Poll: Is Piracy Really That Bad?

[Sewer Rat]

The main issue is that in the end, you are taking away money from people who put a ton of effort into that work. Yes, it seems like, and it probably is, a small hit to the big game developers, but imagine how it would effect the indi developer trying to get a foothold in the market? As someone who wants to get into the game industry (currently in college getting the skills I need), I would hate to make a game only to have it get played by people who didn't buy it. and imagine as well, that this could lead to indi developers who have some real talent or inspiration abandoning the industry in favor of something that actually rewards them for their effort. What's the point of putting so much time and effort into the latest greatest game when people are just going to steal it anyway? As a result, pirating has the potential to harm the industry as a whole.

For me, there is only one case where downloading a game is acceptable, and that is if a game is obnoxiously difficult to obtain legally where you live. Clearly the developer doesn't want your money, otherwise they would have made it more readily available to you.

EDIT: I just had to respond to this:

its not good what they do, but they dont really have a choice.

Yes, they do have a choice, they have the choice to not play the game. Sorry, but games ARE a luxury, I am not going to drop dead tomorrow if I don't get my daily intake of Skyrim.

 

[SonicKoala]

It's theft, pure and simple.

No, it isn't, you fucking moron.

How is it not?

Because you aren't depriving the owner of any product they have made. Stealing always implies one side losing something. Piracy not always implies one side losing something. Therefore, piracy isn't stealing.

Is the 'owner' in this case the game publisher? I'd just like clarification on that. And when does piracy not imply one side losing something, even if that is something like potential profit?

I guess the owner would be the one who holds the rights to the game. As in, the game developer/publisher, yes.

The exact thing I said is "piracy not always implies one side losing something". Like in the case of old games, people who can't afford them, or people who for one reason or another wouldn't buy the game anyway. So to call it stealing, you would have to ignore all of these situations. Which still make up a non-negligible part of piracy.

The way it works is: people don't buy all games that come out. Hypothetically, if piracy didn't exist, people STILL wouldn't buy all the games that come out. Now let's take Average Joe and a game he would never buy over the course of his lifetime. In a world without piracy, he would never get to experience it and the developer wouldn't have any of his money. In the real world, he has the chance to experience it and the developer still doesn't get any of his money. In both cases, there is no loss. Only gain.

Pirating old games which aren't readily available, I have no problem with. People who can't afford games, well, that's too bad; games are a luxury, and if you can't afford them, then you don't get them. As for the argument of 'this person would never buy the game anyway', I take issue with that; if they download the game, then that means they have, at the very least, a fleeting interest in the product. Acquiring this product illegally, provided that there are legal channels through which he could acquire it, is not a practice I agree with. Whether or not it's 'theft', I suppose, is irrelevant. It is still a matter of denying the game's publisher and developer money which they are entitled to, given the fact they created the damn thing.

 

[SonicKoala]

And if they don't have a stable income, then they should fucking wait until they do before they begin indulging themselves in luxuries such as video games. And your final point seems to be suggesting that it is all the publishers' fault that people are stealing; well, you realise there wouldn't be anti-piracy measures if piracy wasn't an issue, right? Pirating a game because you disagree with a publishers' practices are not going to change those practices; they will only make them worse.

Yeah, lets breed illetare army of slaves because they cant afford books. ive seen that before. publishers do have a LOT of fault in people illegaly downloding the product (not working protectinos securrom securrom even sent a crack in email to a friend who had problem loading the original disc. technically cracks are not illegal. its illegal to download a game. to modify it not to need a disc is not illegal in any country. there has been many studiesp roving that piracy is much higher the lower income you go. this is simple, because people who cant afford food cant pay for WAY OVERPRICED games. its not good what they do, but they dont really have a choice.

They do have a choice - don't illegally download the game. And the book metaphor is absolutely horrendous, given the fact that books can be acquired for free from libraries. And if your friend takes issue with a publisher's practices or methods, illegally downloading something they made is not an appropriate means of protest.

 

[Aprilgold]

Yes if you purely pirate.

The downloading for demoing purposes is meh, but if you buy it afterwards more power to you.

Still hate the pirating a game to demo it is bull shit, mainly because if the number of people that did that instead wrote a letter to the developer about not buying their product because they didn't make a demo, we would see more out there.

The only acceptable reason to pirate is if you can't in any way, shape or form get the game any other way.

Is pirating as bad as Publishers make it to be, no, but since its growing due to their attempts to stop it, their only hurting customers and their being driven to pirate so they don't have to deal with any DRM.

stealing is still stealing.

Its copying, and I hate how everyone has to miss-conceive this. Stealing is always just one copy, however, here its just one copy that can be traded 1,000,000 times all around the world wiht in a minute, and its the full game with no bullshit in it such as DRM.

 

[SonicKoala]

Piracy isn't stealing? That requires some serious elaboration.

Oh god, not this again. If you're talking about stealing in a legal sense, then "piracy" (i.e. copyright infringement) is 100% not stealing, the law is extremely clear on this point. If you're not talking in a legal sense, then it's slightly more acceptable, but it's still a really really dumb comparison to make.

Making this point is the worst kind of pedanticism. Yes, I'm aware that technically it is not stealing, but copying. Fine - that does not change the fact that the practice itself: copying a product so as to be able to use said product without actually providing the maker of that product with the compensation they deserve, is wrong. It is akin to theft, in the sense that one is taking something (albeit a digitized version) which does not belong to them.

 

[SonicKoala]

The publisher and developer are denied money if you do not buy the game, NOT if you pirate it.

This is assuming that the individual who pirates the game was never, beyond a shadow of a doubt, going to pay any money whatsoever to play that game. And frankly, given the fact that they were interested in the game enough to go and download it, that is a bit of a stretch. Yes, there are cases where this would hold true - however, I would argue there are just as many cases, if not more, of individuals who would spend money on the game were that their only option; since they have the option of acquiring it for free, they choose that option, instead.

So no, I strongly disagree with you on that point - the option of piracy is costing game publishers and developers money.

 

[Strazdas]

And if they don't have a stable income, then they should fucking wait until they do before they begin indulging themselves in luxuries such as video games. And your final point seems to be suggesting that it is all the publishers' fault that people are stealing; well, you realise there wouldn't be anti-piracy measures if piracy wasn't an issue, right? Pirating a game because you disagree with a publishers' practices are not going to change those practices; they will only make them worse.

Yeah, lets breed illetare army of slaves because they cant afford books. ive seen that before. publishers do have a LOT of fault in people illegaly downloding the product (not working protectinos securrom securrom even sent a crack in email to a friend who had problem loading the original disc. technically cracks are not illegal. its illegal to download a game. to modify it not to need a disc is not illegal in any country. there has been many studiesp roving that piracy is much higher the lower income you go. this is simple, because people who cant afford food cant pay for WAY OVERPRICED games. its not good what they do, but they dont really have a choice.

They do have a choice - don't illegally download the game. And the book metaphor is absolutely horrendous, given the fact that books can be acquired for free from libraries. And if your friend takes issue with a publisher's practices or methods, illegally downloading something they made is not an appropriate means of protest.

I think you have misread me. the publishers sent the crack themselves to my friend because the DRM (securom) failed to allow game to start.

 

[predatorpulse7]

I think the whole "bringing the games to a wider audience that might not otherwise experience them" argument is bullshit. It might be true, but so what if it is? I want to experience driving a Ferrari. Should I go out and steal one, then rationalize it by saying that because I experienced it, I might possibly maybe buy one legitimately down the line?

You can't afford a game? You don't get to play it. Period. You're not entitled to get something you want just because you want it.

You're comparing A GAME(which ships at absurd prices for some countries buying strength but it's still around 60-70$) to a a brand that routinely sells 200,000$ cars(thus filling a pretty niche market, how many people can afford that price)?

Look,I'll speak from personal example. When I grew up, we didn't have access to many games, heck I didn't even have internet back then, we just traded floppys, that were themselves copied from other kids who had dads that worked abroad and could buy those games. We had shitty computers and we wanted to play something on them. PC's were still big when I started gaming and we would get demo's and such from magazines but there were no major publishers in Eastern Europe(Romania in my case) yet and we weren't bombarded with gaming news. As things evolved and gaming stores opened up we found ourselves confronted with hard reality: the games were VERY EXPENSIVE compared to what most of our parents made. And we would play older games but we pretty much went through most of them at the time. We wanted to play new games badly but couldn't till we discovered online piracy(we tried to get some of the streets but most were duds or filled with viruses).

I'm not gonna say that it's something that's morally good but for me, piracy was the only think that kept me in the gaming world so to speak until I had the money to BUY my own games. I would have quit gaming a long time ago otherwise because I couldn't afford to play anything other than demo's or really old games.

I do think that making games more affordable to a wider audience would actually bring the publishers more money. Regarding Eastern Europe, what would be better, selling a 80$ game(basically a fourth or third of the monthly paycheck for many people) and getting few customers to buy it or shaving 10-20% off it just for that area and see a significant number of people buying the game? It's no wonder that piracy is rampant in this area of the world. And the car example doesn't stand because if you can't afford a Ferrari at 200,000 it's doubtful that you will at 180,000 or so? You are not in that price range and period.

With a lot of gamers in EE or other parts of the world, shaving a bit of the price(not by a huge margin, we're not talking handouts here) would put them into the position of BUYING the game instead of pirating it. The discrepancy isn't as big as in the car example.
I suppose you could try waiting but let's be honest, how many people who are interested in gaming will wait 1-2 years for the price to drop significantly and then buy the game?

You may believe me or not but I have friends that pirate the game when it comes out, play it, wait for the price to drop big time, then buy it and put it in their collection for future plays or to share with others(maybe even as a gift in some cases). Not to mention that it my time(starting to feel old lol) PC games were all the rage and you could actually get the DEMO to see if you enjoyed the game before making such a expensive purchase. Since consoles rule and all we get are ports(mostly) for PC, demo's have pretty much gone out of style(or they give you one of those 5 minute demos where you can't really form an opinion on the gmae) and you can't really make a judgement on a game before buying it. I know that in other countries there are options to rent games and such but not where I live.

Coming back to my friends example, he pirated AND bought the game, he screwed the publishers but still gave them money later on, just less money that what he was willing to give at the time the game launch. So what is he in this equation, the good or the bad guy?

 

[LilithSlave]

There is no for. Never is, will be or can be. The main reason people pirate is because they're too cheap to actually buy the game themselves. If money is that tight then they should focus their attention else where

Don't be ridiculous. There are thousands upon thousands of games. Only multi-millionares can afford to buy all of the games they'd like to play. And that still leaves no room for other hobbies such as movies and books.

And gosh, there's nothing more irritatingly ridiculous than calling piracy "stealing".

If we ever have 3D printers that become significantly more advanced, and they will, they simple ones are already estimated to hit the public market in the next few years, people will be able to download, copy, and share cars. And it won't be stealing, either. Filesharing is a great thing, and should be spread as far as possible. Including to cars. You're darn right it's okay to download a car when we have the technology to do it.

The whole anti-piracy moral logic is super ridiculous and nonsensical. But I will say one thing, if you're going to follow that logic, you'd better advocate people being super closed minded about what video games they play. Because people cannot afford to just buy any old game, they must be super prejudiced. Unjustifying piracy means justifying every bigoted video game fanboy that ever lived.

 

[LilithSlave]

I'm against pirating games for the same reason I'm against pirating movies and music. Just because you can "copy" something without having it cost tangible goods, that "copy" still costs money. Money that SHOULD be getting paid to all the people who helped make and distribute it. When you pirate, the money comes out of their paychecks, not the "Big Bad Evil Corporation." Even if they get paid, and the company loses profits, those profits would have been used to keep the corporation going by making new media, and when it tanks it takes out all the workers and the people who invested money into it.

And not every media that can be enjoyed, can be bought. That's why we have sales charts.

It's reasonable to want to enjoy every media you possibly can. It's unreasonable to want to purchase every media you possibly can.

If a person only listens to a handful of music artists, I would call them uneducated and lacking in musical exposure. Possibly even overly closed minded.

If a person only owns a handful of music cds, I would call them a reasonable buyer instead of a fanatic.

If a person listens to thousands of music artists, I would call them a music connoisseur and have a high respect for their music venturing.

If a person buys thousands of music cds, I would worry they are overly fanatical and lack maturity in terms of money management.

And that's what a person who doesn't pirate generally is. Media underexposed, or money immature.

Media, is not the same as a car as well. Media is a mentally consumed product that generally results, mentally, in something gained. When you read school textbooks, you are consuming media as much as you do if play a video game. Consuming media and a variety of media is a generally important practice beyond the means of "you can only enjoy what you pay for". Because a certain amount of media must be consumed, and a certain amount of media should be consumed. Without a certain amount of media consumption, you are not even educated enough to be employable. And without a certain amount of media consumption, you lack much relatable discussion with other humans(for instance, without media consumption, one would likely not even know who most politicians are, and media in generally is one of the most commonly talked about things). This is why libraries exist. Because saying that people do not have a right to media, is something that has been disagreed with for centuries. You do have a right to media, this is why it is typically publicly available for free. This is why taxes pay for education.

 

[DEAD34345]

stealing is still stealing.

Indeed, though I don't really know what that has to do with an argument about piracy. Since you know, copying something without permission is not the same as stealing no matter how you try to word it.

OT: Eh, piracy is kind of bad, but as far as crimes go it's something I'd consider extremely minor. I would say that shoplifting a chocolate bar from a store is a worse act than pirating a game, some music, a movie or whatever, since that in that case someone actually loses something due to your actions. It's about as close to a "victimless crime" as you can get in my mind, especially since I've seen as much evidence that indicates piracy helps sales as I have seen that it harms them (though to be honest, there isn't much evidence either way).

 

[LilithSlave]

Yes, I do as well think that piracy helps fuel media purchasing more than without it. Because we're pretty "consumerist" people, and we don't just like reading or listen to, or watch something or play it, we liking owning it and putting it on our shelves to show off. We're proud of our tastes and possessions.

People are also people who grow compulsive and fanatic. For instance, once a person gets into Pokemon, they may become a Pokemaniac. People who don't pirate don't know what they're missing and may be less likely to be tempted to spend irresponsibly(which entertaining media often leads people to do, certainly video games help people get in debt or keep them from owning a nice house). But we're living in a world, especially helped by piracy, that people are surrounded by millions more pieces of media than they can consume in their lifetimes. And doing so causes people to diverge and get addicted to certain things, which leads them to spending money on them.

Hatsune Miku alone has more products than one can enjoy within their lifetime already. But you can bet people aren't limited to piracy about it even though they can get most things of Hatsune Miku for free.

Statistics show that people buy more media than ever before. In fact, people overspend on average on media. That is correct, people spend so much on media typically, that it is economically unhealthy. And there's no reason to assume that piracy hasn't done anything but add to this. Media purchasing is a dangerous compulsion in much of the world. If anything, we need to pirate more and buy less. Because we need to fix that hardwood floor that's been rotting, not that new MMORPG subscription. But instead, we buy that new MMORPG subscription while the floor rots beneath our feet, while giving a moral downtalking to people online for not buying enough games.

 

[The Cheshire]

Sorry to hear you're so easily offended.

Still, being offended isn't an excuse to steal. It's like saying "He called my mom a whore, so I shot him because I was offended." People who say they steal to "get back" at someone/something/a corporation/etc. are just being petty.

I was not being literal when I meant I would never ever buy anything legal again because of this video. It's still a very shitty video.

As for what I think about piracy, it depends. I have downloaded hundreds of films, but thorough that I got to know a lot of interesting film directors, and now whenever one of these directors I like releases new stuff in the cinema, I pay my ticket and enjoy the film in a big screen. If it wasn't for the films and music I downloaded, I would certainly have also spent a lot less in cinemas, concert halls and so on, so it ain't such a simple formula after all. Last week I downloaded the latest Ry Cooder CD, I didn't know this musician so much, but if he comes to my city I will pay for a concert now, that's for certain.

Also, not everything gets distributed, or not all films are so easy to find. If you live in a big city it's easier to rent a fine film at a video store, but if you live in a little Spanish village where the video rental store has only things in the line of The Best of Jackie Chan + Julia Roberts romantic comedies, then maybe if you want to watch a Jean-Luc Godard film, you have to download it. Or you can buy each DVD on the internet for an obscene price and get ruined in the process. But surely monsieur Godard is OK with me downloading his films.

So let me put it this way: I'm poor, I can't afford to buy DVDs that much, specially for a film I will only watch once or twice. Now, I am sorry for the lady in the video who gets fired and walks around the street with her equipement on (crazy hag) buuut... I don't really want to be uncultured just because I'm poor. Doesn't sound fair to me!

 

[XDravond]

I buy my games.
But.
I do also at times use so called "no cd-crack" and technically that is piracy depending on how hard you are with the laws...
Do I feel bad for using these "no cd-cracks"? No, because I bought it and I have not re-sold it or lent it to someone else so why would I? Because it is against the "need to check this box to install"(EULA) list. But the company that I bought the game from does not want to give me the possibility to play my game.
"Are you so lazy you don't even want to put a cd in a tray?" Yes, plus I also have computers that does not have trays...

Music and movie on the other hand are often overpriced and sometimes not available where I am. "use Netflix etc for movies.." Yea sure but then I have to get a american credit card and a vpn to US, plus I would then break one of the points in the EULA... All available services makes you pay 20+$ (7+$ for renting) for any movie and several are not "out yet" but just happens to be out on DVD (etc) in the US(or other country)... So better services are needed and some people will never be able to afford any price so you have not lost any sale on them anyhow.
Music have started but not all company catalogs are on the same place so it's hard to find for streaming sometimes and the price for buying individual tracks are somewhat high... I want my stuff in one place at simple and at normal rates.

Do not pirate.
Convince the geniuses in the director room to begin better deals for paying customers, I'm paying do not punish me thank you!

 

[XDravond]

I buy my games.
But.
I do also at times use so called "no cd-crack" and technically that is piracy depending on how hard you are with the laws...
Do I feel bad for using these "no cd-cracks"? No, because I bought it and I have not re-sold it or lent it to someone else so why would I? Because it is against the "need to check this box to install"(EULA) list. But the company that I bought the game from does not want to give me the possibility to play my game.
"Are you so lazy you don't even want to put a cd in a tray?" Yes, plus I also have computers that does not have trays...

Music and movie on the other hand are often overpriced and sometimes not available where I am. "use Netflix etc for movies.." Yea sure but then I have to get a american credit card and a vpn to US, plus I would then break one of the points in the EULA... All available services makes you pay 20+$ (7+$ for renting) for any movie and several are not "out yet" but just happens to be out on DVD (etc) in the US(or other country)... So better services are needed and some people will never be able to afford any price so you have not lost any sale on them anyhow.
Music have started but not all company catalogs are on the same place so it's hard to find for streaming sometimes and the price for buying individual tracks are somewhat high... I want my stuff in one place at simple and at normal rates.

Do not pirate.
Convince the geniuses in the director room to begin better deals for paying customers, I'm paying do not punish me thank you!

 

[LilithSlave]

Why should they get something for free when I spend money on it?

No one is forcing you to spend money on it. Not to mention, you can do both, you know.

This sounds like terrible logic, as well. That because you like spending money, other people should spend the same money, too. That because you bought a game you like, someone else shouldn't check it out from the local library. And local libraries do carry games.

I fail to see how this justifies stealing the game.

I fail to see how calling piracy "stealing" is justified.

There's a much better argument for calling stark economic equality, or Capitalism, that leads to people not even so much as being able to afford a video game or any luxury item, when some people control billions of dollars and exploit third world starving nations, stealing.

That sounds like stealing, if anything, when you, a billionaire, exploit third and second world countries and make them even poorer. A practice that big businesses do all of the time. Not piracy.

There's already enough food on the planet to feed everyone and every artist and media consumer happy. But we waste our resources. Media with copyright laws, often keeping education away from the poor. And many people get fat while others starve. And just because video games aren't necessary for life, doesn't mean they shouldn't be shared.

Downloading textbooks illegally is piracy, as well. And if anything, overvaluing mere data helps keep people starving and puts resources into the hands of the privileged instead of the poor. The overvaluing of data, is yes, detrimental to the poor.

And while it's a darn shame that some starve while others get fat. And much worse than anything to do with luxuries. Less than %1 of humans earn their luxuries than other humans don't have. And current copyright laws under capitalism do a terrible job of distributing media. Giving artists what they deserve and allowing art enjoyers what they deserve.

"Supply and demand" is such an overstated idea. The media outlets shove media down people's throats and vy for attention, which is more valuable than money. Your time, is more valuable than your money. If you think that consumers are in control and that all is controlled by the demand, you're wrong. Big companies control everything. Every person should pirate a little bit, and buy a little bit(I know a few users have apparently held my sort of position and gotten infractions. As this is such a anti-piracy site by those who moderate it, even ad-blocking of any sort is looked down upon. But I must defend my moral position). Buy what you can at full price, and what take priority in what budget you have, and get for free what you can the rest, whether relying on libraries, used sales, physical borrowing, or internet sharing. And you'd be better off sending the artists money in the mail.

If demand equaled supply, you wouldn't have people rounding people to certain areas like Fox News trying to control opinion. And you wouldn't have so much separation of what is available between countries.

You are entitled to media. Yes, you are. It's as simple as that. And no amount of saying you're not will change the fact. It doesn't matter what country you are born in, it is data. And no big company has the right to tell you what to watch, read, listen to, or play.

 

[T-004]

I got a question for all those who are bleating about "Intellectual Property"....

...Nice avatar pic, did you buy it from the artist?