The Grey Areas of Piracy

[razer17]

In the Facebook Comments for the article 'Lawyer Destroys Arguments for Game Piracy [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/115015-Lawyer-Destroys-Arguments-for-Game-Piracy]', someone posted this:

Piracy is never, ever, EVER a valid option unless one of the following applies:

1. The game can not be obtained legally in any way (such as games that have been out of print for years and are not available for download purchase).

2. The game was never released in your region (like if you're living in the U.S. and the game is Japan-exclusive).

3. You already own the game (but are unable to play it for some reason, like if the disc is broken or the DRM has locked it out from running on your system).

If none of those are true, then you have no right whatsoever to pirate a game, IMHO.

Ignoring the third point (due to it being a little skeptical) are these valid reasons for downloading games or other media?

I would personally say that the third point is the best argument for pirating something. I don't mean in a legal way, because I don't know if that is a decent legal reason, but from a moral standpoint I'd say it's the best reason to pirate something.

 

[Something Amyss]

But I don't always think that it's the smartest thing to do.

Oh, I agree. I don't think "can" means "should." I just hate this whole "I want it so I should have it" mentality.

In fact, I bring this up perhaps a little too often. JK Rowling and Stephen King were both horribly anti-ebook because they were afraid of piracy. Yet on a yearly basis, the Harry Potter series and King's novels were at the top of the pirated lists.

Here is an instance where, as you already put it, people are saying "TAKE MY MONEY!" And they were refusing. I can't help but think a lot of that piracy literally came from people who would have legitimately bought the books had they been available. So now, you see no money from it and increase piracy.

Granted, these are cases where something was available in some form, but I think the point is similar.

I also think piracy WILL happen, no matter what we do about it. Fighting it often costs money we don't see back and attacks legit users instead of the people who are actually obtaining it. Things like Ubisoft's always-on DRM are great examples, because the people hurt when the servers went down weren't the pirates who had cracked versions.

Similarly, when the issue of the Witcher 2 comes up, I have to wonder what the point is. Do they honestly think fewer people would pirate the game if there had been DRM? I mean, once someone cracks it, it's up and easy to "share." It's quite possible as many people would pirate it. DRM is funny that way. You only really have to beat it once. Just look at the top torrented games, and see how much good DRM did them.

Not that I condone it, I'm just pragmatic.

Still, dickish though it may be, it is their right. And I will do my best to make sure the stuff I want comes out, but there is no ethical grounds on which to download something they don't want you downloading.

On a personal note, I'm an aspiring author who wants to be published. I'd like to think my opinion will remain unchanged should I become published. I've written and recorded music for years, and while it's not very good, I do it MOSTLY for the love of music. It was actually funny because I've got copyright notices on stuff I own completely; written, arranged, recorded and distributed by me. Or by me and my friends in some cases. This is another reason I dislike piracy legislation. It's no fun being threatened over stuff when you're not doing anything wrong.

Additionally, I don't think threats and suits are a good way to turn people into customers. Even when the material is available. I think it's even more of a problem when you threaten them if it's not supported.

I am a fan of people who will turn their old stuff into freeware. I especially like the bit you mention abotu instructions to get a game working out of Dosbox.

 

[Max Wilco]

I also think piracy WILL happen, no matter what we do about it. Fighting it often costs money we don't see back and attacks legit users instead of the people who are actually obtaining it. Things like Ubisoft's always-on DRM are great examples, because the people hurt when the servers went down weren't the pirates who had cracked versions.

Similarly, when the issue of the Witcher 2 comes up, I have to wonder what the point is. Do they honestly think fewer people would pirate the game if there had been DRM? I mean, once someone cracks it, it's up and easy to "share." It's quite possible as many people would pirate it. DRM is funny that way. You only really have to beat it once. Just look at the top torrented games, and see how much good DRM did them.

Not that I condone it, I'm just pragmatic.

Still, dickish though it may be, it is their right. And I will do my best to make sure the stuff I want comes out, but there is no ethical grounds on which to download something they don't want you downloading.

I don't care for DRM, but I understand why companies implement it.

The big issue with DRM is that most of the time, it's not designed well, and can often times make it difficult to use a legitimate product. On top of that, it's made a bad name for itself, due to poorly designed DRM systems in the past (like SecuROM, or the 'always-online' authorization for Assassin's Creed II).

In this regard, CDProjeckt was smart to just abandon the concept of DRM altogether, and offer their games DRM free. By doing that, I think it shows that they respect and trust their customers, and that they really care about giving them a quality product (something that I don't think can be said for many big-name video game companies).

 

[Something Amyss]

I don't care for DRM, but I understand why companies implement it.

I understand it, I just think it's horribly misguided and often childish.

I believe the quote goes that Puritanism is the fear that somewhere out there, someone is having a good time.

Anti-Piracy is the fear that someone out there is enjoying your game for free, and you will spend millions of dollars to stop them.

Look, there is no way to perfectly implement DRM and DRM will always be more of a problem to the customer than the pirate. Most people aren't cracking the stuff themselves, so all they need is a single cracked version. Between those two things, piracy is going to be virtually impossible to stop without hugely sweeping methods that will hurt the customer far more.

It's silly to spend the amount of money they do for the results they get. What's hilarious about it is the shareholders of any other industry might balk at this kind of cost-benefit ratio, but not the entertainment industry, where we'll happily cut off our nose to spite our face.

 

[Esotera]

If a piece of content is entirely digital, the publishers have no plans to release it in your country of residence, and you're downloading it from someone else, and have no plans to redistribute it, then yeah. You're not taking away their profits at all, as you're not actually in their market.

But most cases of piracy aren't like this. The most pirated games/movies are the popular ones, in countries where the games are released. There are plenty of free games out there, but pirates obviously haven't heard of them.

I'm against pirating games or movies, but it isn't generally as bad as the entertainment industry makes it out to be (although it does have some effect).

 

[Lilani]

-snip-

Extra Credits did an episode on this. They basically said piracy is excusable (morally, not legally, mind you) when pirating the game is the only way the player can play it. There are many things that can cause this--living in a region the game's DRM locks out, speaking a language the game wasn't made in (fandubs, in other words), or the game has been out of make for so long it would be nigh impossible to get the original game AND the system to play it on (because by then, there's no way anything you paid for would actually go to the developer, anyway). They said the reason those were acceptable is because ultimately, the developer would rather someone just play the game whatever way they can rather than miss out on the experience because of forces outside their control.

 

[Awexsome]

I hear a lot of the, "Does it really hurt the developers?" argument but when it comes down to it a very more provable fact is, "Does the pirate get something out of it?" When unquestionably, yes. They do.

Something they are not allowed to have unless they pay for it. Doesn't matter about the game's quality, length, price, how bad the DRM is, or anything. The only times I agree with it are for the cases where it's physically impossible to even pay the developer for the game. Those cases have already been listed in the thread but piracy in any way, shape, or form is legally unacceptable.

Morally there are the very few exceptions but it's why I'm for reworking SOPA rather than killing it with fire. There need to be actual consequences for those who pirate instead of just throwing our hands up and admitting it's hopeless. There will be people caught in the crossfire just like in our regular legal system for crimes there are rare false accusations and imprisonment. But we're not going to stop accusing other crimes because one person was falsely accused. Can't be afraid to make some mistakes to actually start bringing the hammer down on some people.

For stuff like SOPA they threaten sites like Youtube where piracy is not a major function. While sites like, say, the pirate bay, megaupload, and rapidshare have piracy as a major function and should be held accountable with the harsh rules SOPA carries.

 

[Wargamer]

Morally there are the very few exceptions but it's why I'm for reworking SOPA rather than killing it with fire. There need to be actual consequences for those who pirate instead of just throwing our hands up and admitting it's hopeless. There will be people caught in the crossfire just like in our regular legal system for crimes there are rare false accusations and imprisonment. But we're not going to stop accusing other crimes because one person was falsely accused. Can't be afraid to make some mistakes to actually start bringing the hammer down on some people.

So you're okay with being the one in the crossfire, right? You're happy to have all your sites shut down, your hard drive taken away, and for you to lose five years of your life to a prison sentance ALL AS AN INNOCENT PERSON so that we can get some of the guilty ones too, right?

Of course not. That's why SOPA needs to be killed with fire, have concrete shoes put in place and dumped into the middle of the Atlantic. Our legal system works on Innocent until Proven Guilty. It means just because someone THINKS you're doing wrong is not enough to have you punished. Investigated, possibly, but not punished.

SOPA is Guilty By Accusation. Who decides the difference between Youtube and WeStealShit.com? The answer, according to SOPA, is whoever wants the site to die. Now, you have to give evidence, present facts, and prove beyond reasonable doubt a site exists solely to break the law. Do criminals play the system? Of course they do, but the bigger question is this; is it better to let a criminal go free, or punish YOU SPECIFICALLY for no reason to ensure criminals get caught.

The reason I say YOU, the person reading this, and not "an innocent person" is because it's very easy to ignore "an innocent person". They're a non-person; you don't give a shit because it "won't happen to you". If you make that innocent person YOURSELF, or someone you care about, it suddenly becomes far less readily accepted.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

There are no grey areas, Piracy is fine. Greeders gonna greed. ^^

People with money will always have a fit when they MIGHT be losing money. So far there have been no convincing evidence that people have suffered for piracy. Either it has been numbers pulled from the arse or statistics endorsed by the very same people who want to abolish piracy (IE biased and/or probably faked).

Is it ok to mug a rich person. I mean sure they might not suffer from losing about 10 quid but its wrong to steal it from them.

This will probably decend into an arguement about if piracy is theft, and im sure the copying is not theft song will come out. You can word piracy in different ways to make it sound like theft or not theft. "I got something that usually costs money for free against the creators will" sounds a LOT like theft to me. I think a creator of something, even if it is a piece of art, deserves control over what is done with that art, who owns it, and who purchases it from them. Imagine if you found a nice artist on the street selling his drwaings and photographed his art, printed it large and then handed them out in front of him screaming "THIS GUYS SO GOOD, LOOK AT THIS STUFF, SHOULDNT HE MAKE MORE?!" Then turning around to the guy and demanding more art. Like he owes it to you. Like a slave.

I feel that moral/legal arguements aside its gorram disrespectfull to the guy who spent ages drawing all this stuff in games to just take it, not pay for it, and then demand more from him. Its like the artist isnt even worthy of your money.

Basically if you get something for free that others have to pay for you are assuming you are better than them, that you DESVERVE free work done for you, that the artists drew that stuff and coded that game for you as their rightfull lord and master and they OWE it to you to make more for your enjoyment. Artists are our slaves, they should work and we should take and they should be gorram happy about it.

Even if this same game pulls millions its still not ok to pirate. It isnt ok to steal from someone who earned a lot of money. It isnt ok to pirate a game except if:

1. You already paid for it and lost it or it broke or it was stolen
2. Its physically impossible to buy anymore. It isnt made or sold anywhere in the world you can get to without spending ludicrous amounts of time and money. And the developer is long long long gone.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

-snip-

Is it ok to mug a rich person. I mean sure they might not suffer from losing about 10 quid but its wrong to steal it from them.

Well, you made a lovely long post and you brought up good points I will give you that, but are you saying that because of the law, or is it what you really think? I do not see anything wrong with mugging someone. I am not bound by normal morals/ethics and do not feel empathy towards others. Because of this I am not exactly the right person to speak since I would say this to almost any other crime but there is nothing wrong with piracy and it should be encouraged.

And before you ask, I have been mugged yes, and as I see it... Good for him! I am sure he needed it more than me. I am not one to complain and whine and being traumatized by a little thing like that.

Ive been mugged, it was probably to fuel a crack addiction. I wasnt very sympathetic. I really think people deserve to not be treated like slaves yes. They shouldnt be forced to work for free for you. In that regard they are being treated like slaves. They do work. You appreciate it, you deny them compensation. This discussion isnt going to go very far, if you feel the way you do, unlock your doors, post a picture of yourself outside and every item in the house, then go on holiday with the door open. Those needy needy people will love you for it

 

[Vegosiux]

This will probably decend into an arguement about if piracy is theft, and im sure the copying is not theft song will come out. You can word piracy in different ways to make it sound like theft or not theft. "I got something that usually costs money for free against the creators will" sounds a LOT like theft to me.

Ironically, if you steal a game, you get a non-pirated version because theft means taking something and depriving someone else of that particular something in the process; not of a whole different something.

You know, break into store/hijack transport truck, take game, take game home, put disc in, install, register legitimately, play an original, non-pirated version...that you stole. That's theft. Piracy is a whole different can o' worms.