Sink The Pirates

[kiltmanfortywo]

How can we not take your analogies seriously when they're pretty much the only thing you argue your point with? If you can't get an even faintly accurate analogy, don't use them. I'm amused by your rebuttal of my Dell argument, especially seeing as that was supporting your argument by explaining one of your points, something you utterly failed to do.

You are right and I agree with you that it is a business's prerogative to make money. This is undeniable. This is why I pay for my games. However when said business begins to enforce ridiculous measures that penalise me and other paying customers while barely hurting piracy, while those same filthy pirates develop a method that allows me to bypass these measures, I become increasingly tempted to turn to piracy. Not necessarily because I have any rights to do so, but because the business needs a slap and this the only way I could do it.

And please try and refrain from insulting your opposition's intelligence. No-one here is stupid and you're just lowering the tone of the debate.

Analogies are how I work and the easiest way to argue this point without resorting to massively long posts(longer that what I got now atleast.)

The idea of trying to rationalize the actions of pirates is all pointless; in the end of the day, they still stole material and are, therefore, criminals. The best argument that tries to say it is not stealing is the one made by sircannonfodder in saying that you purchase the license to allow you to use the software.

This license allows you to use company x's exact version of the software. When a patch or download is released, you have to recheck the license agreement. Piracy does not give you their(the company's) version of the software. It might look the same on the surface but once you pry open the coding and make it run without a cd you have changed the coding, therefore the software, and you do not own a license to that product. Read your license agreement on any game, you will most likely find a clause in there about not messing around with the coding, reverse engineering, or something to that effect.

People who try to justify piracy are, in fact, lying to them selves for the purpose to make them selves feel better. It all comes down to one cause: convenience. The convenience of not having to scour the market looking for a game; the convenience of not having to pay for a game; the convenience of not having to insert a CD. Stop being so lazy.

Kiltman

P.S. Johnwood, now that I see it fleshed out a bit, it makes alot more sense. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Aries_Split]

Great job justifying crime guys.

Y'all (pirates and their defenders) are slime. You ARE making horrible points and arguments. "Pirating isn't totally free, they still have to buy the PC." So bank robbery is just fine as long as I purchase a quality gun? I would love to see your upbringing and ask you parents how they think you could possibly pass as a functioning member of society.

Say you have some great idea. You make widgets(nothing in particular, just something people want). You spend years crafting the perfect widget, getting the right handle, the right curves and lines, the perfect weight and feel in the hand. You sell your widget for $50 because you think it is worth it. Some people buy it, but somebody else gets one from a friend and starts making moulds of it and giving them away for free. Is this legal? Moral? Ethical? Beneficial in any way AT ALL?

Take your excuses for piracy and apply them to the real world for a second. "Your car is to expensive, so I'll steal somebody else's" "I broke my old T.V., I'll just take that one" "No, I will not stop taking your wallet, I paid good money for these sticky gloves and I'll be damned if I don't use them!" Do any of those make sense?

Y'all don't deserve to have a voice in any argument. Your opinion is worthless, you points are void, and you have no damn excuse. Stop being cheap and get a job to buy your games, music, and videos like people who are worth something.

Until that point, you are spineless cowards who are trying to claim something that ain't yours. GROW A PAIR!

I know for a fact you've commited a crime, so shut the hell up and stop being a prick.

 

[dusparr]

I have purchased a widget(nothing in particular, could be anything from a watch to a plane) and it stops working. Well, I paid good money for it, therefore I own the rights to get as many of these widgets as I want without paying 1 cent more. Sounds fair to me. What about the manufacture of the widgets? Where is the fairness to him? He designed and built these things and for the right to use them he should be paid what he deems fair market value. If you have a problem with that, DON'T USE HIS WIDGETS!

Cept, In the case of the widget, you get the rights to own, change, modify or otherwise screw with said widget, and it is given in buying that: The widget is your problem from then on out, any problems that occur are YOUR problem.
In the case of a video game you are explicitly buying the RIGHT TO PLAY THE GAME, Not the game itself, therefore any problems afterward are the problem of the company, you are not buying the right to own said game, just to play it.
SO if you have the right to play a game, do you need to pay to get another copy?
IQ=100;
If (Answer) IQ-=30;
else IQ+=10;

 

[dusparr]

This license allows you to use company x's exact version of the software. When a patch or download is released, you have to recheck the license agreement. Piracy does not give you their(the company's) version of the software. It might look the same on the surface but once you pry open the coding and make it run without a cd you have changed the coding, therefore the software, and you do not own a license to that product. Read your license agreement on any game, you will most likely find a clause in there about not messing around with the coding, reverse engineering, or something to that effect.

People who try to justify piracy are, in fact, lying to them selves for the purpose to make them selves feel better. It all comes down to one cause: convenience. The convenience of not having to scour the market looking for a game; the convenience of not having to pay for a game; the convenience of not having to insert a CD. Stop being so lazy.

Kiltman

P.S. Johnwood, now that I see it fleshed out a bit, it makes alot more sense. Thanks for clarifying.

One does not need to mess with any of the games code to create a new program that will modify memory addresses or emulate the startup sequence to a game, so as to get the game to boot without a cd.

 

[Asehujiko]

A huge fallacy i see in each and every anti piracy argument is that they consider piracy stealing instead of copying.

To demonstrate it, using your car analogy:
If you have a car and it breaks it's still wrong to steal somebody elses car because that way the other person ends up with no car, which he still paid for just like you.

However, if we apply internet rules here, you don't take another person's car, you just make a perfect copy of another car without affecting the original at all.

Piracy does NOT involve breaking into a game store and harvesting the games there.

And where exactly does that 0.1% of pirates would actualy pay number come from and in what context was that poll?

 

[John Galt]

Surely they bring their load of bullshit as well but i've yet to hear anything sensible from the objectivist camp.

/defect

Sorry Ayn, you can't mix Nietzsche with economics and come out with anything sensible.

To those who say that piracy's immorality is the primary reason to not do it, well, that's just not going to work. Morality is subjective and plenty of people find little reasons to justify their actions. Sure not every single torrent I've downloaded can be written off as justified but I don't seek moral fortitude in all my actions. If you want to stop piracy, then provide practical arguments against it. Prove that we're strangling the industry with statistics, not quotes or anecdotes. Unless you can prove to me that I am forcing software developers to quit their jobs and stop making games because piracy has made it impractical to make a profit, only then will you have a valid argument.

Piracy has been around for years and the gaming, movie, and music industries don't seem to be letting up. I still believe there's substantial money to be made in those fields or else we'd see the end of them years ago. Also, it becomes increasingly harder to point to piracy as the cause of any downturns due to the poor economy. Less money going around means less games. Piracy is a symptom of that problem(getting it for free is a solution to not getting it at all), not the cause.

 

[ErinHoffman]

/defect

Sorry Ayn, you can't mix Nietzsche with economics and come out with anything sensible.

Without asking why you have "John Galt" for an account name, I just want to give you points for nerd philosopher megafunny, while avoiding starting a discussion on Nietzsche's perspectivism versus Rand's imitation. But I'm sure she is rolling in her grave, or would be if she weren't an atheist and therefore gone forever.

Popped over here from the other piracy thread this week, and I'm going to commit a mild faux pas by posting the same link I did over there to an interesting method Insomniac used way-back-when to combat piracy:
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20011017/dodd_01.htm

On top of being interesting from a technical standpoint, I think it gives a more realistic illustration of some of the industry's perspective toward piracy. A lot of the grandiose generalizations the pirate community uses to paint developers and publishers create an unrealistic adversarial picture; each side is out to paint the other as stupid. Realistically this isn't as true of many parts of the development community, large portions of which hate the RIAA. It really just depends on who you're talking about and to -- a guy in a suit who has to make his explanations to shareholders (and he's a person, too, with a family to feed and a career to protect), a gal programming a game and putting her life into it, a studio head who has to keep their boat above water in order to keep doing what they love.

The thing about piracy is that it's so abstracted from the perceptions of its consequences that it's easy to think of as "harmless" or "a victimless crime". It isn't. Those who glorify piracy or say that it's harmless need to be ready to accept an industry with fewer games being made as a result. But that consequence is so abstract and separated from the actual actions involved in downloading a game that people have to actually think about the ramifications of their actions in order to make an ethical judgment about it. For a lot of people it's easier just to download the game and duck behind a lot of rhetoric when challenged on it.

That being said, we should, as a community and as game makers, be listening to pirates. The Spyro experience shows the dynamic very well -- it's adversarial, but it's also weirdly symbiotic. It's not in the pirates' best interest to destroy the industry, either. And if we want people to stop killing our livelihood we do need to address these ideological notions, deconstruct them and illustrate to the pirate community -- even if not for their sake but for the more casually involved who can actually have their minds changed -- exactly what the damage is, in a realistic fashion. It's very, very difficult to do, because the realities of the damage are complex and difficult to track, but reinforcing the adversarial stance only exacerbates the problem.

It's hard to visualize "games that aren't being made" -- it's very abstract -- but make no mistake that this is absolutely the cost of piracy. That said, it's also a disservice to the development community to say that we're unwilling to talk about it ("I'm not a racist, but..."), when in fact that discussion has been going on for a good long time, and will continue. (All THAT being said, Sean, I enjoyed the article for its alternate perspective on the issue.)

 

[kiltmanfortywo]

You are confusing "playing the game" with "using the software." On your end of things it looks identical, but you are using a modified or changed version of said software, thereby breaking the license agreement. If the programmer designed the game to have to run with the CD but you pull the data from the CD to your hard drive, you are changing the software merely by switching where it is accessed from. Read your license agreements fully and they will say that by playing the game, you agree not to do x, y, and z. This typically includes reverse engineering, changing source coding, and altering the program in any way.

With the idea of intellectual property (IP) it is impossible to differentiate copying from stealing. IP basically means that the owner of the IP, be they EA, MS, or who ever, owns the data and is allowing you to use it. This is the very basis of what copyright and trademark law is about; an idea or concept being owned by an individual.

Movies and music being downloaded without permission from the artists or producers is illegal and considered piracy, so how do y'all think the same does not apply to IP's like video games as well?

Kiltman

P.S. What law do you know for a fact I have broken, Aries_Split? I can guarantee you piracy isn't it if I have broken one.

 

[Unknower]

I don't know does this saying exist in English, but here goes: "Opportunity makes a thief." And Internet is that opportunity, like others posted already. Brad Wardell and Cevat Yerli are wrong when they think piracy is just about people deciding where to spend their money, it's just that they don't want to spend their money. So I think stuff like Steam is the best to prevent it. Or possibly something like games coming on somekind of flash drives, so that there's no need to install the game on computer, everything's handled from the flash drive. Hell, I don't know much about tecnhical stuff so I probably should just shut up. It would probably costs more too.

Oh yeah, about Crytek, let's defend them a bit. Or actually, let's not be ridiculous.

Stating Crysis works only on 1% of computers is stupid. Maybe this is the same as the "10 means perfect" -argument: I'll never understand how people can think that way. I mean, damnit, what about putting graphics settings to high, medium or even low? For crying out loud guys, you loved Portal and Crysis probably has better graphics on medium. Think about the gameplay, damnit, gameplay!

Though no 1.3 patch sucks, I agree with that.

 

[Blayze]

Read your license agreements fully

Letter of the law, eh? I'll ask you this question, Kilt. Have you ever borrowed a game from somebody, or lent them one of your own?

 

[John Galt]

The thing about piracy is that it's so abstracted from the perceptions of its consequences that it's easy to think of as "harmless" or "a victimless crime". It isn't. Those who glorify piracy or say that it's harmless need to be ready to accept an industry with fewer games being made as a result. But that consequence is so abstract and separated from the actual actions involved in downloading a game that people have to actually think about the ramifications of their actions in order to make an ethical judgment about it. For a lot of people it's easier just to download the game and duck behind a lot of rhetoric when challenged on it.

Exactly, the only way to put any significant dent in piracy is going to be education. However, simple "Don't Copy That Floppy" messages won't work, the rhetoric behind piracy is too thick for that. The only thing that will deter piracy would be to see concrete evidence of the consequences. Even then that won't stop it entirely, at best it would curtail some of the casual torrenters like myself from doing it in the future and may even cause some of the commercial ones to slow down a bit just to give the industry enough room to breath. I don't know whether or not the piracy problem will reach critical mass at which point game creation becomes unprofitable, primarily because I think the signs that the games industry is slowing down to an intolerable crawl would be pretty obvious to even the most committed pirate.

 

[kiltmanfortywo]

Borrowing a game from a friend is not piracy. The number of copies in the world do not change, it is merely a change of temporary ownership. That being said, no. I have never borrowed or lent a game to a friend that requires a illegal transfer of information. The only ones I have borrowed/lent are console and that is comfortable in the law to the same degree as letting my friend borrow my T.V. or CD player. If I gave it to him and he were to burn his own copy then return it to me, then we would be crossing some lines.

Kiltman

P.S. I love how instead of defending piracy, you have resorted to trying to convince me I am one. Mature.

 

[Blayze]

I never said you were a pirate. I'm saying that, since you mentioned license agreements (More in relation to "making the contents of your CD into an ISO to save on wear and tear" than anything else), I'm going to mention them back.

I have here the manual from "Guilty Gear X" for the PS2. The little blurb at the bottom of the inside front cover states, and I quote:

"Unauthorised copying, adaptation, rental, lending, distribution, extraction, re-sale, arcade use, charging for use, broadcast, public performance and internet, cable or any telecommunications transmission, access or use of this product or any trademark or copyright work that forms part of this product are prohibited."

I'd like you to clarify something for me. Namely, the distinction between authorised lending and unauthorised lending. Seriously. I'm a bit confused. Does it mean (Basically) "lending to somebody who you know is going to copy the game"? Because that's the only way I can see it fitting.

And would it count as "unauthorised lending" on your part if you didn't know they'd copy it and they went ahead and did just that? Hmm. To be honest, that point's had me a bit puzzled for years (Ever since I first noticed it in Mega Drive game manuals).

Either way, this whole "when you buy a copy of a piece of software, you're actually buying a license to use said software" thing... That means *you're* the one who bought the license. Your friends Joe and Bob can't legally use it if they borrowed it (If we're going by the letter of the law), if they didn't purchase any user license.

Just like piracy, someone's using that software without paying for the license to use it. It might not *be* piracy according to the spirit of the law, but as for the *letter* of the law...

On your end of things it looks identical, but you are using a modified or changed version of said software, thereby breaking the license agreement. If the programmer designed the game to have to run with the CD but you pull the data from the CD to your hard drive, you are changing the software merely by switching where it is accessed from.

Then again, this whole debate is moot because the letter of the law conflicts with practicality. Sure, I could keep my Planescape: Torment CDs in the drive at all times when playing, but they're just going to die faster and then I'd have to pay good money for replacement CDs that are more than likely going to be scratched - at least partially - because it's such a great game, people know they can charge through the nose for it... and they're more than likely going to have played it to death themselves.

Or I could rip the CDs onto a hard drive, burn a replacement DVD for if I actually do need the disc in the drive and keep the files on my computer as another fail-safe. Which do you think I'm going to pick? I bought this game - well, the *license* to play it - and I'm going to keep these CDs in good condition so that I can play the game when I want, hopefully for many years into the future.

And if that means pissing all over the letter of the law in the process, then so much the better.

P.S. I love how instead of defending piracy, you have resorted to trying to convince me I am one. Mature.

And I love how you immediately not only make a verbal assault against my maturity, but also decide that I'm a defender of piracy simply because I asked you a question that a yes-man would have no reason to.

 

[kiltmanfortywo]

That last comment was not merely direct at you, but at the other posters "knowing for a fact that I have broken at least one law."

But your idea of backing up does have some gray area. If you have merely back it up, I can't see anybody having a problem with it b/c it falls within the area of maintenance. That could be technically illegal depending on interpretation and individual laws. That then falls into the category of problematic like trying to fight about the 2nd amendment.

You need to remember that this is not a conversation merely between the 2 of us but everybody on this board. So when I said "you" that was directed at everybody taking up that position of defending the pirates.

Kiltman

P.S. I was also calling you a pirate defender, just to be clear.

 

[SirCannonFodder]

That last comment was not merely direct at you, but at the other posters "knowing for a fact that I have broken at least one law."

But your idea of backing up does have some gray area. If you have merely back it up, I can't see anybody having a problem with it b/c it falls within the area of maintenance. That could be technically illegal depending on interpretation and individual laws. That then falls into the category of problematic like trying to fight about the 2nd amendment.

You need to remember that this is not a conversation merely between the 2 of us but everybody on this board. So when I said "you" that was directed at everybody taking up that position of defending the pirates.

Kiltman

P.S. I was also calling you a pirate defender, just to be clear.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you're allowed as part of your statutory rights to make a single copy of a game for back-up purposes.

 

[panfist]

so because you cannot rent the games it gives you the right to steal them?

Kiltman

I don't steal them. I buy them. If they are good. There is no alternative available to me. I can't buy a game, try it for a day or even five minutes and return it if I don't like it. On the other hand, I am allowed to return pretty much everything else in the entire honking store.

 

[kiltmanfortywo]

I don't steal them. I buy them. If they are good. There is no alternative available to me. I can't buy a game, try it for a day or even five minutes and return it if I don't like it. On the other hand, I am allowed to return pretty much everything else in the entire honking store.

The return policy of stores does seem to hinder the try it out idea but that is still no reason to steal the game. You should research the games before you buy them, thus greatly eliminating the possibility of buying a game you won't enjoy. That does mean that you will need to man up and take responsibility, recognizing that you bought the game and are stuck with it no matter how bad the game is.

I have been very happy with most of the games I have purchased because I do the research, I avoid buying on release dates to hear what others think of it, and I know what I like. I have had to take those steps because I know that I am about to shell out $50-100 on something and there is no chance to rectify a mistake I have made. Granted, I have made a few but I accept that, I don't try to escape responsibility and resort to piracy to make myself feel better about losing some cash; It is just not mature.

As far as back up, it would make sense to me that you would be allowed to make a single, personal copy. Then again, very little of the talk here is of people making a copy of the game they bought for their private use. They are discussing try it/ buy it or once you find out your disk is fubar you torrent it, which is not legal. I have no problem with the guy who buys a form of electronic media protecting his investment through back ups, I am just not sure on the laws there. You would have to check the laws specific to your country, state/province or even town and district.

Kiltman

 

[ReepNeep]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you're allowed as part of your statutory rights to make a single copy of a game for back-up purposes.

This was true in the US until the DMCA was passed under Clinton in around 1998. The thing you're referencing is called the 'Fair Use Doctrine' and indeed said something like that. The problem is that the DMCA makes the circumvention of copy protection mechanisms a crime. Since damn near everything has some sort of DRM on it, making backup copies is now illegal. Specifically its copyright infringement, thus software piracy, thus 'outright theft'.

This 'article' was a literate, carefully worded rant; a browbeating, myopic, hypocritical piece of flame-bait. I'm honestly surprised the Escapist published this.

Whether Mr. Sands realizes it or not, you can't stop the hackers. Its literally impossible. The most you can ever do is delay the availability of the program by a week or two. Given that, dicking over your paying customers in order to inconvenience the 'thieves' is an absolutely bizarre response. He also has obviously not remembered his Art of War, as not speaking to your adversary is a sure way to make the problem worse. Why are personal backups piracy, again? Because the industry bribed lawmakers to make it so. Same with lending and renting software: its a copyright violation and thus piracy.

Sure, pro-piracy arguments are disingenuous and driven by self interest, the anti-piracy ones are too. Some pro-piracy arguments are downright stupid. Some of them are perfectly accurate.

 

[Blayze]

That last comment was not merely direct at you, but at the other posters "knowing for a fact that I have broken at least one law."

Everyone's broken at least one law. There's bound to be enough stupid old laws out there. That aside, if I'd wanted to accuse you of breaking a law, my first post on the subject would have been a lot more direct (And would have contained more content related to said topic). I was merely bringing up the point of how the letter of the law is far too restrictive. It's the *spirit* of the law that I try to adhere to.

P.S. I was also calling you a pirate defender, just to be clear.

Thought so. Why, pray tell, am I a defender of pirates? I'd like to know how the backing up of games I own in order to prolong their lifespan and allow me to play them without access to the CDs is in any way supporting piracy.

I have a VCR and a DVD recorder/player, and yet nobody would care if I recorded TV shows or movies onto VHS/DVD for my own use. If I were to record said shows or movies and distribute them, then yes, people would take notice (And rightfully so).

This was true in the US until the DMCA was passed under Clinton in around 1998.

I didn't know about this. Hmm. I wonder if it's happened here in England. Ah well, it's a piece of shit and I'll continue to ignore it because it's not practical - or fair.

Edit:

I can't buy a game, try it for a day or even five minutes and return it if I don't like it.

I can. It's called Metaboli.