The Problem with Piracy...

[Seanchaidh]

Piracy is the theft of information.

Theft: Take a ladder from your neighbor. Neighbor: "where the fuck's my ladder?"
Piracy: Download a file. Intellectual Property Owner: "weird, my information is still all here. I thought this was supposed to be theft..."

 

[Lavi]

If I couldn't pirate, I'd steal it. Plus, I'm a total commie. We shouldn't be selling shit anyways only to make sure someone has something you can never have, which causes them to rub it in your face as their credit card limit is met.

 

[Deadman Walkin]

If everyone pirated the world of digital entertainment would crash but for now I don't think they will miss my $60 for a game I won't like much. The games are getting generic and well...boring in my opinion. It seems rare that a game shines out of the crap.

 

[Nova5]

I do not really consider stealing to be the "sane man's option."

Yeah, but sadly pirate is a broad term encompassing many things. For example, it encompasses "I am going to download Transformers 2 2 weeks before it hits theaters!" and it also encompasses "I am going to download Daggerfall because no store sells it, and for that game plus Star Trek Armada 2 I am not going to pay 240 dollars to some fat guy in his garage when I can get it for free and not at all be stealing it because it's old to the point legitimate retailers no longer offer a means to legally obtain an unopened, trustworthy copy at a safe price"

and even encompasses "I am going to download a 1971 cult horror movie that isn't in any store and no collector will part with"

Damn straight.

 

[Zer_]

Look at it this way.
Piracy on the PC nearly killed PC gaming.

PC games generally come out much later, and are just shit ports. (with many games, but not all) And PC exclusives are becoming rare.

Why? Because it is VERY easy to steal them, that devs throw PC on the back burner.

That's not the reason at all, any competent person knows that it's just a scapegoat. The reason is because games are simply becoming way to expensive to make. Even for consoles. There are fewer and fewer people willing to invest 10 Million dollars or more into a AAA title when they can invest less money into more, smaller games and make just as much.

As graphical technology gets more advanced, the workload needed to produce the assets that are found in games today has increased by a huge margin. For Quake each model had one layer of textures. Current games will often have 5 or more layers of textures on them. That doesn't count the work that goes into producing both the high quality model for the normal map and the lower quality model for in-game use.

Aside from Graphics you also have coding and things like more advanced physics, and more advanced audio. New games take a huge amount of coding to end up in a state ready for release.

Gaming companies today have some very good (nonn intrusive) methods at preventing piracy, yet they never use them. Games like Mount & Blade which happens to be an Indie game has a very low piracy rate. The DRM method used in M&B is non-intrusive and it's effective. The only downside would be that it requires online authentication. You are also limited to 3 unlocks every month or so, but you are given one new unlock every month (up to a maximum of 3). This prevents someone from buying the game, and sharing it over BitTorrent with his legit key.

Piracy is not an excuse for mediocre game sales; only in the most extreme cases would Piracy become a significant factor (Read: Demigod).

 

[axia777]

The problem with piracy is that the people love it and the corporations hate it. And around we go. They just have not figured out that they will never win.

 

[Mcface]

Look at it this way.
Piracy on the PC nearly killed PC gaming.

PC games generally come out much later, and are just shit ports. (with many games, but not all) And PC exclusives are becoming rare.

Why? Because it is VERY easy to steal them, that devs throw PC on the back burner.

That's not the reason at all, any competent person knows that it's just a scapegoat. The reason is because games are simply becoming way to expensive to make. Even for consoles. There are fewer and fewer people willing to invest 10 Million dollars or more into a AAA title when they can invest less money into more, smaller games and make just as much.

As graphical technology gets more advanced, the workload needed to produce the assets that are found in games today has increased by a huge margin. For Quake each model had one layer of textures. Current games will often have 5 or more layers of textures on them. That doesn't count the work that goes into producing both the high quality model for the normal map and the lower quality model for in-game use.

Aside from Graphics you also have coding and things like more advanced physics, and more advanced audio. New games take a huge amount of coding to end up in a state ready for release.

Gaming companies today have some very good (nonn intrusive) methods at preventing piracy, yet they never use them. Games like Mount & Blade which happens to be an Indie game has a very low piracy rate. The DRM method used in M&B is non-intrusive and it's effective. The only downside would be that it requires online authentication. You are also limited to 3 unlocks every month or so, but you are given one new unlock every month (up to a maximum of 3). This prevents someone from buying the game, and sharing it over BitTorrent with his legit key.

Piracy is not an excuse for mediocre game sales; only in the most extreme cases would Piracy become a significant factor (Read: Demigod).

too long. did not read.

 

[munx13]

I pirated Half-Life 2 and the two episodes. Later I bought them. I pirated and played CS:S, but later I bought them. Same with Battlefield, CnC games and lots more. It's hard to NOT pirate, but it's not like it's impossible.

 

[RobCoxxy]

As far as I'm concerned theft is only theft if it hurts an individual, rather than a multi-million pound company.

Which justifies everything including CD torrents. CD's profit mainly goes to the record label. Bands earn money through gigs. I'd rather have their music and see them live any day.

Oh, so many rants about this, copy pasta'd a link to one on my Facebook.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=79454095587

 

[Garret2533]

one you have the means to free stuff, it is impossible to justify buying it

THAT is the silliest argument I've ever heard about piracy.

Let me put it this way: If someone sees you put a key under your doormat, then sees you leave and knows that nobody else is home, they then have the means to go into your house, steal YOUR possesions, and probably get away with it. They now have the means to get free stuff.

You're reasoning is flawed in that you do not see people putting in work to make something. Your argument is not about whether this is right or wrong, but whether the people who's job it is to MAKE the game deserve to be paid for it.

I know, I know. ONE person pirating a game will not run nintendo out of business, and a lot of people working for nintendo are not exactly strapped for cash. But that's like justifying stealing from a wealthy person by saysing "eh, they can take the loss and be fine."

It's not that they need the money, it's that you do not feel the need to pay people for the work they've accomplished.
Now, technically, you can argue that you are not going into a store and stealing a game. Someone, somewhere, bought the game and made copies of it, and then gave you a copy for free. But for people who would have bought the game, that's the company losing money.

I've downloaded music for free, I've used limewire, sure. I'm not saying it's right that I do these things, that's not my point. My probelm with your post here, is that YOU are trying to justify not paying for something with the fact that you can get it for free, illegally.

Like I've said, I have stolen before. I know it's wrong, but I do it, I'm not gonna stop, but I'm not going to try and justify it by saying: "Hey if I can steal it, why bother paying?"

What I do is wrong, what you do is wrong. Accept it. If you feel like a jerk for stealing, stop stealing, don't come online and pretend it's ok by trying to convince other people it is.

 

[NeutralMunchHotel]

one you have the means to free stuff, it is impossible to justify buying it

THAT is the silliest argument I've ever heard about piracy.

Let me put it this way: If someone sees you put a key under your doormat, then sees you leave and knows that nobody else is home, they then have the means to go into your house, steal YOUR possesions, and probably get away with it. They now have the means to get free stuff.

You're reasoning is flawed in that you do not see people putting in work to make something. Your argument is not about whether this is right or wrong, but whether the people who's job it is to MAKE the game deserve to be paid for it.

I know, I know. ONE person pirating a game will not run nintendo out of business, and a lot of people working for nintendo are not exactly strapped for cash. But that's like justifying stealing from a wealthy person by saysing "eh, they can take the loss and be fine."

It's not that they need the money, it's that you do not feel the need to pay people for the work they've accomplished.
Now, technically, you can argue that you are not going into a store and stealing a game. Someone, somewhere, bought the game and made copies of it, and then gave you a copy for free. But for people who would have bought the game, that's the company losing money.

I've downloaded music for free, I've used limewire, sure. I'm not saying it's right that I do these things, that's not my point. My probelm with your post here, is that YOU are trying to justify not paying for something with the fact that you can get it for free, illegally.

Like I've said, I have stolen before. I know it's wrong, but I do it, I'm not gonna stop, but I'm not going to try and justify it by saying: "Hey if I can steal it, why bother paying?"

What I do is wrong, what you do is wrong. Accept it. If you feel like a jerk for stealing, stop stealing, don't come online and pretend it's ok by trying to convince other people it is.

It's clear from your post that you've not understood the point of my post, and/or you haven't read what I've said afterwards.

I've never justified what I've done by saying what you apparently think I said. I've said that what I do is wrong. What I find so odd about your comment is that you admit that you've pirated music. Why? Why do you do it? If it's because you don't want to spend the money on an actual disk because you can get it for free then you, sir, are in the same boat as me.

 

[capnjack]

Piracy is the theft of information.

You're still missing the meaning of theft. Theft is when something is taken away from someone else, so that the person does not have it anymore. When goods are infinitely reproduceable at virtually no cost, the word theft simply does not apply. Whether or not it's a crime is another story, but it's pretty obvious that the word theft has been used very loosely by the RIAA and big media moguls to make the situation seem criminal.

If I photocopy a book am I stealing? No, you still have the book. I'm committing copyright infringement - this isn't just about semantics, either. Copyright infringement is not theft - it's the violation of copyright laws.

So intellectual creators (Musicians, film crews, game studios) should accommodate for people who intent to take their work without compensation.

No, they should completely ignore them because there's no evidence that "taking" someone's work hurts that person. There are many cases where it can actually help. For an example of this, read about "Sita Sings the Blues", a movie that Nina Paley released under creative commons and made more money that way (and plenty of artists do similar things) simply because the more people who can access your work (even if for free), the more popular it has the opportunity to get. If you lock up your content, and only ten people buy it, how have you lost if you've freed it up and 1000 people viewed/experienced/used it, but only ten people bought it? I'm not saying this is what people should do - I'm just pointing out the obvious.

Look, it doesn't matter what the company does with their property. If they make music and only sell it to people who belong to an exclusive club, piracy is still theft. The right to use the data you download is given upon purchase. You do not have ownership of the data itself, because if you did you could simply hand it to everyone in the world, ensuring that the creator only receives 5$ for 10000 hours of work.

I don't know what you're talking about, because I simply can hand data to anyone in the world. I don't need ownership to do that. You're confused between the way the world works, and the way you think the world works. It doesn't matter what a company does to try to thwart piracy - the only way to stop it is to monitor the internet, invade people's privacy and ruin the value of your product (all while wasting millions of dollars and many years lobbying to do such things). The money lost fighting piracy is far worse than what these companies claim they are losing to piracy.

I like the Techdirt [http://techdirt.com] blog, because they point the finger at the right people: the companies that cling to old business models even though the world is changing.

If the musician found that giving away his music and having more people in concerts would make more money, he'd do it. But that's his decision, not yours.

Read carefully, I never said anything about what musicians should do. I talked about how things actually are. This isn't a moral issue for me. I'm looking at this realistically.

If you want a better understanding of reality, check out this site [http://questioncopyright.org/].

 

[Baneat]

I am an advocate of free internet and free information, however, based off that argument, you would steal food because you can go into a store and grab it.

Logical fallacy.

More like,

you can afford food, but it's pretty inconveniently expensive, so you make a copy of food in a shop (matrix style) and eat that.

 

[Radeonx]

long time reader first time poster.

this is directed at the op. it seems to me you screwed opinion of what right and wrong is and what work is. it seems from your post your most likely a minor and never had to work for any thing in your life other than maybe doing common house hold choirs. the fact you think you can justify steeling because if you don't steel you have to work for it, i find that disgusting. and the fact its a ez crime to get away with its ok to do.

Thanks for joining on my behalf.

On the topic of your post: yes, I am a minor, and yes, I have had a job - working in the back of a supermarket on a weekend and holiday mornings for two years, still going. Not what you'd call back-breaking labour, but I'm sure you'll agree that were I to go into a real working environment I wouldn't last very long. And I don't think you've understood my point about 'stealing (with an a) because otherwise I'd have to work for it'. As I've said, I do make some (tiny) money, and I pay for my bus to school, part of the weekly shopping, yadda yadda. This leaves me with, say 5 pounds a week left over. This is without paying for a bus into town, food, presents for friends. And that is where my problem starts: I can't bring myself to save up for a month for a game which I know I can get for free. Criticise me all you want, but you have to accept that this is the viewpoint of me and many others.

Note: I have never pirated anything else apart from DS games. I have no torrent software on my computer, (I will allow you to check) and if you read my OP then you will understand my dilemma with DS games.

This is a very interesting point, and I "hypothetically" do the same thing. I don't have the time or resources to get games at my whim, and a full time job is out of the question, being that I'm in college. I pirate, (again, "hypothetically") and, well, I don't feel a reason not to. Not only do your points apply, but, one of my own reasons, lazy it is, is that my one "hypothetical" pirated copy is not going to put a company out of business.

 

[ohellynot]

And it is, but so many people do it, why should you be the one chump who has to pay, especially when money is so tight now?

Because by buying it, you are supporting the people who created the games. By pirating it, no money goes towards the game developers, and you may find in the future that genuinely great games will no longer be made, as more people appearing to be buying "Generic Shooty Guy #178".

Doesn't 2nd hand games do the same thing, so should we all ban the selling trading off 2nd hand games for the same reason.
Your arguament doesn't work, games have been getting worse anyway with the stream of new and inventive ideas getting smaller.
Similarly, the price of games keeps going up, and this just pushes more people towards piracye> the Company's then push the price up to compensate creating a visious circle (though tis more applies to England(as far as I am aware) and more to "TV" consoles rather than hand helds)

 

[NeutralMunchHotel]

This is a very interesting point, and I "hypothetically" do the same thing. I don't have the time or resources to get games at my whim, and a full time job is out of the question, being that I'm in college. I pirate, (again, "hypothetically") and, well, I don't feel a reason not to. Not only do your points apply, but, one of my own reasons, lazy it is, is that my one "hypothetical" pirated copy is not going to put a company out of business.

Thanks - it's interesting to see somebody that looks at my point and views it rationally, rather than some of these knee-jerk reaction type answers elsewhere on this thread.

Of course, some answers that don't agree with me I can see their point of view too, it's just that many are quite... yeah, knee-jerky.

 

[Deleted]

I'll stop pirating if you stop, at the same time though. One... two... Thr- HEY! You weren't gonna stop! Dammit we have to do it all together!