My beef with piracy.

[demoman_chaos]

Piracy isn't as bad as people make it out. I am guilty of the try-before-you-buy method. I wasn't a fan of Megadeth until after I pirated a few songs. After listening to them a few times, I began to like them more and bought United Abominations (one of their CD's).

My take is as follows:
Value is subjective. We each give different thigns different value. To me, Godzilla vs King Kong is worth a lot more than a 14 year old girl, just like Twilight is worth more to her than it is to me. Money is no different, a $100 bill is worth more than a $5 one because of assinged value. Where I work we get "booster bucks" which we can use to buy company products. Those "booster bucks" are only worth anything because the company says they are. I take them to Japan, and they are worth nothing just like 100,000 yen is worth nothing to my company.
Media has subjective value as well. A game to one person could be worth only $10. To someone else it is worth $100 since they love playing it. To retailers, it is worth $60 and they expect you to pay that. Since fellow #1 don't think it is worth $60, they won't buy it thus costing the company. Them pirating it isn't a direct cost since they wouldn't get the money either way.
Piracy is nothing more than people who think the value of what they are pirating is not worth the price retailers are asking. Since they still want it, they may choose to pirate it. If it turns out they like it enough, they'll likely buy it.
Fighting piracy costs a lot more than the pirates themselves cost. Ignoring the small masses and only picking out the big fish will bring better dinner to the fisherman, who in this scene is played by the big media corporations.
Plus the fines are outrageous. Penalties should be limited to the retail cost of the prodcuts pirated, a reasonable fine (not the millions that companies usually sue for), and court costs.

 

[JPH330]

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.

I've heard this justification so many times before, and it really smacks of making excuses to me. It doesn't matter if you don't think they deserve your money. They made the game, and ultimately it's their decision whether people should have to pay money or not. Playing a game and then claiming that the developer doesn't deserve your money is a bit hypocritical. That's like eating dinner at a restaurant and then trying to leave without paying the bill because you don't think they deserve the money you paid for the meal.

And besides, video games cost tons of production money to make. If you think they can spare the money to make games and not be paid for them, then you've got a lot to learn.

 

[Kanodin0]

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

It seems our opinions are actually a lot closer then I thought as I agree almost entirely. As to calling pirates criminals it is simply legally correct that they are. Still you are right that the industries themselves should attempt to make pirates paying customers instead of trying to force unfeasible enforcement which will only lead to resentment and make piracy more palatable.

 

[tricky_tree]

Now, the thread about the Obama administration's plans is filled with enough examples of this that I refuse to return there.

Spoiler

People's privacy should not be invaded. However personally I'm surprised the internet isn't monitored more strongly than it already is. In England I believe your internet history is held by the government for 12 months then deleted, should they need to use it against you.

Spoiler

Any links about the keeping of internet history? I'm English and I'm fairly certain that does not happen unless the police, MI5 or MI6 are keeping an eye on you.

 

[Pyode]

You forgot one other difference: permission. If the game developers willingly give away the game for free, then that's just fine. But if they are selling their services, then pirating their products is theft.

Thank You.

Someone that finally gets it.

Piracy isn't about cost. It isn't about lost sales. It's about permission.

If I make a product, I have the right to say who can and cannot partake in that product. If I decide I want to give it out to everyone for free, that is my decision. But I also have the right to say that only people who pay me can enjoy my work. And if I decide to charge, then partaking in my product without payment is theft. End of story.

It doesn't matter if I lost money, it doesn't matter if you would have payed for it in the first place. What matters is that my wishes for the consumption of my product be upheld. Period.

 

[infinity_turtles]

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.

I'd say the content matters, but just not in the scope of the studies shown. And of course by your phrasing it seems you're comparing a study to a statistic. Bad show I've read a few studies that contradict yours though. Don't feel like digging out my psych journals, but I've seen more than one study that more or less said "Studying(ie reading) ++, Educational shows+, neither, other shows -. Was the study you read comparing educational shows to reading or study by chance?

 

[Ghostkai]

I file that under ease of access, and most people don't read or play games multiple times, making the point relatively insignificant to the scheme of things. And of course you can keep checking out the same book.

You missed the point entirely. With libraries there are the same number of books(again, assuming the library doesn't buy more). With torrents the source is just copied thus a potential infinite copies. Unless you own the copyrights[footnote]Copyright is the set of exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work. (wikipedia)[/footnote] then distributing and/or copying a book or a file is illegal.

Well said, couldn't agree more, there is no middle ground. No grey area. I always notice that the strongest advocates of piracy seem to be the youngsters (under 18 generally, without any disposible income).

And the insane arguments along the lines of "well, i can't afford it, therefore it's justified" simply baffle me.

"Oh, I can't afford that car, I'll just steal it."

 

[Gladion]

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.

First of all you need to realize that the book industry is a special case because it is much less about making money than every other part of the entertainment industry. Very, very few authors can really live off of their written work. Even fucking Dan Brown has a job with a regular income, and his books sold all over the world (rightfully or not isn't important here). Once you've got that fact down you will quickly understand that you cannot compare pirating digital information and borrowing a book from a library at all. At most, you can compare it to borrowing a game from a video store, and even that's stretching it.

Second, those developers are very well entitled to your money. No matter whether you enjoyed their work or not, you took the service. This is also not like street musicians who play music and just hope you drop em a Euro or buy their CD. From the very beginning on, those developers made clear "we're going to make this game and for you to check it out, we will provide trailers, gameplay videos, developer walkthroughs and a demo - that should be enough for you to realize if the game is it worth for you or not. Just don't simply download it, play through, and afterwards say 'it was shit, you're not getting anything'."

 

[Break]

I love how there are all these irreconcilable concepts clashing together. I mean, the progression of the "library" analogy alone is delicious.
-Piracy is like libraries
-Libraries are different from piracy because the creator gives consent
-Libraries are the same as piracy because used book donation exists
-Libraries are fine because of limited distribution
-Piracy is fine because of unlimited distribution
-Libraries are fine because books are cheap
-Piracy is fine because games are expensive

People are funny. All these inherently contradictory stances and opinions, and people are still trying to justify themselves to each other. It's like one of those comedy skits where two people are talking about entirely different things, but there're just enough vague phrasings and broad metaphors that they don't realise that they never had a discussion going in the first place.

 

[Matt_LRR]

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

It seems our opinions are actually a lot closer then I thought as I agree almost entirely. As to calling pirates criminals it is simply legally correct that they are. Still you are right that the industries themselves should attempt to make pirates paying customers instead of trying to force unfeasible enforcement which will only lead to resentment and make piracy more palatable.

The main difference between our positions being that given research shows that pirates are also among the most prolific of paying customers, it's misguided to go after them on legal grounds. Sure, they're taking an inordinate amount of shit for free, but they're also buying more than anyone else along with it.

Understanding that will go a long way to helping the industry adapt.

-m

 

[JLML]

To answer music piracy, I say Spotify.

To answer film piracy, I say Voddler. (of course it has to get some fixes and more films, but it's over all pretty nice)

Now we just need something like those two but for games. You get to play the games, but have to see (and hear) some adverts before you start & in loading screens. I think that would work fine.

Still, I don't think piracy is such a big problem. Sure, it's a problem, but not so big you have to waste several times the money the problem itself costs just to make it a little (and in most cases very little) harder to do it.

 

[Pyode]

They have been compensated for that one game...

Exactly, they have been compensated for the one game but, when you torrent, it's no longer just "that one game." It becomes thousands of games. Each of those games containing all of the hard work that the developers put into it, without any compensation. In other words, theft.

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.

If you don't think a product is worth the amount being charged, that does not entitle you to download it for free! It entitles you to ignore the product and purchase something you do think is worth your money.

 

[Snotnarok]

Op, maybe you're just not aware of how gaming works on PC. Often there are no demos and you can't rent the game, so there's literally no way to try before you buy QUITE often. And System requirements are often WRONG so your brand new game is unplayable.

So what you're saying is, I a person who is not a multibillion dollar corporation should just buy said game that has no demo for $50 dollars to see if I like it? Or just to even see if the stupid game would work on my PC and all that stuff. But if I DON'T like it I can't sell it or return it so I get screwed out of $50 bucks but the multibillion dollar corporation gets their $50?

Or I could download the game illegally to TEST the stupid game out, then if I like it, I buy it, and when I don't like it I just erase it and the multibillion dollar corporation gets their money anyway?

You could say I'm lying, I just download it and don't buy it, but you'd be wrong considering I've bought Doom 3, Dragon Age, Gears of War, Fallout 3, Sam and Max Season 1, Unreal 3, after I downloaded them. I didn't know anything about any of these games (Gears I didn't know if I could run) and after I played 2 hours in, ya know what I did? I bought the games, they're on my shelf disc, cover and all. The only game I didn't buy after trying was Call of Duty 4, mostly because I liked World at War much better and I just erased it.

My point is if these game developers don't want their games pirated as often as they are, maybe releasing a playable demo would REALLY help, because I'm not dumping money on the game to chance it being good. I've hated plenty of popular games so I'm not going on that hunch either. I buy the games I like anyway and the ones I don't I delete, why would I keep a game I don't like?

Edit: To be clear I know this was more meant toward people who BT it and that's it they don't buy it they just keep it. But there are reasons to pirate if not just to TRY something. After all they let you rent movies and console games, I have no options for PC so, I make my option.

 

[infinity_turtles]

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.

Well, the time I play the game for certainly isn't infinite and is therefore limited. Kidding. See, I said I believe permission is less important than we give it credit for. Also, it's not bypassed because if I feel the product is worth no money, I've paid money for it. You see how that's contradictory to what I want? I'm not familiar with Radiohead's case, but assuming I didn't hear of it because it wasn't well known, than perhaps it may not have been a product people felt was worth their money? Also, good games don't necessarily do well in a pay to play system either. See: Psychonauts and Grim Fandango

I'm not going to let you simplify my answer

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

Lies.

You forgot one other difference: permission. If the game developers willingly give away the game for free, then that's just fine. But if they are selling their services, then pirating their products is theft.

Thank You.
Piracy isn't about cost. It isn't about lost sales. It's about permission.

Then stop arguing the first two points. So we disagree fundamentally about whether permission matter in how the product is used? What if all gun manufacturers said "I only give permission to nazis to use my product, as that supports my interests"? I know of course this is more about what scale we believe permission matters at, but I do want to calrify whether you subscribe to that belief fully.

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.

I've heard this justification so many times before, and it really smacks of making excuses to me. It doesn't matter if you don't think they deserve your money. They made the game, and ultimately it's their decision whether people should have to pay money or not. Playing a game and then claiming that the developer doesn't deserve your money is a bit hypocritical. That's like eating dinner at a restaurant and then trying to leave without paying the bill because you don't think they deserve the money you paid for the meal.

And besides, video games cost tons of production money to make. If you think they can spare the money to make games and not be paid for them, then you've got a lot to learn.

I find there's two very important difference. A meal, no matter how horrible, is also life sustaining. A game or fictional book however, has only one purpose. To entertain. If I am not entertained by something that exists solely to entertain, why should I support future such products? A meal does something, even if you don't like it. You could say an unentertaining game takes from you. Your money and your time for nothing. That changes things. There's also the fact that by eating something, you make sure there is less of it. When you copy something, there's just as much available as previously.

 

[oldmeme]

Those developers are very well entitled to your money. No matter whether you enjoyed their work or not, you took the service. This is also not like street musicians who play music and just hope you drop em a Euro or buy their CD. From the very beginning on, those developers made clear "we're going to make this game and for you to check it out, we will provide trailers, gameplay videos, developer walkthroughs and a demo - that should be enough for you to realize if the game is it worth for you or not. Just don't simply download it, play through, and afterwards say 'it was shit, you're not getting anything'."

This person's on the right track, but a big factor for games these days is that it's just far too expensive in some cases. I haven't bought high price game in over a year or two now (that's not to say I pirate them, I always wait for them to come down in price), and in some cases it's hard to see why not. Fifty/Sixty euros is a lot of money for something that isn't guaranteed to be any good, or if it will last very long in enjoyment. If we had more Demos ('cause there really aren't enough of them) players might be a bit more appreciative of a buy, and would also get rid of the "try before you buy" excuse, but the fact is that a lot of people simply cannot afford the high price of some games, like COD4, which was still 50 euro on Steam only until around December.

But that's just games. There are those who are just plain greedy. They turn to the OP's excuses of "rebelling against the system" but in reality they just want it all and are willing to turn to illegal sources if need be.

 

[Kanodin0]

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

It seems our opinions are actually a lot closer then I thought as I agree almost entirely. As to calling pirates criminals it is simply legally correct that they are. Still you are right that the industries themselves should attempt to make pirates paying customers instead of trying to force unfeasible enforcement which will only lead to resentment and make piracy more palatable.

The main difference between our positions being that given research shows that pirates are also among the most prolific of paying customers, it's misguided to go after them on legal grounds. Sure, they're taking an inordinate amount of shit for free, but they're also buying more than anyone else along with it.

Understanding that will go a long way to helping the industry adapt.

-m

Perhaps I phrased that previous post poorly, as I was agreeing that going after them legally was inadvisable, though I did assert their right to do so.

 

[ray=out]

What happened to most/all games having a demo with them prior to purchase?

Why do developers hold back content to release in later paid for DLC?

How do developers get away with releasing games that require huge amounts of patching/fixing to be even playable in some cases? Why should we pay for that without being made aware?

How do companies justify releasing an extended version of a game on a PC (for example) that was originally on another console (Gears of war 1 for example) - Any diehard would of already purchased the game once, it seems unfair to reward early purchase of a product with missing out on features like I am seeing in alot of cases recently (deluxe editions released later etc)

And prehaps the most on-topic legal arguement...

http://digital-lifestyles.info/2005/03/31/legend-of-mir-3-gamer-killed-after-selling-virtual-sword/

I know this is a little off and it's old old news but how is it in cases like this when a peice of digital property is stolen law enforcement is powerless to act to take measures against or to retrieve it and yet when the average joe takes something worth maybe £50 he can face a criminal record and unlimited fine in damages?

The entire law on this kind of thing needs revising so that in the very least it is clear and applies to all digital media/property, not just content backed by corperations with the biggest bank balance.

P.S. apologies for spelling/gramatical errors, I am tired.

 

[DarkRyter]

I'd try to defend piracy, but there's no point. It's a terrible thing. I do alot of terrible things.

You can ignore moral justification if you accept that you're evil.

 

[Matt_LRR]

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

It seems our opinions are actually a lot closer then I thought as I agree almost entirely. As to calling pirates criminals it is simply legally correct that they are. Still you are right that the industries themselves should attempt to make pirates paying customers instead of trying to force unfeasible enforcement which will only lead to resentment and make piracy more palatable.

The main difference between our positions being that given research shows that pirates are also among the most prolific of paying customers, it's misguided to go after them on legal grounds. Sure, they're taking an inordinate amount of shit for free, but they're also buying more than anyone else along with it.

Understanding that will go a long way to helping the industry adapt.

-m

Perhaps I phrased that previous post poorly, as I was agreeing that going after them legally was inadvisable, though I did assert their right to do so.

then I guess we're pretty much on the same page, then

-m