My beef with piracy.

[Unesh52]

2) "Try before you buy" Damn fucking straight I will try before I buy. Every other item has the right of return. From cars, clothes, books even food if you are unsatisfied. But not games, music or movies. Because if the item turns out to be absolute shit you would return it. Now you are risking far too much money for something that you can not remove.
So by removing the right of return they removed the trust. So in short, fuck them. I will try before I buy and I will not hear that explained away as a "excuse" by idiots.

No, every product does not have that. I just bought a computer, but if I take it home and decide the new features in Win 7 aren't that great or realize that I don't have the support hardware to make use of the new Toshiba applications, I can't go back to the store and say, "oh, I know we made a deal and all, but now I don't like it, so take it back." And I certainly wouldn't get to keep the computer and have them give me my money back. Yes, you can take it back if it doesn't do what you were told it did, or if it doesn't do what it says on the box (it's called fraud). And while many stores will take the thing back just because you didn't like it or you gifted it to the wrong person, that is their choice, usually to build customer loyalty, and there is no law obligating them to do that.

But honestly, how is this "try before I buy" supposed to work? If I DL an album and decide I like it, why would I then buy it? I already have it! If I'm just "supporting the artist/industry," why not donate directly to them and let 100% of my money go to the cause instead of being divided among the middle-men who hawk the CDs?

3) It is only such a major crime because the fucking big name companies decided it should be.
You can get more time in prison or a bigger fine for downloading a movie than you would for kicking someones teeth in. Downloading a song gets you more time than actually stealing the album from the store. Does this sound like something that we as a society decided? No. The fucking recording companies decided this and forced these corrupt laws down our throats.
The MPAA or RIAA may have started out trying to reduce piracy but after their criminal tactics and ridiculous claims they have lost any credibility anymore and are now just a bunch of bullies trying to screw people over.

I'm less vehement about this part, but I still think you're missing the point of anti-piracy laws. There's more than one reason to impose a penalty for some action -- in fact, there are three by my count. One is to correct moral failing (which I think is a ludicrous and inevitably prejudiced way of thinking); another to compensate for whatever was messed up because of the wrong-doing, directly or indirectly; and the last is preemptive -- designed to give people incentive not to do things in the first place. If anti-piracy legislation imposes penalties that steep, it's probably in the latter most category. The reason file sharing is "worse" than tangible theft is because the former is so much easier to do and get away with, eliminating much of the deterrent that comes with the latter. The law (in theory, at least) makes sense.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

it's not a good point: the libraries themselves pay for the books, and only have a limited radius. you won't drive crosscountry to get a book. on the internet however, your range of sharing is near limitless. anyone anywhere with internet can download your torrent.

Actually, it's a very good point. I could get online right now, and request free of charge any book at any library in the country through my local library. It would be ready for me to pick it up in a day or two. Can't say for sure about books in other countries, but it wouldn't surprise me if I could walk in to the library and request one of those too. Point is, the radius is larger than you may think.

 

[lacktheknack]

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.

Major, major differences:

Books must be returned to a library before other people can view them.

The library pays for multiple copies to lend.

Torrent sites are more like a photocopier, using one program copied and given PERMANENTLY to a bunch of other people.

 

[logiman]

It`s legal to download from torrents and warrez sites copyrighted content like eBooks, music, software, movies and games.

BUT, it is illegal to distribute it. Especially if you sell it.

I think that`s the best mentality.

Plus, as a rule with video-games, you can play the single-player part with a cracked exe, but it is usually impossible the play the game online (the multiplayer part) without an original copy of the game and that means you still have to buy the retail version

PC gamer here, my only console is the PSP.

 

[xDarc]

Stealing digital information is not the same as stealing a physical product. No one loses money when you download a copy of something you weren't gonna buy anyway, which is just a copy. Its been going on a long time. People shared media, ppl went to the library, ppl recorded songs on the radio onto casettes, copied rented movies on vhs. This is nothing new and ppl need to get over themselves and their black and white comic book morality, and grow up.

 

[Forgetitnow344]

My problem with piracy isn't the act, it's those who do it. They act as if they are better than we who buy because they don't spend any actual money on their games.

The hell is that about?

 

[infinity_turtles]

It's intellectual property, which isn't taken, but accessed. Thank you.

You are still partaking in the hard work of group of people without their permission. Therefore it is still theft.

No, you gave the definition of theft. It required taking. Not partaking.

...This basic moral principle you're saying is true is that it's immoral to use someone's creation in a manner in which they don't approve, right?...

No, not right at all. The subject of this discussion has never been about how the product was being used. The subject is whether or not it's OK to copy and distribute the product without permission of the creator. The answer is no.

Copying and distributing the product is a use of a product. Just one done without permission. I'm attempting to go into the whys, you're just pointing to the what and saying no. That's not very helpful for a discussion or debate.

Except by buying the first product I have already supported future products.

No, you are reimbursing them for the work they did on the present product. If your logic was true, then how the hell did the first product get made if there where no previous ones to support them?

The answer is that, as with any business, the game developers save up money from previous jobs, as well as take out loans from banks and other lending institutions and invest that money into the new company. The first goal of a product is to recoup any money lost in the development and replay any loans. After that, the developers need to be payed for their time and effort. Only after all of those things are taken care of, can any money be reinvested into future products and, even then, it will usually only be a fraction of what is required.

So my previous point stands.

If no one buys the game, they will not make future games, correct? Therefore buying the game is supporting the creation of another. This isn't an issue of whether the money heads toward development or not, this is more generic cause and effect. I don't think they deserve to be reimbursed because they made a game and I played it. They only deserve for me to reimburse them if they make a game and I enjoyed it. Because if I reimburse them otherwise, they're encouraged to make another. That's counter-productive for me.

 

[Pyode]

...I could just as easily say that it is wrong for the developers to make such a travesty of a game and charge me $60 for it...

No, you couldn't, because no one is forcing you to buy the product, nor is anyone forcing you to buy the product the day it comes out. If you are unsure of the quality, you can wait for reviews (both professional and peer) and you can wait for the price to come down.

...so how can you, or anyone else, tell me what I should believe is immoral?

Um... because whether or not it is moral is the subject of this thread.

 

[Timbydude]

This will be my answer to every piracy thread from now on. Yes, piracy is bad and all.

I have about a million words that I want to say in response to that video, but I'll stick with just two:

Thank you.

OT: I agree with you completely. There are no excuses for piracy. Games are not too expensive; people are just too cheap.

The same principle applies to movie/music piracy too. It is theft, no matter which way you look at it. I'm not a huge fan of the current administration, but Biden's comment is entirely correct.

I don't care what you think the price of a game should be. It is what it is. If I go buy a car, I don't assume that I can set the price to $1,000 for a new Mercedes just because I don't think cars are worth anything more than that. I buy what I can comfortably afford, and enjoy it.

A common rationale for piracy is that those big, mean companies aren't going to miss one sale. Unfortunately, that one sale generally comes out of the lowest rung of the company; you're almost directly taking money away from the people who need it the most.

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.

This argument is just plain wrong.

1. There are limitations on my library rental. The library only has X number of a certain book; if the book is popular, they might buy more, and the creator will see money from it.

2. Although a library book is theoretically available to anyone in the world who goes there (the only difference being ease of access, as you said), that still does not change the fact that one library book will remain one library book, even after it's been shared to hell and back. When somebody uploads a game to a torrent site, one man's copy becomes thousands or millions of copies. Plus, there are no restrictions on these copies, so whereas you are actually borrowing a library's property, you are not borrowing from anyone on a torrent site; you have stolen directly from the developer.

 

[Sartan0]

I am in agreement with the first post. I find it particularly hilarious when kids who steal games complain about a aspect of the game they have stolen.

 

[asinann]

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.

And that those materials are still paid for and have been granted special permission to do what they do.

Or they rely on donated books. Still, for a game to be uploaded it has to be bought once first as well. And I've never been to a library that charged me a fee for anything other than late returns and damaged books. Anyway, the owner of the IP isn't making money from the place after the first sale in either case.

Guess you (or your parents if you are underage) don't pay taxes then since that's what is used to pay for those materials.

 

[infinity_turtles]

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.

And that those materials are still paid for and have been granted special permission to do what they do.

The game has to be bought before uploaded. Permission isn't really true and even if it was, that falls under social acceptance. Please, read the first page of the thread. So helpful for me.

*edit yay*

Or they rely on donated books. Still, for a game to be uploaded it has to be bought once first as well. And I've never been to a library that charged me a fee for anything other than late returns and damaged books. Anyway, the owner of the IP isn't making money from the place after the first sale in either case.

Guess you (or your parents if you are underage) don't pay taxes then since that's what is used to pay for those materials.[/quote]
How do my taxes cover books donated to the library? Because it pays for the library and those working there? That gives nothing to the owner of the IP.

 

[crudus]

Did they make money, or lose it? Not making as much money isn't the point. The question is whether or not it's viable. Tests like that are a bit flawed anyway, given the fact that our culture is currently one of "I'm specifically buying this product" rather than "My money is meant to contribute to the artist so more of this is made". If the model switches, the culture will as well.

From what I could read the digital download was a flop whereas the hard copy releases actually made a profit. Now since this is the third time you have contradicted yourself I am done. It is clear you aren't willing to admit you are wrong or stick to an argument. Go ahead and respond to this so you get the last word.

 

[Chunko]

This will be my answer to every piracy thread from now on. Yes, piracy is bad and all.

While that was corny and entertaining, the central message is true. I know that there are tons of justifications for piracy out there, but as a whole piracy is taking down the videogame industry. Just look at the recent NPD numbers:

http://npd.com/corpServlet?nextpage=corp_welcome.html

Videogame sales have gone down almost 30% this year in an economy when sales for most entertainment products are increasing. If people don't stop pirating soon we won't have an industry left.

 

[asinann]

Also, again, legality doesn't define right and wrong. It just... doesn't. Having to actually point that out makes me feel dirty.

Can I use that excuse when I kill 47 people with a whiffle bat?

 

[Pyode]

-snip-

Ya know what? I'm done. This debate comes down to what we believe the fundamental rights someone has over something they created are.

I believe that, first and foremost, the creator of a product has soul rights to that product until he/she imparts rights to someone else and that the means of imparting those rights (I.E. asking for payment) are entirely at the discretion of the creator.

It is obvious that you don't feel that the creator has those rights and it is equally obvious that I am not going to convince you otherwise. So, I give up.

Oh well. Good night and enjoy all of your free games.

 

[Antari]

snip.

Torrents distribute and copy things without author's consent. That is in violation of copyright law and is thus piracy. There is no gray area about that. That is my point.

Yes, demos can misrepresent games. Torrents are not an alternative to demos. You know what are alternatives to demos? reviews.

And that would be why I'm on this site. But since there are no laws that allow me to require a certain level of competancy, and quality in the products I buy before its too late. I must resort to other means. Bribing a congressman isn't an option for me...

 

[infinity_turtles]

Did they make money, or lose it? Not making as much money isn't the point. The question is whether or not it's viable. Tests like that are a bit flawed anyway, given the fact that our culture is currently one of "I'm specifically buying this product" rather than "My money is meant to contribute to the artist so more of this is made". If the model switches, the culture will as well.

From what I could read the digital download was a flop whereas the hard copy releases actually made a profit. Now since this is the third time you have contradicted yourself I am done. It is clear you aren't willing to admit you are wrong or stick to an argument. Go ahead and respond to this so you get the last word.

Where have I contradicted myself? I'm giving expanding counter-points based on questions you're posing. It's fairly difficult to just say *plop* here's everything regarding what I believe on this subject. That's the point of a discussion. You posed a situation I wasn't familiar with, I responded with something non-definitive, because my understanding of the situation is non-definitive. *is confused* Anyway, that situation is hardly fair. People who buy the hard copy are supporting the product, thus people who download could have very easily said "Yeah, I like this" and instead of donating, went out and bought the CD to support them. In fact, that's what I would've done because I like to have physical copies of all my music. Even imported Gather the Faithful by Cain's Offering's japanese version for the bonus track. And I know I ripped all the songs from youtube first.

 

[infinity_turtles]

Also, again, legality doesn't define right and wrong. It just... doesn't. Having to actually point that out makes me feel dirty.

Can I use that excuse when I kill 47 people with a whiffle bat?

I suppose, but don't go saying that's how I define morality. I define immoral behavior as causing harm to someone else for materialistic or sadistic reasons. The fact that the law says those things are bad is irrelevant to me. If it said they were the greatest thing ever I'd still say they're wrong.

 

[infinity_turtles]

-snip-

Ya know what? I'm done. This debate comes down to what we believe the fundamental rights someone has over something they created are.

I believe that, first and foremost, the creator of a product has soul rights to that product until he/she imparts rights to someone else and that the means of imparting those rights (I.E. asking for payment) are entirely at the discretion of the creator.

It is obvious that you don't feel that the creator has those rights and it is equally obvious that I am not going to convince you otherwise. So, I give up.

Oh well. Good night and enjoy all of your free games.

I really don't play many games, and I can't think of any I've downloaded but haven't bought at the moment. I have to be picky with my limited time rather than my money, so I'm pretty careful about that. Good night though, and I hope you enjoy all your purchased games.