let's debate piracy and the hypocrisy behind it

[squid5580]

i didn't try to justify what jack does and that wasn't the worst case scenario. that was a real scenario of at least 40 of my high-school colleagues. we live in an underdeveloped country where hard work does not guarantee money.
secondly WHY THE HATE?. did they steal from you? it's important to care but not for every little thing. i'm not trying to justify piracy i'm trying to tune down all the collective hate because i understand. i don't agree but i understand.

Yes infact you are stealing from me. Thanks to people like Jack I can't enjoy a game like AC2 without jumping through hoops. Then the companies turn around and invest more time and resources to stopping Jack that should be going to KICK ASS GAME #3. So instead of those funds going to the guys actually making the games (you know the ones who actually deserve it) to make KA #3 better they have to pay guys to think of ways to stop you from stealing thier stuff.

 

[JonnWood]

oh and btw: pirating in our country is something as common as walking. i even saw a guy selling dvd-s o some police-men.multiple times.

I know a cop, personally, who pirates. Doesn't make it right.

But Jack is STILL A SALE LOST! The game he got for free that should have been paid for is $60 lost from the company, and if what you say is true, 10,000 people not paying $60 is $600,000 that should have been paid! And if he tells a person to buy the game (The Game which I just lost, everyone feel free to say "Damn you!" or something), how do we know the person he told doesn't pirate it? He's just spreading the word and creating more pirates! And if your country is so bad financially, how can those 15,000 people can pay for the game in your country and come 10,000 can't? You're contradicting yourself.

Whether they would have paid is irrelevant; they didn't.

[words]

THIS.

I would say their about the same.. The biggest piece of the cake is probably the people who just downloads every thing they have the slightest interest in, because they can.
Hopefully this pushes the industry to make an alternative solution that makes piracy not worth it.
For example, in Sweden we have Spotify. Basicly its all the music in the world for 100 swedish kronor (about 12$) a month (or free with ads). A service thats better than piracy in so many ways that its just not worth the effort to download illegaly anymore

That's nearly impossible; it's hard to beat "free".

 

[JonnWood]

...

...

Ugh... this is like trying to talk to people that believe in god... You are not making a copy of it for fuck's sake. That is the stupidest and most illogical thing I have ever heard. Well, not really. I need to stop saying it is the most illogical thing ever because ever type I say that people never fail to prove me wrong when they open their mouths again.

To make a copy of anything, first you must have it in your possession. You may be downloading a copy of it, but you are not making the copy yourself, unless you burn it onto a disc or something. When I download a CD or a game, I am not making a copy of it. I am getting the files from another source and getting them onto my hard drive. When I backup my hard drive or burn the data to a disc, then I am making a copy of it.

Bottom line, you are not making a copy, you are taking a copy.

You're arguing your own personal semantics here.

And being a religious bigot to boot.

What an unbiased and objective argument.

You don't have to be objective to be right about something. If a grieving mother says her son's killer shouldn't just get a slap on the wrist,is she necessarily wrong?

 

[chronobreak]

jack is NOT a lost sale because he was never a sale. and just because some are filthy rich by stealing from others doesn't mean we're all filthy rich.

It sucks just as much to lose a potential sale, dude. We are all potential sales, even people that don't buy games normally are a potential sale. Maybe someone that is going to pirate it would have bought it, if it wasn't so easily availible for free. There is no real way to tell. I'm sure there are plenty of people who could afford to get a game, but know they can get it for free, so they don't bother.

Ugh... this is like trying to talk to people that believe in god...

Absolutely uncalled for.

 

[lwm3398]

Whether they would have paid is irrelevant; they didn't.

I know that perfectly well, I just had to put it in those words because of how he said it:

he isn't a loss because he didn't have the requirements for the target population [funds and stuff] so technically the company loses nothing maybe gain one or tho customers because jack tells how good the game is and jack gains some fun time. there are at least 10k jacks in my city alone so that means roughly 15k extra sales for a good game.

 

[squid5580]

Well.. Im just going to use your own argument here..

Let's imagine that, with no alternative, 5% (a rather low number) of the people who have pirated the game buy it after they downloaded it illegaly and liked it.

That doesnt sound to unreasonable, does it? I became a huge fan of the Football Manager games after i played a pirated copy of it a couple of years ago and have bought every realease of it since that.

The thing is though, what do you think is a higher percentage of pirates: those who just want it for free and would otherwise buy it, or those who download a game and then decide to buy it?

I would say their about the same.. The biggest piece of the cake is probably the people who just downloads every thing they have the slightest interest in, because they can.
Hopefully this pushes the industry to make an alternative solution that makes piracy not worth it.
For example, in Sweden we have Spotify. Basicly its all the music in the world for 100 swedish kronor (about 12$) a month (or free with ads). A service thats better than piracy in so many ways that its just not worth the effort to download illegaly anymore

Sure but you aren't taking into account all of the legally free games on the net. It changes the excuse from I can't afford to play games to I can't afford to play that game.

 

[numaiomul]

companies should focus more on potential customers. don't think on how to stop people from spreading your game for free think about attracting customers. besides if i think that each gorgeous woman i see on the street is a potential sex partner i'd go insane.
sometimes something free of low-quality is less desirable then something for which you have to pay but with high-quality.
and chronobreak if we're all potential sales then it means that everyone is at fault for not buying the game, and besides as long as you don't buy the game you status as a potential sale remains the same even after you wash dishes or play a pirated game [maybe slight modifications].

I think it was about 6 months ago someone(here) did do an article on pirated games in lower income places i cant find it but it may help your cause

i would appreciate it if you could find it and post it here 'cause i didn't find it.

 

[DaOysterboy]

Jack's actions DO hurt me though. When I bought KotOR, it wouldn't run on my computer because the DRM recognized my drive as a DVD burner, and thought I would burn the game and give it to all of my friends for free. I had no intention of doing so, but because there are "Jacks" who would do so, I was prevented from playing my legitimately purchased game. Seriously, I couldn't even open the troubleshooting doc to find help. I returned the game twice (for the exact same copy... because getting your money back on a "copyable" product is now a violation of copyright laws and store policies) and the same problem came up every single time. As mentioned, DRM is not a creative innovation to enhance gameplay experience. It is a response to a perceived problem in the industry, which is propagated by the many Jacks. Jacks have changed how the gaming industry functions in a way which hurts legitimate customers.

I really am sorry for your economic and general situation and hope things look up for you, but I have to say piracy is not going to help the gaming industry. I'd like to know a little more about your viewpoint though.
A) I'm aware that due to import taxes and such games are typically more expensive outside my United States. What about legit download options like Steam or Impulse? What are prices usually like on those?
B) Free games have been mentioned several times, but besides a passing mention of Cave Story, you haven't really addressed why you don't just take that route. Surely, there's more than enough hours of freeware out there for whatever your interests are?
C) Have you addressed these complaints to game providers? Capitalism works based on supply and demand. If games companies thought they could make a profit (albeit a smaller one) by providing regional discounts they would do so, (granted ebay importing of regional copies would just cause Americans to have games shipped overseas so maybe not).

My own bottom line is that copyright infringement does hurt the industry and more importantly the creative minds behind it. People always rag on Metallica's fight against Napster with the "Oh those greedy bastards have more than they deserve anyways!" argument. Not really... as long as people are willing to pay for their copyrighted materials, they "deserve" to charge what they wish for the privilege of access to to it. They are also free to distribute it to the world free of charge. Smashing Pumpkins did just that with their Machina II album. Those who don't pay don't get access and the corporations set the pricing to maximize profits of those who will PAY AND USE vs. those who will NOT PAY AND NOT USE. Pirates circumvent the supply/demand model by providing the NOT PAY BUT STILL USE option of infinite supply, and that hurts the production capacity of those who hold the intellectual property rights and produce the next game. Not to mention, it makes publishers see lost dollar signs in their eyes whether they are really there or not (and we could argue back and forth about the actuality of lost income all day with no consensus as this thread shows).

 

[JonnWood]

companies should focus more on potential customers. don't think on how to stop people from spreading your game for free

"Spreading"--and really, you've reached some sort of total semantic disconnect--does them no good if they're not making money.

think about attracting customers. besides if i think that each gorgeous woman i see on the street is a potential sex partner i'd go insane.

Did you just compare piracy to rape?

and chronobreak if we're all potential sales then it means that everyone is at fault for not buying the game,

No, because we're not the ones playing the game anyway.

and besides as long as you don't buy the game you status as a potential sale remains the same even after you wash dishes or play a pirated game [maybe slight modifications].

If you pirate, you aren't just a potential customer, you are also a thief. See the difference?

 

[DaOysterboy]

and i never said that pirates are only my kind. and personally i don't care about idiots like the ones that can afford but pirate for the sake of it;because frankly you can't get an idiot to change his mind.

Devs really can't tell the difference between those who can't afford to pay and those who just don't. Besides, inability to afford a product doesn't supercede a suppliers right to charge for the product.

i never said i need games. i love games and i like to play. and i'm not trying to be a crusader. i'm one of the guiltiest people i know stuff like the ones we're discussing being the least of my worriers but i think developers inhibit their profit by encasing themselves in a box of [all pirates are bad].
and besides let's get down to a SPECIFIC example [that's really common where i live]:jack's example. he has no money for games. when he raises a bit he buys an original game because he likes it. he pirates most games. in his SPECIFIC case do you think the companies lose anything? he isn't a loss because he didn't have the requirements for the target population [funds and stuff] so technically the company loses nothing maybe gain one or tho customers because jack tells how good the game is and jack gains some fun time. there are at least 10k jacks in my city alone so that means roughly 15k extra sales for a good game. i see it as a win-win situation. again i am referring to this SPECIFIC situation which is quite common where i live.
don't you think he shouldn't be regarded as any of the idiots who spam their way through life and developers try to make a win-win situation with him?

Because Jack, whether pirating to get something for free or to unwind with something he can't afford, has trampled on the company's right to prevent him from playing. This sounds callous, but is basically a principle of capitalism which is the economic system under which most game developers operate. Fundamentally, you have to understand GAMES HAVE VALUE, be it entertainment or otherwise. People are willing to pay for it... basic economics. They can then produce it and charge a price for it. They can also not produce it. They can also give it away for free. They are not REQUIRED to do any of the above. They are also permitted to protect their investment. Most people agree that "market flaws" hurt the economy. That's why there are laws against monopolies: it unfairly biases the system in favor of the producers. Piracy is another "market flaw" which unfairly biases the the system in favor of the consumer. Things need to stay fair or either side feels like the other is shitting on them out of spite.

oh and btw: pirating in our country is something as common as walking. i even saw a guy selling dvd-s o some police-men.multiple times.

Sorry, but I can't buy the argument that just because it's common it's OK. I've seen a number of lives virtually destroyed by alcoholism, but underage drinking is almost a rite of passage here in the states and while I may be inciting a whole new flamestorm, my opinion is that I can't really approve of their choices.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

IMO "Piracy" and shearing are 2 separate issues one is minor infringement on over extended owner rights that infringe on the public's rights and freedoms and the other is out and out robbery be it tho in a indirect manner.

I go over how to rebalance copyright here
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.188833-Zippy-plus-Copyright-profit-sharing-and-changing-the-nature-of-distribution

 

[Bat Vader]

1. Piracy is NOT theft. Piracy is piracy. No physical game is taken from another person, a copy is made.

Fail.

Theft - "the act of stealing"
Stealing - Comes from the word steal (obviously).
Steal [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal] - "to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force"

Dictionary: 1
You: 0

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.

1. Piracy is NOT theft. Piracy is piracy. No physical game is taken from another person, a copy is made.

Fail.

Theft - "the act of stealing"
Stealing - Comes from the word steal (obviously).
Steal [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal] - "to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force"

Dictionary: 1
You: 0

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.

Except making a copy means you get the game without paying for it. Yes, I understand not everyone can spend $60.00 on a new video game but how does that justify them downloading it?

I'm not justifying it, I'm saying that piracy and theft and different concepts.

I have to apologize than. I just misinterpreted what you were saying. I think the biggest reason people attribute piracy to theft is because someone is getting something without paying for it.

 

[Lamppenkeyboard]

This friend of mine James has actually gotten several roms of games from his childhood.

He admits that what he is doing isn't morally or legally justifiable, and frankly is starting to think that Jack might be a bit self righteous.

Neither of us think that Jack is a bad person, we just think that he needs to accept the moral consequences of his actions or just get out of gaming.

 

[Eremiel]

I'm willing to bet that every single one of the people in this thread who so hate and despise piracy and pirates have mp3's on their computer. I'm also willing to bet that a good portion of them have pirated multiple games and/or movies and just don't have the guts to admit it.

You're all hypocrits.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

meh boil it down, what is copy right but to ensure the copyright owner they have exclusive right to profit? If you focus on antiquated distribution and "copies" you slide further and further into draconia where the common person has less and less rights...just look at the DMCA and making game cracks illegal.....even the worst DRM can not be undermined to protected the buyer because of this not to mention one can not make a legal backup of a DVD without breaking its copy protection which is now a crime......... Its simple to me you can not realistically enforce distribution and "copy" rules or laws upon the public they are far to vague and infringe upon the rights of the public. But you can go after anyone who makes illicit profit from donations,ads or direct sale.If its not trying to make money then it can never harm the copyright owner not in these times and there is fr to much to lose to give the copy right owner so much power to squelch freedoms and hide information from the public just because they can not pay for it.....

 

[Eremiel]

You know what,just a question to those who support piracy. And please, just give me a straight answer.

Why do you think you deserve to get a game for free?

I don't. I think I deserve to see whether a game lives up to it's hype for free.

Also, to the guy quoting the millions upon millions of pirated copies of games.. where does that data come from? I remember a case a bit ago where a game developer (it was regarding Demigod) admitted that those numbers were inflated, exaggerated, guessed at and most often FLAT OUT WRONG.

 

[PhiMed]

3. Piracy has the same effect on game developers as renting games or buying used games, they don't get a single penny from them. These two are perfectly legal.

Except for the fact that rental retailers have to PURCHASE copies of the games, meaning more sales for the Dev. rental retailers also acquire copies for re-sale and provide another advertising outlet for the devs. This arrangement is still mutually beneficial.

The crackers buy the game first as well.

Biiig difference..... a couple dozen crackers can feed millions and millions of hacked copies while there are thousands of sales to retail establishments that are lucky if they make their money back on the rental itself. The ratio is so very different that you can't even compare the two in terms of lost sales.

Millions? I think not.

You make it sound like the retailer is struggling. Surely if it were the case they would stop running them?

Most brick-and-mortar rental places have gone out of business, which is why Gamefly exists, because only by taking advantage of economies of scale are they able to make a decent profit. Excellent precognitive skill!

The point is, beyond the original purchase, the devs see no more money. The retailer gets to sell the game, then sell the same game an indefinate amount of times without paying the developers. Bare in mind also the size of games retailers compared to the piracy scene, used games and renting costs the developers waaaaay more in imaginary currency.

Retail sales companies are only able to sell each copy they purchase once. Retail rental companies purchase each rentable copy at full retail price (often with a premium paid to the publisher for right to rent). Also, the amount of time their customers are able to enjoy the game is limited by the number of copies they purchase (24 hours * number of days renter owns game * number of copies purchased). Pirates purchase one copy, and are able to (in theory) provide an infinite number of hours of gameplay to downloaders.

Many retails stores run a trade-in system where they will pay pittance for a game and resell it for about half of retail price. This happens thousands of times a day all over the world. The developers don't see a penny. The developers lose millions in 'potential sales' to people who simply wait to buy it used rather than new.

And that's fine. They offer a price (or pittance, if you will) to the person who bought it originally. The owner of the game is free to turn this offer down and seek a higher price on Amazon, Ebay, or other vendors and sell it direct instead of through a middle man. If accepted, though, the store acquires the game from the owner, then sells it again. One repurchase = one resale.

While it may be a back-door counter to the "potential sales" argument, the practice of used game sales and game piracy are not even remotely similar in terms of the human interactions involved.

One is the sale of game which was originally purchased but the owner no longer needed, resulting in maybe 4 or 5 different users over the course of a couple of years, with no more than one owner at a time, and the other is the production of hundreds or thousands of copies from one purchase. Also, the person who cracked the retail copy never actually relinquishes ownership. Comparable effect on sales =/= same thing

 

[PhiMed]

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).

You do realise that each time a book is taken out from a libary money is paid to the those who'd get the money from a purchase, its not as much as they get from a sale, but it adds up.

Hmmm... Not sure if true... I'm thinking no, at least in my country.

It is in the UK, I can't believe it isnt true elswhere.

Well, if that really is true in the UK, I don't know how they could continue to operate. They're all nonprofit here in the U.S., and as such they run off of governmental support and personal donations. Almost everything they take in is spent on facility maintenance and acquisition of books.

They pay for the books up front (or they're donated), but they don't pay anything based on utilization once they acquire them. I can't really think of a reason why they should, to be honest. If they're not charging for loaning the books, what possible justification could someone have for demanding money from them? If that's how it works in the U.K., I hope that there's a fee for borrowing from the library. If there isn't, that's pretty fucked up.

 

[PhiMed]

The Escapist as a whole supports drugs.

Hooray for sweeping unsubstantiated statements!

-_-

Fine. Make a weed thread. Observe.

I think you should familiarize yourself with the concept of self-selection bias.

The only people who would comment in a "weed thread" are people who have strong feelings one way or the other. People who smoke weed obviously will have strong feelings in favor. People who don't smoke weed aren't necessarily going to be strongly against it. In fact, the vast majority of people who don't smoke weed won't really care. Those "I don't care" people aren't going to post, which will skew the results.

Thus, even if only 15% of the escapist is in favor, almost all the posts will be positive, because 80% of people just don't care. This is self-selection bias. It's the bane of the existence of many a statistician.

Also, considering societal attitudes about marijuana, I would say that a "weed thread" would be a pretty poor judge of any group's attitudes towards illicit drugs in general. This is especially true when you consider the fact that many posters to the escapist live in areas where marijuana is not illegal. So, if your argument is that pro-weed = pro-mainlining heroine, I'm going to have to call shenanigans. Wait... since there are a lot of people here who live in areas where marijuana isn't illegal, I'm going to do something really rare. I'm calling DOUBLE SHENANIGANS.

Your undeserved smugness has irritated me. You fail at arguing, and life.

 

[Morderkaine]

I must admit I havent read every post here, cause its long, but it all follows the same pattern as other threads about piracy.
Can we perhaps compromise and all agree on a few points?

1: Piracy reduces sales of games and music. There are always people who, even when they have the means to purchase something will take the free route.

2: The reduction in sales is much less than the number of games pirated. Taking Jack as an example, with no money for games, whether he pirates the game or not, there is no loss of money. The only difference in the two different realities is that Jack plays the game in one, and not in the other. The location of money is still the same.

3: Pirating is Copyright infringement, or something, not THEFT. Downloading a copy of a game or movie is not the same as stealing an item. Its closer to stealing an idea. Every time I see someone say 'would you steal a car...' I think 'what an idiot'. Those comparisons is like saying that if you take a photo of the Mona Lisa its the same as stealing the orriginal. If we follow the logic of piracy being the exact same as regular theft, then standing outside a persons house and watching a movie on their TV through a window without their permission would be theft, just like you broke in and took the movie.
When a physical object is stolen, it leaves where it was and goes somewhere else, there is something MISSING. When something is downloaded, there is nothing that goes missing from anyone. There is merely a new, unauthorized item that springs into existence. Piracy is still illegal, but it is completely different than the taking of a physical object. If pirates broke into game stores, it would be a different story...

4: There are several degrees of pirate.
There are some who buy the games they download but really like.
There are those who only pirate games they lost the orriginal CD for.
There are those who buy the games they really want, and only take copies of ones they had no intention of ever buying.
There are those who never buy a game or music or movie cause its cheaper to pirate them. And oddly, the people who download the most games and movies are often the ones who dont have time to play/watch any of them, but I digress...
There are those who pirate most things, but buy the games they cant find online, or that have really good multiplayer copy protection.
There is the example of Jack - who only pirates games he could not purchase even though he wants to.
Can we agree that some of those degrees are more damaging to the industry than others? Shades of grey people.