhat on the poorly though out side. At the same time, going on about poor lickle me isn't even a valid argument if you can afford a computer, internet, gaming console, food and a house to hold it all.

 

[RathWolf]

if you want to play games on steam you need a credit card. somethings that isn't so common in an ex-communist country in which all politician are degenerates who don't lie to people faces and no one says a thing.
secondly i see a trend here: Pirates are second-class citizens. everyone treats pirates like garbage. don't blame your problems on the only guys who are NOT ALLOWED to sustain their point. pirates don't have the right to write on a forum and declare their pirates without a risk of probation/ban or other sanctions.

Second-class citizens? Are you kidding me? It's not like pirates are a discriminated race or something. THEY ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE BREAKING THE LAW. It is THEIR CHOICE to do what they are doing.

 

[secretsantaone]

They're different crimes with different sentences. You wouldn't charge an arsonist with damage to public property, even if they are similar.

While you are right, an arsonist could be charged with that. At least in the American court system, say you were drunk driving, you could end up with a slew of charges like public intoxication, threatening the public, etc. Not trying to be a tool, just wanted to point it out.

Ok, I was just referring to how you'd pin them with the most serious charge.

 

[RathWolf]

I'm not a pirate, but expecting people to feel sorry for those HUGE conglomerates of video games for a few free bees is ridiculous, they don't give two shits about any of us, so why should we return the favor? Stealing is wrong, do not misread my statement, but trying to make people feel sorry for developers that make so much money that a few free games is a drop in an oil rig is somewhat on the poorly though out side.

A few free bees? Hmm. Lets look at some numbers shall we?
Last year:
CoD:MW2 - 4,100,000 pirated copies on PC, 970,000 pirated copies on 360
Sims 3 - 3,200,000 pirated copies on PC THIS IS MORE THAN 50% OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES SOLD
Prototype - 2,350,000 pirated copies on PC, 810,000 pirated copies on 360 THIS IS LITERALLY MORE THAN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS SOLD
Need For Speed Shift - 2,100,000 pirated copies on PC
Street Fighter IV - 1,850,000 pirated copies on PC, 840,000 pirated copies on 360.

Need I go on?

By the way, developers don't get all that much money you realize. The gaming industry is mainly comprised of big publishers and then small developers for whom one titles success or failure could make or break their company.

 

[Doitpow]

The art gallery will charge a fee for you to enter. Every time. That is how they make their money. It's not the same business model and therefore cannot be compared to this scenario.

As for music, people were tired of having to fork out over $20 for a CD when they only wanted 1-2 songs. As such, stuff like iTunes and digital download were created to facilitate the need after seeing the success of markets such as Napster. This, in turn, forced the price of CD's back down to respectable levels, considering the cost of production of a CD has not changed in over 20 years.

The gaming industry is different. The development standards are now so high that gaming companies have to invest millions to produce a single game, and they need to make a return on that to remain profitable.

The two mediums are too different to compare. Show me an article that says people who pirate movies are likely to buy more movies and then I might be inclined to believe your argument has merit. $0.99 music download does not equal $60 game purchase.

The art gallery will charge a fee for you to enter. Every time. That is how they make their money. It's not the same business model and therefore cannot be compared to this scenario. Really? no art gallery is free? Except the....Tate, Tate Modern, British Portrait gallery, the National Gallery, Somerset House Gallery, The Saatchi & Saatchi gallery, Gallery of British Design, National Gallery of Art (in D.C.)....gasp. Not to mention about 10,000 small galleries, no artist starting out in london will charge entry to for a gallery....
That is not how they make their money.

Show me an article that says people who pirate movies are likely to buy more movies and then I might be inclined to believe your argument has merit.May I cite the fansubbing argument?
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/feature/2003-06-08/3

And on a less professional note...No bastarding industry that makes a 9% profit rise over a year during an economic recession can ever ***** that they are 'losing money'. The profits of the film and video game industry are staggering, Universal Studios recorded a profit of almost $3 billion last year. They are making less money than if everyone who saw their films payed. That is like me saying I lost a hundred thousand pounds because not everyone who took my picture gained my written permission to do so and I am able to sue them.

But you know the thing that Really pisses me off. It doesn't matter, any of it. There is no collapse of Film or Gaming industries, they are both in a period of completely sustained growth, and in spite of that, you get this SHIT <youtube=MTMIz0_Iij8>.
Forced down our throats every...fucking....day, because governments listen to the whining of fat cat industrialists, just because they haven't worked out how to profit from online distribution properly. Call me a hippy, but how about....Fuck film companies. Quit subsidesing their war against their own customers, and use government funding to...I don't know...fund hospitals, or build bridges, or foreign aid, or even put up one more public toilet, it would serve the world better.

Anyway...I'm tapped out.

 

[King Kupofried]

If you weren't going to buy his paintings for $10,000 anyway then he had no potential money to gain. But if they were $50 maybe more people would be willing to help him out.
I do not like paintings. If someone offered me an exact replica of the Mona Lisa for free, I'd take it. If that person didn't exist and a store was selling the same replica to me for $100 I would not buy it. Because as I stated, I don't buy paintings, nor have I spent or ever will spend money on them. So how is the replica hurting someone? At best it got me interested in paintings.

You make the mistake of assuming this offer is exclusive to you alone. So you get a free Mona Lisa replica for free. Except this man has a warehouse full of them that he is willing to give out for free. You show a friend of yours who loves paintings this painting you got for free, maybe this friend of yours had saved up his money to buy one himself. Now he is going to pick it up for free, there's a lost sale. Maybe word of mouth gets around that people can get their paintings free of charge from this man. It might only be a handful of people but if they keep running around showing it off to people, more are going to look that way even if it's just one person at a time.
Not only that but if you did get into paintings by getting it for free something tells me your first reaction is going to be to get another free one that you are interested in.

If you feel like piracy isn't a problem right now, I can understand that, I myself am iffy about if the issue is as severe as it is said. If you think it doesn't have the potential to be destructive then that is just simply naive. An opportunity for someone to get something for free that they would not have to begin with is just as open to someone looking to just hold onto their money and get their purchase for free. By going around and presenting reasons why there is no reason to feel bad about pirating is advertising the potential problem, and increasing the risk.

 

[shadow skill]

Calling Piracy stealing is just hype for effect. I thought we'd sorted all this out. Can people be a bit more mature and stop doing this maybe?

Obviously not. If you walk into a book store pick up a book on the shelf and sit down and read the whole thing you are not a thief. Oh and for the record no content creator or distributor can be said to have the right to make a profit.

That's a bit of a false analogy. Piracy is more akin to walking into a bookstore, picking up a book, making a copy of each page, and then walking out.

Also, what? You're saying people who work hard making content don't have a right to be rewarded for their effort?

No it isn't a false analogy. The underlying point is that you enjoyed the product and did not buy it. By the time you have enjoyed the product all that needs to happen has already happened. The content provider hasn't lost the book have they?

No, the difference is, you gained a copy of that product without paying for it. While the content provider may still have the original, that does nothing for them. The content provider has received no compensation despite you having received something from them. This is wrong.

So you haven't received anything by reading the book? They were not compensated for your reading the book either.

No, see, this is why your original post was a false analogy. You do not just read the book and leave. You make a copy and take it with you. You have obtained a copy that should have been paid for. Now another person walks in, makes a copy, and pays the provider for it. That is a normal customer. I realize trying to apply digital distribution to a physical example is a bit off, but it should be clear.

No it's actually an example of you applying an arbitrary distinction between two things that are in reality identical in that under both scenarios someone accessed the product without paying for it. The particulars of how this is done are completely irrelevant. Digital piracy has everything to do with data and the access to it. If you have read a book for sale without paying for it you have accessed the data within the book without paying for it, when you "pirate" a game you access the game data without paying for it.

Really. So, let me get this straight: when you pirate, you are not creating your own copy of the data which you can access from your computer at any time?

You are not "accessing" the data. You are creating your own copy of it. Without rendering any compensation in return.

In order to create your own copy you have to have access to the data. That is why the access to said data is the true issue.

 

[numaiomul]

Jack has no right to or need for these games, though. What he should do is be smart and save up the last bit of those $30 for some time, then, if he can, buy some cheap used games and a shit console? That's how he should do it. And how does he have time for games if his family is doing so bad? Why is he not working in all his spare time, scrounging for pennies wherever pennies can be scrounged for? Jack is a piece of shit who has no idea what money should be used for and what's important in life. Jack should be taught a lesson about life and what is needed for it to be good.

i really wished you lived in my country please come with your latest cell phone, clothes not bought from second-hand and a laptop maybe [which is still high-tech here], oh and bring your nintedo DS because i have not seen one in my entire life except in a store. and please find a job where 25 year old student are fighting for a job to clean toilets. let's remember something: i, jack and all the people he represents for me live in an undeveloped country which is still suffering from economic crisis. today i found out that some of my colleagues have tick's because they don't have money to buy shampoo. old computers can run new games if you know hot to improvise. keep oil in a freezer or any non conductive liquid, then find a tub-like thing for your unit, put it there then pour the oil in. then you can overclock for about 2 hours if your lucky and then repeat.
oh did i recall the countless walks through the city to find free stuff? like shampoo? i have long hair and my mother told me the shampoo bought per month stays the same but i need about double so i have to scavenge the city for free samples or take from the 30$ dollars i get a month.
and please tell me how many times did you take partially eaten food from other people table after they left because u can't afford fast-food in your runs from finding free classes to prepare and going to free classes to prepare.
i have plenty of problems and i need something to unwind, unfortunately most of my playing friends are playing halo 2 [original] me being stuck still with halo:Combat Evolved and counter-strike and thrust me i have the biggest motivation to buy halo 2 [and figure a way to make it work on windows xp but that's another issue] but i can't.

if you want to play games on steam you need a credit card. somethings that isn't so common in an ex-communist country in which all politician are degenerates who don't lie to people faces and no one says a thing.
secondly i see a trend here: Pirates are second-class citizens. everyone treats pirates like garbage. don't blame your problems on the only guys who are NOT ALLOWED to sustain their point. pirates don't have the right to write on a forum and declare their pirates without a risk of probation/ban or other sanctions.

Second-class citizens? Are you kidding me? It's not like pirates are a discriminated race or something. THEY ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE BREAKING THE LAW. It is THEIR CHOICE to do what they are doing.

in my country drug addicts are treated as victims [which makes sense] and not only did they chose to take drugs they chose to pay for them [and probably selling stuff from the house to buy drugs] but pirates are horrible human beings that can't think and have no regard for anyone.

 

[Seneschal]

People like Jack don't exist, unless they're insane enough to live in these (rare) conditions with a good computer (required for gaming) and good connection. Stop trying to make yourself feel better about pirating, it's called "piracy" for a reason.

You don't know what you're talking about. None of you do, actually. Jack is no myth. Actually, I all gamers I've met personally are Jack, and I can guarantee there are some 30 million more Jacks within 1000 km of where I live. In fact, everyone is Jack in Eastern Europe.

Computer components are relatively cheap here because they get manufactured locally, with local manpower and local materials, which drops prices. I cannot yet afford a gaming computer, but it is very much a reasonable expense, and practically every household has computers here. However, due to games being produced elsewhere, import taxes tend to raise prices even up to $100-$150. I can buy a console for that much money. Everything east of Germany is arguably still categorized as the First World, so people largely have a secure existence, but there are insurmountable disadvantages. Do not try to deny it, you do not live here.

And while none of this justifies the Jacks from Poland to Russia and down from Greece to Turkey, the fact is that gaming in general is a distant dream for all of them when they live in countries that may as well support such a hobby if not for those pesky international barriers. So they pirate. And then they spend every cent on games until they have no more, and then pirate again. Now, this disadvantaged region could have easily been a dead zone for gaming, generating no profit whatsoever, and the developers would suffer for it. Instead, it has a gigantic gaming community. I myself spent embarrassing amounts of money on games and gaming computers when I could afford it, sometimes buying games for prices that would make your 'Murrican heads spin, sometimes reduced to the bargain bin, and unfortunately, I've been pirating since I was 10. Loads of people I know are avid gamers, and they sure don't keep the local retailers alive by being cut-off from the rest of the world simply because "downloading iz rong."

Piracy is an unlawful practice here, naturally, but it is also a placeholder that keeps all the retailers in the business and contributes to the developers, yet it sure doesn't sustain itself by buying games for $150. If you want to blame someone, look at your average western pirate that CAN afford it, but chooses not to. He's a lost sale.

I have reason to believe most pirates come from developing countries. These people aren't lost sales. The developers are lucky the games are even being played in the countries, it creates publicity and new customers in what would otherwise be completely dead territory.