My beef with piracy.

[razer17]

I know it's illegal, but that's not going to stop me. You are assuming that everyone has morals.

Err yeah, pretty much this. Well, I have morals, they just only extend to people I care about.

Also, as much as you say that pirates are inherently bad, studies have shown that pirates actually on average buy more music or films. Possibly because they are exposed to more music.

 

[Tipsy Giant]

OK so neither of us is paying for shitty games and neither of us ever plans to. And neither of us is taking an actual commodity.

these are all facts we can agree on, so what is with the holier than thou attitude about piracy when it affects the industry as much as you do!

It's not a holier then thou attitude, this thread was about a subject matter and I am stating my opinion on that.

Thing is, by buying game and not pirating I would have to guess that I have a better impact on the industry then someone who pirates, since I am actually giving money to the industry.

but you aren't just stating your opinion, you are challenging others to prove you wrong and then missing the point when they do.
i'll simplify my point from above.

I buy good games and i don't buy shit games.
U buy good games and u don't buy shit games.
You don't pirate, cost 0.
I pirate, cost 0.

the worst that could happen is they stop making shitty entertainment and in the long run isn't that a win?

 

[kiralon]

I'm sorry, but that is like somebody driving away from a petrol station without paying because they want to protest against high petrol prices.

Sure, you get your petrol, until the police show up and arrest you. They don't arrest you because you represent a threat to bureaucracy and they want you silenced, they arrest you because you committed a crime. You didn't pay the price for the petrol you used.

My problem with this is that you know what you are getting when you pay for a tank of gas and are getting value for money, whereas buying a game is a hit or miss affair, I was a follower of the total annihilation and supreme commander games, supcom2 came out and i spent my $109 on it thinking here is a game that i will get a lot of enjoyment out of, except that i played it for half an hour and then felt fully ripped off(check operation flashpoint 2 as well), $109 isnt a small amount of money to be burnt like that and how i wished i had pirated it first. The other problem is that you havent taken anything physical from the person so its not like stealing petrol, as the person still has the object to sell, you just reduce the potential amount of people who buy it.

Pirating things is wrong, but only as wrong as photocopying a page out a book, or recording a song off the radio. Its not the same as filling your tank up with gas and driving off with it.

Its not an easy issue, if games were only $20 i wouldnt care as much when i get ripped off, but thats how i feel when i buy a crap game.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

OK so neither of us is paying for shitty games and neither of us ever plans to. And neither of us is taking an actual commodity.

these are all facts we can agree on, so what is with the holier than thou attitude about piracy when it affects the industry as much as you do!

It's not a holier then thou attitude, this thread was about a subject matter and I am stating my opinion on that.

Thing is, by buying game and not pirating I would have to guess that I have a better impact on the industry then someone who pirates, since I am actually giving money to the industry.

but you aren't just stating your opinion, you are challenging others to prove you wrong and then missing the point when they do.
i'll simplify my point from above.

I buy good games and i don't buy shit games.
U buy good games and u don't buy shit games.
You don't pirate, cost 0.
I pirate, cost 0.

the worst that could happen is they stop making shitty entertainment and in the long run isn't that a win?

This is the part where I would go on about how you're playing something with a price tag for free, therefore it affects the industry, blah blah.

I think I have made my points, and I don't agree with the one you made there.

I think I'm basically done with this thread, otherwise I'll be late for work! Good chat.

 

[Matt_LRR]

The issue is not that it isn't theft. The issue is that technology has denmocratized consumption, and the companies at the heart of the issue have failed to react, adapt, and cater to these new consumption methods in an effective way.

Media companies are adamant about retaining their control over the consumtion habits of customers, and desire to direct the path of the industry themselves.

The fact of the matter is that piracy, theft or not, DOES serve a functional purpose for consumers aside from simply taking shit they want without paying.

The ability to try before you buy, as it were (which, as evidenced by the consumption patterns of pirates, is a pretty common pattern of behavior), allows customers to identify and expose themselves to more media, and to more knowledgably direct their money towards artists and content creators that they feel have earned it. The democratization of media allows consumers to identify products they don't like, preventing them from wasting money,a nd allowing them to spend that money on products they do.

Legal Consumption in this manner isn't inherently costing media companies money. More simply it's made consurmers much more avid, efficient consumers of media, and has granted us a much greater ability to direct industry trends.

Under the old model of content distribution, media finding and exploration present HUGE financial obstacles consumers. This is what generated the pop superstar back in the 50's and 60's. With those obstacles being torn down, the industry has seen a huge surge of indie artists, and unknowns getting significant exposure. The industry is seeing fewer big, easily bankable stars, but the tradeoff is thousands upon thousands of niche markets, scrambling for more.

The industry needs to work at monetizing and catering to this new breath of taste, and they need to bereak down the barries of media exploration. Understand that people want to know what they're spending their money on before that money is spent, and the industry needs to find ways of providing that access to information in a low-investment way.

It's not impossible to rebuild an industry model around consumer need. But the way to curb piracy, and wrap these people into the fold is decidedly not to call them all criminals and sue them into the dark ages.

It's also not to cling vehemently to a distribution model that was born there.


A person who pirates 1000 CDs, but buys 100 of their favorites is doing a great deal more to support the industry than a person who bought 5 or 6 nickelback records, and Big Shiny Tunes 3.

-m

edit: it's also worthy of note - in the old model it's up to the industry to find, identify, and build fanbases for artists. Under the new model we do that for them.

You make an excellent point about changing business models, but the problem as I see it is how are industries other then the music one supposed to adapt to these trends?


The music industry seems uniquely positioned to accommodate the trends piracy represents for several reasons:

First the ability to buy products piecemeal, or if you only like certain songs on an album you can just buy those, their is no way to sell movies and games (that aren't episodic) in this manner.

Second the repetitive nature of listening to music, no one wants to listen to a song once and never again but will listen to it many times. Thus the pirate has an easy determinant of whether or not to buy a song, that is whether or not he likes it enough to hear it regularly. Compare this to movies and games where even good ones might only be played once or only revisited many years after the original playthrough. By the time the pirate knows if the item has value they have already gotten all the value they wanted out of it, and thus would buy only out of some sense of charity or respect for the developer, which I doubt many possess.

Third the relatively low cost of music. To begin obviously albums used to be viewed as overpriced, which prompted much of the piracy to begin with, however the new abilities to sell songs individually and online have reduced costs to basically supporting the artists directly. Once again movies and games lack this advantage if for no other reason then the much higher amount of people required to make a movie or game.

The third point I believe is where the problem really emerges. While the Indie game and moviemakers will thrive with piracy bigger studios simply will not. You speak of niches in music and greater diversity brought by piracy, however with music you don't really have to spend money to make it. You must invest time perfecting your art in music of course, but their is no actual monetary investment required beyond the purchase of the instrument. Even less ambitious movies and games however will have large costs attached to making them. Thus bowing before these trends will not make their markets more diverse, but instead decrease diversity as only certain types of games and movies can work in this business model you propose.

I'm certainly not claiming to have the whole answer. But the entertainment industry right now is clearly broken. There are two ways out. Force consumers to comply, or to start getting innovative, and to look for ways to make pirates into paying customers.

Some of that is facilitating media exploration. Some of that is re-evaluating pricing models. And some of that is better understanding the technological landscape.

Surely it's better to try and work with potential consumers than it is to brand customers (pirates also being a demographic among the most prolific of media buyers and therefore customers) as criminals?

-m

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

The thing pirates never seem to get through their skulls, no matter how many times I explain it, is that when you are buying a book, musical work, film, or game, you do not actually buy that work. What you're buying is a lisence to ONE copy of that work. You are free to share that one lisence, but while you're sharing it you are unable to use it yourself. Just like if you lent someone a chair, a toaster, an item of jewelery, or any other physical item that could be stolen. Libraries and rental services share their lisence. And if you buy a game and lend it to your friend, you're sharing your lisence. But if you copy the game and distribute copies to others, then you are no longer sharing your lisence, because you still have the ability to play the game while those who never purchased, borrowed, or rented a lisence are able to play it as well.

It's not that it won't go through a pirate's skull, it's that it's a patently fallacious assertion on the part of the publishers that some people have inexplicably bought. Buying a game on Steam is buying a license, because there's no physical copy involved, and you can actually transfer the license between computers. If a steamworks enabled game is installed from a disk, the disk becomes a coaster, but the license remains attached to your account. Buying a game in a store, however, is buying a product. If you want to install the game on another computer, or play it on another console, you have to physically take the disk over and run it from the disk. The same goes for CDs, DVDs, and especially books.

By the way, this isn't just my opinion on the matter; in Vernor V. Autodesk, there was a ruling to the effect that because the purchase of the software in question resembled a sale of a product, and not the transferral of a license, it was legally a sale, and the EULA was legally bankrupt.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

I support the argument that some people download because they can't afford shit. I see the opposite argument, that poor people shouldn't be playing video games or listening to music, as an elitist argument which comes from a position of socioeconomic privilege. I don't believe piracy is stealing because all you're doing is taking a copy and coming away with that copy. Nothing comes off of the shelf. I also support piracy in protection of the natural environment, as producing all those discs with all that packaging pollutes. In short, my position is one of complete disregard for corporatism or corporate profits; I am in favor of collectivization of the involved industries as well as their complete democratization.

For the tl;dr crowd: I don't give a shit because I don't support capitalism.

 

[infinity_turtles]

*snip*

Potentially deprives creators and distributors remuneration for their work.
Without solid proof it is worthless. The alignment of Mars and Jupiter potentially lowers my chances of banging the hot waitress at work. Where the proof?
And still does not make it theft.

I'll grant that, since I've been arguing the same side of the argument, though I will add that the question is really not whether piracy deprives the industry of money. Clearly it does. The question is the extent to which it deprives the industry of money. And the bulk of evidence seems to suggest that that deprivation is rather small.

-m

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-423 says it makes them money. Go government accountability office!

No, infinite copies is only a problem because it means infinite access. For most books in a library, you only need one copy because that's all anyone will every want at once. A book being out when someone wants it is one hell of a rarity, but that's probably because no one ever goes to the library anymore. Well, that and most of their books come from donations, which means they have plenty of the popular ones. Also, again, legality doesn't define right and wrong. It just... doesn't. Having to actually point that out makes me feel dirty.

Those extra copies are copies that people enjoy without actually paying for. Enjoying a good or service without permission from the owner(which you usually get by giving them money) is stealing/theft. Theft is one of those weird laws that is actually meant to protect people's self-interests. What you are saying is copying intellectual property without paying for it is ok. Am I understanding this correctly?

Enjoying a good or service without paying if permission is given is called a free trial. What I propose is that permission is less important then we give it credit for. Products should be supported based on how much the individual feels the product is worth, not how well marketing does to convince us to buy something that we have no other means of trying. If I read a book, enjoy it, but don't believe it to be worth the twenty or so dollars I'd have to pay for it, then I believe it's perfectly okay not to pay for it. I'm not going to let you simplify my answer

 

[Kpt._Rob]

1) It is not theft. I do not give half a flying fuck how many shitty analogies you people use. Theft is taking someone elses property and thus denying them the use of it. Piracy is copying something. The original is still there, still free for the owner to use. Piracy deprives no one of anything. End of argument.

Piracy deprives creators and distributors remuneration for their work, which, last time I checked, was a "thing".

-m

It possibly deprives them of potential remuneration(thanks for the new word), which is possibly potentially a thing. I don't find possible potentials a smart thing to be making actual clear laws out of.

How about this justification:

Libraries are places that host other people's intellectual property that you can view for free while the creator makes no money off of it, whether you enjoy it or not.

Torrent sites are places that host other people's intellectual property that you can view for free while the creator makes no money off of it, whether you enjoy it or not.

There are only three real differences; amount of content, ease of access, social acceptance.

No no and no. There are some much bigger differences. Firstly, one of the justifications behind a library is that our societies all accept books as an almost universally good thing. We WANT people to read, because it's good for them. We all like music, movies, and games, but it's hard to argue that they're as good for you as reading is. That is to say that a library is a social service that is provided to the public because it's good for them, while piracy doesn't benefit anyone in any real way.

Second, the cost of writing a book is dwarfed by the cost of recording music, which is dwarfed by the cost of shooting a film, which is dwarfed by the cost of making a game. If you wanted to put the time and effort into it, you could write a book yourself, a book with any plot you wanted, anything you wanted could happen, you're unlimited. When you're recording music, however, unlike with writing (where the only necessary resources are either a computer or an ample supply of pens and paper) making music takes a higher investment on the part of the artist. Still, music can still be made by an individual, but when we start to talk about film, any individual is severly limited, the cost of shooting the movies we go to see at the theatre today is rediculous. And the cost of creating a videogame is beyond rediculous.

And finally, the artist whose book is in a library actually is getting paid. Granted, it's only for one copy of the book (the copy purchased by the library), but one copy sold is certainly better than nothing. And while they may not be free, there are similar rental services for movies and games, so the creator is still getting some money. Also, with the library/rental system, you are not actually getting to keep the thing you purchased. The thing pirates never seem to get through their skulls, no matter how many times I explain it, is that when you are buying a book, musical work, film, or game, you do not actually buy that work. What you're buying is a lisence to ONE copy of that work. You are free to share that one lisence, but while you're sharing it you are unable to use it yourself. Just like if you lent someone a chair, a toaster, an item of jewelery, or any other physical item that could be stolen. Libraries and rental services share their lisence. And if you buy a game and lend it to your friend, you're sharing your lisence. But if you copy the game and distribute copies to others, then you are no longer sharing your lisence, because you still have the ability to play the game while those who never purchased, borrowed, or rented a lisence are able to play it as well.

I've addressed a lot of this in previous posts, so I'm only going to address what I haven't already. Please go back and read my previous posts, because I don't wanna have to keep typing out the same thing over and over, or looking for that one bit I could copy-paste. Anyway, onto the cost of production which, aside from the public service bit, is the only part I haven't addressed(You may disagree with how I addressed those things, but please say why). Intellectual Property Law is Intellectual Property Law. Also, have you ever heard of a library causing significant damage to the sales of a book?

As for the public service bit, most books checked out are fiction series and blah blah blah. You want this point to stand, please start telling me how reading twilight is better for people than watching Donnie Darko or Schindler's List

Really, it doesn't matter too much what you're reading. Granted, the story told by Twilight is seriously lacking in the profundity department in comparison with the other works you've mentioned, but the profundity of the story is not the important part. Study after study has shown that just the simple act of reading is good for your mind. People who read frequently, are, on average, smarter than people who don't. Watching a movie, however, does not provide these benefits. It is, admitedly, not entirely fair to compare watching a movie to watching television, but there are a lot of similarities, and if I were to guess I would say that the way they make the brain react is quite similar. That said, watching things on TV may actually be bad for the mind, I've read studies showing that even watching educational television is not in any way beneficial for the mind, and it is well known that when we're watching a screen our minds are producing many of the same brain waves that someone produces when in a hypnotic trance. That is to say that as far as benefits to your mind are concerned, reading some schlocky romance novel is probably better for you than watching cinematic masterpieces.

That is why a library can propose to offer a legitimate public service, while filesharing cites offering music, movies, and games can not.

 

[Deacon Cole]

I think arguing for or against piracy is stupid, especially for publishers. Regardless of whatever appeal to emotion you can cobble together, piracy is a fact of life and publishers will need to find a way to make a profit regardless of piracy or die. It's that simple. Looking that the illegal downloads estimates and calculating how much money they would have made if all those people had bought their product does not pay the bills or put food on the table. Spending millions to try and fail to stop piracy also does not generate revenue. It costs more than it makes. This is why I think worrying about piracy is a waste of time.

 

[Edward Heffner]

maybe the person shouldn't upload them in the first place

 

[Matt_LRR]

Killing a baby for no reason. I can't think of anyway that would ever be conceived as a good thing.

Killing a baby is an action. "for no reason" is a motivation.

There are arguments to be made that there are circumstances under which killing a baby would be the morally right thing to do. They're certainly morally grey, rather than black and white, but as stated, such an act could, potentially, be defended.

By inserting the motivation into the action, you simply dodged the question.

-m

You're clever, I like that XD

Okay, my bad. I don't know why I added the "for no reason bit."

But how could someone justify killing a newborn baby then? Is there are moral good to it perhaps, or bad? Or neither?

simple example:

a group of jews hiding in a basement during the holocaust, maybe 10 of them from a couple of families. there's a german soldier upstairs. everyone is being dead silent. suddenly your newborn starts to get fussy. Everyone knows that if the baby cries they'll all be hauled off to an internment camp, and gassed. You try to quiet it, and muffle it, but it's not working.

Suffocate your baby, and everyone else lives? or let everyone die, baby included?


This is a HORRIBLE situation, but which is morally better? 1 life, or 10?

note, this is a question of moral right action, not moral good, so don't go "both are bad"

-m

 

[Akai Shizuku]

... Yea, before this debate can go any further, someone needs to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that piracy actually damages anything.

And I'm not just talking rhetoric here, I mean numbers, data, testimonials, etc.

Otherwise, everyone involved is just jerking off.

Libraries do function in an identical fashion to torrent sites, they simply have regulations in place to maintain their physical inventory. A limitation digital information neatly bypasses.

I like this post.

 

[JPH330]

How about this justification:

Libraries are places that host other people's intellectual property that you can view for free while the creator makes no money off of it, whether you enjoy it or not.

Torrent sites are places that host other people's intellectual property that you can view for free while the creator makes no money off of it, whether you enjoy it or not.

There are only three real differences; amount of content, ease of access, social acceptance.

You forgot one other difference: permission. If the developers willingly give away the products for free, then that's just fine. But if they are selling their services, then pirating their products is theft, because they didn't give you permission to use their services.

EDIT: I feel I should clarify that I don't have anything against people who engage in piracy. It's not like I've never stolen anything in my life.

 

[Edward Heffner]

Killing a baby for no reason. I can't think of anyway that would ever be conceived as a good thing.

Killing a baby is an action. "for no reason" is a motivation.

There are arguments to be made that there are circumstances under which killing a baby would be the morally right thing to do. They're certainly morally grey, rather than black and white, but as stated, such an act could, potentially, be defended.

By inserting the motivation into the action, you simply dodged the question.

-m

You're clever, I like that XD

Okay, my bad. I don't know why I added the "for no reason bit."

But how could someone justify killing a newborn baby then? Is there are moral good to it perhaps, or bad? Or neither?

simple example:

a group of jews hiding in a basement during the holocaust, maybe 10 of them from a couple of families. there's a german soldier upstairs. everyone is being dead silent. suddenly your newborn starts to get fussy. Everyone knows that if the baby cries they'll all be hauled off to an internment camp, and gassed. You try to quiet it, and muffle it, but it's not working.

Suffocate your baby, and everyone else lives? or let everyone die, baby included?


This is a HORRIBLE situation, but which is morally better? 1 life, or 10?

-m

its hard to put a cost on life but id argue 10 is worth more than one. and im sure it'll haunt the parents for the rest of their lives.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

its hard to put a cost on life but id argue 10 is worth more than one. and im sure it'll haunt the parents for the rest of their lives.

The parents might commit suicide later on.

 

[infinity_turtles]

I try to avoid copy pasting my arguments, but this time it works perfectly for me. But I'll add that perhaps a public library should be compared to a low traffic torrent site. But that shouldn't matter if we're arguing the principle of the act itself. "No, infinite copies is only a problem because it means infinite access. For most books in a library, you only need one copy because that's all anyone will every want at once. A book being out when someone wants it is one hell of a rarity, but that's probably because no one ever goes to the library anymore. Well, that and most of their books come from donations, which means they have plenty of the popular ones."

No, infinite copies is a problem. With a library, whether or not someone donated the book, that specific copy of the book was purchased at one point. The author was compensated for that specific copy of the book. However, when you make a photocopy of the book, you are then creating something containing the authors hard work without compensating them for that work.

Someone also originally bought the game to upload it you know. They have been compensated for that one game, just as the author is compensated for that one book, no matter how many people eventually read it. For added fun, books have a longer lifespan than games generally do, which means libraries are denying them and their future children and grandchildren potential money.

Let me do a little copy pasting of my own from a previous thread.

Fair enough

The actual production of disks is ridiculously cheap. I'm talking pennies per disk. When you buy a disk you're not paying $60 for a single burned disk and a shitty plastic case. In the case of digital distribution, it's even cheaper.

No, you are paying for the literally thousands of hours of work put into a game. You are paying for the computers, dev systems, and many other items that go into the development of the game.

If you think you are entitled to reap the benefit of all of that time, effort, and cost for free, then you are a spoiled little brat who needs to grow the fuck up.

I don't believe I'm entitled to the product, I believe that developers aren't entitled to money just because they made something. If it's not a product I feel deserves my money, they aren't getting said money. I take the same attitude with books, as I spend a good amount of time in the local library where I used to work.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

Killing a baby for no reason. I can't think of anyway that would ever be conceived as a good thing.

Killing a baby is an action. "for no reason" is a motivation.

There are arguments to be made that there are circumstances under which killing a baby would be the morally right thing to do. They're certainly morally grey, rather than black and white, but as stated, such an act could, potentially, be defended.

By inserting the motivation into the action, you simply dodged the question.

-m

You're clever, I like that XD

Okay, my bad. I don't know why I added the "for no reason bit."

But how could someone justify killing a newborn baby then? Is there are moral good to it perhaps, or bad? Or neither?

simple example:

a group of jews hiding in a basement during the holocaust, maybe 10 of them from a couple of families. there's a german soldier upstairs. everyone is being dead silent. suddenly your newborn starts to get fussy. Everyone knows that if the baby cries they'll all be hauled off to an internment camp, and gassed. You try to quiet it, and muffle it, but it's not working.

Suffocate your baby, and everyone else lives? or let everyone die, baby included?


This is a HORRIBLE situation, but which is morally better? 1 life, or 10?

note, this is a question of moral right, not moral good, so don't go "both are wrong"

-m

I see your point, I take my hat off to you good sir.

 

[crudus]

Enjoying a good or service without paying if permission is given is called a free trial. What I propose is that permission is less important then we give it credit for. Products should be supported based on how much the individual feels the product is worth, not how well marketing does to convince us to buy something that we have no other means of trying. If I read a book, enjoy it, but don't believe it to be worth the twenty or so dollars I'd have to pay for it, then I believe it's perfectly okay not to pay for it.

First of all people give you permission for free trials for a limited time. Radiohead tried the "pay as you feel". If I remember correctly: it failed. Prices are set so everyone involved can make a profit and keep the economy going. Your example is easily bypassed by buying it somewhere else or waiting a month for the price to go down.

I'm not going to let you simplify my answer

Of course not. You do it splendidly on your own.