To anyone who thinks piracy is ok

[Atmos Duality]

Piracy serves none except pirates, but it does not either cost anyone. It might serve everyone: Infinite resources can be distributed nearly without cost. This is why a pirate will never pay for information, and will acquire it nonetheless through any means possible.

Plagiarism cost me a grade. Therefore, you cannot claim it does not cost anything at all times.

 

[Dastardly]

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.

The difference between skis (if we're going to talk about inaccurate comparisons) is that if you return the skis, the retailer has no reason to believe you've somehow retained a copy of those skis to use at home. There's one set of skis, just as there's one burger, and if you return it, they know you haven't used it.

That's why I was careful to include, if you'll exercise reading comprehension, that someone who EATS THE ENTIRE BURGER really has no claim to go back and then say they didn't like it. That's more akin to how a game is used. Once you bring software home, open it, and install it, there exists a copy on your computer. And then what? You bring it back to the store and give them the box back, and that's all?

Are you prepared to prove to them that you haven't retained a copy? Of course not. That would be intrusive. But absent that proof, they are well within their rights to believe is is possible and likely that many people are using that tactic to obtain the product (and all services included therein) for free. As soon as you've opened it, you've eaten the whole burger.

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

Only those who don't read well have made any such claims. Others see it for exactly what it is--an analogy that is meant to highlight a particular facet of the transaction. It isn't meant to be a one-to-one parallel of the total process, it's just meant to highlight the fact that software that can be installed and copied is treated in the sales world as a consumable item.

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.

This makes no sense. You want to claim that it's the "digital age," and people should keep up with the changes... yet you insist on using old, outdated tests for caveat emptor because they are suspiciously self-serving? Digital goods are different from physical goods when it comes to what they buyer can test without hosing the creator. Catch up or shut up.

 

[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.

So you admit that the data doesn't show motive. So when given the choice to believe what people are telling you or to believe that they are lying, you choose the latter.

The data doesn't tell you how many people actually played the game, how far into the game they played and if they liked the game enough to purchase it, you just assume alot.

Incorrect. I don't choose to believe or not. I dismiss the motive as immaterial and I look at the data. I'm not saying "everyone who says this is lying," or "everyone who says this is truthful." I'm saying that the data doesn't back up the claims, and that anyone can claim whatever they want, true or not. So any claim that can be substantiated by some kind of data has no meaning.

There are things the data doesn't tell me. But it does still tell me that they pirated the game, meaning a copy exists for which the developer received nothing. Maybe they played it for 2 hours and quit. That's still maybe $5 of value they got out of the game, yet the developer received $0.

 

[Popido]

Piracy is wrong.

Anti-piracy propaganda is incorrect bullshit.

Stating how you belive piracy is being used by others is not an fact, but an opinion, so plz stfu.

Current information product's business methods can not cope with the Information Age.(How could this happen!?!?)

Current anti-piracy methods punish and criminalize their own customers and ruin peoples lifes with lawsuits, just to turn them into an examples.

 

[kuolonen]

I wondered if this thing would have the reason why i pirate. Turns out, it did:

(to companies)
Stop delaying releases by region. Releasing games earlier in some regions is probably the single biggest incentive for people to pirate a game and contribute to day-zero piracy. Releasing games with different protection methods in different regions also allows pirates to simply attack the weakest link to achieve a working crack. For example the TAGES system in STALKER: Clear Sky went uncracked for two weeks after release, however the Russian StarForce version of the game's executable - which was released three weeks earlier in Russia - was cracked and used as a working crack for the non-Russian versions upon their release. So release all games globally at approximately the same time, and unify the protection method if you're serious about slowing down day-zero piracy.

This, this, thousand times this! I live in shitsville in the middle of arsehole of the world so games appear in the stores near me around the time pirate versions have been on piratebay for 2-3 weeks.
The games that I buy, I preorder. So while I wait for dear EA to send me my legal copy(f*** you EA) I usually play pirate version. I understand that the physical copy cant be released at the same second around the globe but why have such restrictions on steam, etc?

 

[Dastardly]

First of all, by not allowing returns because some people MAY copy a game is as ridiculous as banning all cars because someone MAY use it to kill someone.

No, and your misplaced hyperbole really shows your lack of reasoning skills. Also, it's a bit hypocritical to blast folks for using a car analogy and then do exactly that. But let's look into why your comparison fails:

1) We're talking about allowing returns, not "banning." Strawman #1 eliminated.
2) We're talking about behaviors that result in someone getting the desired product without compensating the seller, not premeditated murder (a crime wholly unrelated to the process of purchasing the product). Strawman #2 eliminated.
3) One is a reasonable assumption, the other is not. The person who would use the car to kill someone would likely just use something else to do it in the absence of a car, so there is no reason to believe that "banning cars" (Really?) would deter the behavior in any meaningful way--it's not the product causing the crime, it's the criminal. It is, however, reasonable to believe that letting the customer CLEARLY know they cannot return the product (like everywhere clearly does) will deter people that plan to use the software to get a free copy and then return it.

Second, McDonalds chooses to refund because they think it's better for business to have happy customers. I agree with them.

Yep. But try it after eating the entire burger, rather than just a small portion. But instead, try it with the whole meal. They'll refund if they see reason to believe you were legitimately unhappy--as in, you took A BITE and brought the burger back, demonstrating you did not like it and thus did not finish it. If you FINISH the burger? Yeah, good luck, unless the manager is just too tired that shift.

Lastly, it makes no sense that EVERY retailer refuses to refund opened games unless it's the publishers that are telling them not to. One retailer could clearly gain an advantage offering refunds for opened games if they were the only retailer to do it. I think it's more along the lines of the publishers telling retailers that opened games will be difficult to return to the publisher and retailers don't want to jump through the hoops to make it work so they all make a blanket rule to not accept opened games unless it is an exchange for the same title.

No, they choose not to do it because it makes bad business sense. If you allow people to take it home, copy it, and use it, and then return it, they'll do it (as demonstrated by piracy rates among PC games). They'll abuse it, as we customers often do. So, you just close the loophole so you don't become the "Free Game Library." The publisher may enter into it, but it's also good business sense for the retailer independently.

Do you have proof that it's retailers making that call without being coerced by publishers?

No more than you have proof that they do. That's why I'm not claiming it's absolute, but simply that it makes sense that they'd do it themselves.

 

[CountryMike]

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.

Options are no longer limited to "buy" and "don't buy". There's a third option "pirate it". From a moral or legal point of view that may be "wrong" but an option is an option and people will use it regardless of legal and moral issues. Companies will have to deal with it. Doesn't matter if they like it or not. That's just how reality is.

 

[carletonman]

After much (digital) ink has been spilled and spleens vented, it seems that people will remain forever divided. As a photographer, I understand where devs come from when they say they want to protect their work. I've had several photos stolen from me in the past, and it's an awful feeling when you find out your work has been stolen. Now as a student on a tight budget, I can't afford brand spanking new AAA titles. I don't own a PS3, or an Xbox 360, or even a Wii. Instead, I use steam, and buy games that are on sale. The trick is patience. Instead of rushing out and buying Fallout: New Vegas, I'm playing some more TF2. Instead of moaning about the latest broken game, go back a few years and look at the aggregate scores. Buy the ones that are the best, or hunt through the used titles at the local brick and mortar store (as much as we all hate them). There are alternatives to the broken near-shovelware that the studios seem intent to sell, all you have to do is look.

 

[Whichi]

1) its a shame they don't refer to theft of digital media "ninja...ing" or something like that

2) is it illegal to download games that are no longer available or damn near impossible to find a copy somewhere?

on the topic: I'd like to point out that the mystic ways of the universe has its ways of balancing things like this out. No colossal beast (weather its a physical or economic one) is immune from the bitter taste of defeat. There's always a way to stick it to those son of a bitches who make buggy/glitchy games and charge you the full price for it. Last time I checked, video game programmers and designers don't get paid minimum wage to make these games. Fuck those guys if they still expect to make turds and sell it off like gold. fallout New vegas came out and I heard from damn near everybody about all the bugs, glitches, and crashes that happened.

At this rate, games are barely worth the tag that prices the game. You can say "well then don't buy it", but that isnt the case. We are disappointed in the result of the fruit of their labors. Wouldn't you complain if you were at a 5-star restraunt and there was a rat turd in your Sprite, or some hair on your steak/salad? you would *****, piss, moan, and demand the rest of your dinner be paid for... all while ordering all the most expensive food and some extra so you can take something home.

Much like that turd in the sprite, the programmers (ones that get paid better money than most of us gamers) leave their bugs and glitches in their games and expect us to be pleased with their result. Why shouldn't we rip them off for their poor efforts? a poor job would usually result in someone getting fired, but those programmers and developrs continue to produce garbage and ride the wave because of the name of the series/company.

If there wasn't any money to be made in profit by these companies, there wouldn't be any complaint about piracy. And if there wasn't any glitches or serious flaws in some of our favorite games, there would be less piracy to be done because the game would be a bit more worth the price. As far as I know, most piracy is for games that are hard to come across, like old console games, and considering nintendo charges somewhere from $6-15 for some of them on their Wii shop network, we choose to download it and play it for a brief moment.

 

[Dastardly]

Isn't it fraud if they sell you a product that doesn't work as advertised and won't allow returns?

Well, that all depends on whether or not your thwarted expectations were actually based on how the game was advertised rather than on conclusions (read: assumptions) you made based on those ads or other factors.

If the game says, "You can pilot over 30 vehicles!" and you find that there are no vehicles included in the game, you've got a case. If the game says, "You can pilot of 30 incredible vehicles," and you find that only 15 of the vehicles really seem "incredible," you don't really have a case, but you could maybe push it. If a friend or reviewer says, "This game is life-changing, and I quit my job and wife to play it all day!" and you don't experience the same epiphany, you got duped. That's the end of the story.

You'd have to demonstrate that the publisher truly misrepresented the product in a way that is directly contradictory to the actual state of the product. It's happened before--a game box says "over 20 levels," and there are only 15, or something. (It has also happened that EARLY advertisements said "Over 20 levels!" but the box says "15 levels of gameplay," and a customer buys it without reading the box, based on early out-of-date ads.)

I mean, an onion burger restaurant can advertise, "Our onion burgers are amazingly delicious!" I don't like onions, so they wouldn't be delicious to me, but that doesn't mean they're misrepresenting they're product. If they said "Our onion burgers are amazigly delicious and contain absolutely no onions or onion flavor!" when, in fact, they did... well, now I've got cause to call "fraud."