To anyone who thinks piracy is ok

[Koroviev]

It only covers piracy in a market economy. I have drawn a little illustration to help you realize the error of limiting infinite resources for profit.

Well, you quite literally illustrated your point, but that doesn't substantiate your claims.

Your 'graph' is not based on real data and anyone examining it would see that it is ridiculous as it attempts to compare the variables "amount of people" and "cost". It also assumes that people would be willing to spend time producing software for everyone purely out of the goodness of their hearts. WOULD YOU?

That's not my graph.

 

[Dastardly]

I always thought that if you give a conjecture and receive a counter example, it disproves that conjecture by showing that conjecture as demonstrably false.

Only if one asserts that the original statement (which may or may not be "conjecture") is universally true in all cases. And only if the counter-example is verifiable... otherwise I could say, "Well I saw an alien once, so that means they exist!" And, if these conditions are met, that would only serve to prove that the original statement is not universally true in all cases, not that the statement is false. It wouldn't even prove that the original statement isn't true most of the time. But, again, that's only if it can be in some way verified and/or demonstrated by data.

Rather than look back at your absolutist claims, claiming that anyone who pirates have no reason to pay for the product they have stolen as if they sit in evil lairs without a sense of responsibility while stroking their mustaches, you tell me my counter example makes your point stronger.

But I haven't said that. I haven't made an absolutist claim about that. I have made an absolutist claim that pirating is always wrong, regardless of how understandable I may find it in some situations, but that's hardly damning to my argument. What you've just done is create a "strawman argument"--you mock up an exaggerated and easily-defeated imitation of my point, which you then burn in effigy, and act as though you've defeated the actual statement I've made. No, you've only defeated your grossly-inaccurate version of my argument.

Whether you've done so maliciously, or because you've confused me with someone else you're arguing with, I can't say. Nor would I, as it's not important.

For the sake of discussion and reasonability, why are you denoting my personal experience as anecdotal evidence?

Because that's the very definition of "anecdotal evidence." It is a personal story with no independent verification, and thus isn't as effective at conveying or reinforcing a point as data.

This is a forum thread and not a court room, we don't need to hold our discussions to the standard of national law although it is reasonable to cite sources for statistics or reports, do you reasonably expect me to take a photo of my game box, manual and CDs just to prove my point?

No, it's not a court. But, as you said, it is a discussion, and it should be reasonable--meaning it should depend on reasoning rather than appeals to emotion or unverifiable statements. I could say, "Well, I have a hundred friends who all do exactly whatever is most convenient to my point!" Where's the verification?

As for why I dismiss your personal statement, it's really quite simple--the data collected on piracy rates (from the pirate sites themselves) doesn't even nearly uphold your claim. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm saying it's far from a majority... or really even a substantial minority, going by the data available.

We can make all kinds of claims based on data that's NOT available (piracy being secretive by nature), but looking at what numbers are collected, people who pirate a game generally keep it, rather than coming back to buy it as soon as they figure out they like it. Isolated exceptions don't disprove a rule--they uphold it, based on their very nature as isolated exceptions.

 

[fgdfgdgd]

Personally, i don't pirate games, movies, well movies are a different story, i find it to be biased that we have to buy a fill on nothing but what the case tells us and what we've heard from others.

I'll download a movie, if i like the movie, i'll go and buy the DVD, why? because if it's a good movie i'd like a quality version of it, if i bought a movie that i didn't like, then i'd have no alternative to get my money back other than to pawn it for a large loss, is that fair? No, if i like your movie, i'll buy it, if i don't, i'll delete it, nothing gained, nothing lost, exept the money i'd have lost to you on the appeal of your DVD cover.

It's absolutely fair. It's called "buyer beware." Everyone makes bad purchases, and sometimes it's goods that can't be returned. You live, you learn, and you fix it going forward. You don't start pirating.

You don't go to McDonalds, order a burger, eat the ENTIRE BURGER, and then say, "That was awful, I want my money back." Even then, they are under no obligation to refund your money or offer you another food item in exchange. You tried it, you didn't like it. Now you know not to go there. It's life, and the rest of us are somehow able to cope.

Some legal jargon and a comparison that doesn't fit, well done, you just graduated every school copyright lawyers come from.

A Burgur is a Perishable item and is not consumed in the same manner, argue samantics and uses of the term consume all you want but that doesn't make it any less true, and fun fact, the "Buyer Beware" or Caveat emptor as it's known in law, also states that "a purchaser must examine, judge, and test a product considered for purchase himself or herself." for 'buyer Beware' to apply.

Infact it's even been used as an argument in court, as many products in the modern age cannot be tested by any other means than use, as no alternatives have been viable or more likely 'profitable' this remains unanswered. For everything else, you have the 'assumed warranty' that (for example) if you buy a set of skiis, you can assume that they are infact safe to use for skiing, and this applies to almost every other kind of material or consumable that can be passed via monetary exchange.

Have a fun replying to everyone that quoted you're out of place comparison.

It's the digital age, catch up, or shut up, that's how it is, it isn't pretty, it isn't nice, but that's life.

 

[Dastardly]

You could easily turn that around and tell companies to deal with piracy because "it's life"

And that's what the smart ones do.

Times are changing and those who don't change with them will become extinct. Like dinosaurs

The difference is clear. The company is well within their legal and moral rights. It's their product, they can sell it with NO advertising if they like. They can choose not to hand out review copies to published reviewers. They can choose not to have box art, demos, or anything. And they can charge what they like.

Your choices as a consumer are a) buy or b) don't buy. If you buy and then regret it, neither party has stepped outside the legal or moral right. Any unfortunate side effects (called "buyers' remorse") are just part of the learning process. You can make different choices in the future, or petition the company to offer more information in the future. Or just wait longer and ask people who are playing the game.

There are a multitude of sources of information available to prevent most cases of "This isn't what I thought it was." It's just that greed and impatience motivate folks to skip those, and then the same greed and impatience motivate them to blame their own impulsive mistakes on others.

If you pirate it, you ARE stepping outside your rights. It's not your program to take, to copy, or to distribute. It's someone else's. That is the clear difference when it comes to trying to tell the developer's "That's just life." No, it's feeble-minded justification from selfish brats who feel entitled to forcibly take things that are not theirs.

 

[Dastardly]

So you do not think the article is biased?

You believe that pirates were polled? LOL

They were, if you'd care to read. The numbers collected are based off of the number of available torrents for certain games, as well as the number of downloads, seeders, leechers, yadda yadda. That means the numbers are based solely and directly on the preferences, choices, and habits of the pirates themselves.

It's called a "blind poll." You're polled without knowing you're being polled, so that the poller gets a more accurate response, rather than the "just for show" crap. But yes, in fact, the pirates were polled.

Just because the article came to one conclusion over the other does not make the article "biased." The methodology in the article is sound, the data collected represents a sufficiently large sample size AND, as it is collected from the pirates themselves, it is not subject to the sample bias you seem to want to indicate. Some of the other bits of data are collected from the developers, as well, to ensure a balanced view.

An article is "biased" if the means of collecting data, and thus the means of making the decision are slanted or only half-informed. The article does its best to work from ALL of the data available, even going so far as to include the opinions of pirates (as demonstrated by their downloading proclivities, and as reported by the pirate sites themselves). It doesn't read into the data, but rather uses it to inform itself on the correlation between numbers and events. It then uses this data to draw a conclusion, at which point the article is not required to be "neutral."

Unbiased methods aren't the same as neutral conclusions.

 

[fgdfgdgd]

I'm not happy with the prices but by not paying them you're not hurting the cinema, just like pirating medal of honour isn't going to dent Bobby Kotick's salary.

Not knocking your point, but Bobby Kotick makes the Call of Duty series, not Medal of Honor. The smug little...[small]*rambles incoherently about that rich litte prat*[/small]

 

[Dastardly]

When are people going to realize that attempting to guilt trip people into not pirating games from greedy corporations will never work?

It seems to me that more and more people are getting on board with it because it isn't any worse than what the corporation do to paying customers (ie, release unfinished games only to sell parts later, release broken games only to patch them later, trying to destroy the used market, etc...)

No, it seems like people are getting on board with it because, "HEY FREE STUFF."

Really? Where's your proof of that? I don't see most people here saying that.

The proof is in the data, which is based on what people DO, rather than what they SAY they do. The two are often not the same, and the actual behavior is far more accurate than the purported behavior. Look. Into. The. Numbers.

Pirates are already doing things below-board, so I'm sorry to say that it hurts the, "Take my word for it" credibility when they try to say they're doing it for a noble cause. There are plenty of ways to fight for that noble cause out in the open, and without also "happening" to get free games out of the deal.

People can say they'll do whatever they like. I can say I donate 30% of my income to charity every month. I can say I'll do 50% in the future. But until you see that it's ACTUALLY being done, it's just bluster. Look at the behavior, not the claim.

 

[Dastardly]

Personally, i don't pirate games, movies, well movies are a different story, i find it to be biased that we have to buy a fill on nothing but what the case tells us and what we've heard from others.

I'll download a movie, if i like the movie, i'll go and buy the DVD, why? because if it's a good movie i'd like a quality version of it, if i bought a movie that i didn't like, then i'd have no alternative to get my money back other than to pawn it for a large loss, is that fair? No, if i like your movie, i'll buy it, if i don't, i'll delete it, nothing gained, nothing lost, exept the money i'd have lost to you on the appeal of your DVD cover.

It's absolutely fair. It's called "buyer beware." Everyone makes bad purchases, and sometimes it's goods that can't be returned. You live, you learn, and you fix it going forward. You don't start pirating.

You don't go to McDonalds, order a burger, eat the ENTIRE BURGER, and then say, "That was awful, I want my money back." Even then, they are under no obligation to refund your money or offer you another food item in exchange. You tried it, you didn't like it. Now you know not to go there. It's life, and the rest of us are somehow able to cope.

A game is not consumed in the same way as a burger. A game can be resold, a burger cannot and McDonalds probably would refund your money because it's good business to lose a couple of bucks one day to have the customer spend more in the future. Game companies don't know this, apparently.

A game can be resold, but if they could refund it, it would be easy to just bring it home, install/copy it, and then bring it back. Like a damn library. So, it should NOT be resold, in the case of PC games. Console games are different, in that they still behave like cartridges--you can't just copy it and go, without extensive work.

McDonalds also may CHOOSE to refund the burger to keep the customer. That's simply because the burger is cheap, and they're fleecing you on the DRINKS (which are the money-printing machine at fast food restaurants). They sell multiple products, and thus have multiple simultaneous revenue streams. Game developers? Not usually the case. This game is the one they're selling now. If they lose money, there's no other game right now to make up that lost money.

Even so, it's the RETAILERS that make the decisions as to whether or not they'll refund a game once it's been taken home. But you'll likely continue to act as though developer, publisher, and retailer are all the same entity, because you don't seem to understand the process.

 

[fgdfgdgd]

Got mixed up there, my bad. Let's just say it's because EA wanted it to be CoD so much it conused me.

It's all good, in all fairness though he did work at EA for some time there, you may have been thinking of that.

 

[Dastardly]

When are people going to realize that attempting to guilt trip people into not pirating games from greedy corporations will never work?

It seems to me that more and more people are getting on board with it because it isn't any worse than what the corporation do to paying customers (ie, release unfinished games only to sell parts later, release broken games only to patch them later, trying to destroy the used market, etc...)

No, it seems like people are getting on board with it because, "HEY FREE STUFF."

Really? Where's your proof of that? I don't see most people here saying that.

The proof is in the data, which is based on what people DO, rather than what they SAY they do. The two are often not the same, and the actual behavior is far more accurate than the purported behavior. Look. Into. The. Numbers.

Pirates are already doing things below-board, so I'm sorry to say that it hurts the, "Take my word for it" credibility when they try to say they're doing it for a noble cause. There are plenty of ways to fight for that noble cause out in the open, and without also "happening" to get free games out of the deal.

People can say they'll do whatever they like. I can say I donate 30% of my income to charity every month. I can say I'll do 50% in the future. But until you see that it's ACTUALLY being done, it's just bluster. Look at the behavior, not the claim.

What data shows WHY people pirate? The data, as untrustworthy as it is, doesn't show WHY people pirate and the people right here are telling you why they pirate. I am curious why you believe anything except what people right here are telling you.

They're saying the pirate to try out the game, and that they later go back and purchase it. The data doesn't demonstrate that behavior, so the claim is bunk. A scattering of individuals may do it, but not in significant enough numbers to see a sales bump (or a decrease in piracy-related customer service tickets or downloads) a little while after release.

The data doesn't show "why" they pirate, but it does show that this particular reason they claim is not borne out by the data. The better a game is, the more it is pirated. The fact that piracy download rates can outstrip actual sales says clearly that MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO PIRATE do so to get the game for free. Otherwise, if even HALF of the people were doing what they claimed, the piracy rate could not possibly, over time, be even close to the number of sales--because each pirate would then turn into a paying customer.

Furthermore, other reasons for "why a person pirates" simply aren't admissible as evidence. Motive isn't admissible as evidence in a trial (though it may factor into closing arguments, certainly). The fact is that they do it. And that means they take something that is not theirs to take, even though it has been offered to them for a price of the creator's choosing (since it is, after all, theirs to price as they see fit).

And you can claim you stole the bread to give it to orphans, but so what? It doesn't prove you did, and it doesn't change the fact that you stole it. Motive is unverifiable and insignificant. CLAIMED motives are even less useful.

 

[Le_Lisra]

When i was young if you couldn't afford something you couldn't get it. Cracked games existed then too obviously but they were genereally SOLD for profit by pretty shady figures and the law came down on them pretty hard.

Nowadays you can get everything without paying for it, no one really makes a profit from it, and most people get away with it.

Something has to change, I myself don't know what, to take this new situation into consideration.

I try to limit myself to download games you could only get for a dollar at amazon (which is basically anything released before, say, 2001) or not at all anymore, but I will not justify myself. It is wrong and I know it. My choice.

As they say in Germany, opportunity makes thieves. That's the way it is, and society needs to keep up.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

The pirate's life for me...

All this moralising, all this attempt to convince me I should not be a pirate, it really is funny (and not going to work). Do I make the world a worse place, probably not. Do I pirate a lot of stuff, not really.

Does it feel good? Oh yes.