Piracy

[metadigital]

Before we get into definitions of piracy and stealing etc.

 

Is there some solid evidence that would lead one to believe that piracy is having a visible adverse effect on the games industry as a whole?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Short answer:

No.

 

Long Answer:

No, just loads of subjective research and even more conjecture.

I think we should just hang pirates like we did in the old days.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Only if they get ships with cannons...and a parrot that says witty things

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Best. Idea. EVAR.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Those pirates should go legit and get employment in the gaming industry. That way, the pirating would be widely accepted.

[metadigital]

Eh, this topic has been debated for years and I doubt anyone's mind has ever been changed by something said during these discussions.  I still think that eventually the video game industry will have to go the route of the music industry, and prosecute large sites that offer illegal games for download.  The music industry actually made some headway in getting paid for music downloads by slapping injunctions on various sites, issuing subpoenas for customer data such as their servers, etc, and randoming going after some of those customers to prove that they could.  I'm too lazy to look up legal analysis of all those cases, but it seems to me that they threatened to report customers of illegal download sites to their servers.  In a nutshell, it became too costly and too dangerous to continue to host illegal music  downloads for most folks, so they all went to the bargaining table. 

 

Fair enough, not every country on the planet is on board.  Some countries don't even offer video games for sale; others, like China, have never really respected the copyright laws of other countries (although they sure as heck respect their own copyright on new Olympic stuff!  lol... but that's another topic!)

 

Still the music/movie industries efforts are a start, and the web is still in its infancy.  Eventually there will be ways to control illegal web activity worldwide, but right now those who are being hurt the most must suck it in and pay for the legal costs that will pave the way for future controls.  I think once the video industry can get itself together with enough power and money to follow suit on its own behalf, we'll see similar prosecutions for illegal gaming download sites.

 

Meanwhile, those who want to steal the product of others will continue to do so, and will continue to mock anyone who calls a thief a thief. 

 

P. S.  Once you've paid for a game (or a book or any other product), you are entitled by law to give it away, loan it repeatedly, or use it as a coaster.  You cannot, however, make illegal copies of it for loan or sale, nor can you put it on your website and allow it to be downloaded.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The biggest impediment to your argument is conceptual, and you don't seem to be au fait with it. Not everyone considers the sharing of their ideas as an act of theft. For example, there is an entire world that works, quite effectively, using something called the GNU Public Licence.

 

 

Some music artists, for example, have found that the sharing of fans' copies of their music has increased sales (I think The Grateful Dead are one famous example).

 

Sharing is an act of trust, so it won't necessarily be reciprocated, but then it may be. If I try a shareware application and I like it and use it, then I'll buy it, if only to get a warranty and show my support for the developers.

 

Ergo, the concept that pirating is stealing is not altogether true and definitely not proven so.

 

Now, I'm not defending the Hong Kong knock shops that have a thousand DVD writers churning out bootleg copies of Corel Draw 10; that's obviously designed to exploit the digital medium for their own gredy ends. But a pirate who breaks the copy protection scheme on an application or game is generally doing it for the peer credibility, not to make their first million bucks.

 

I don't believe too many people who can afford to buy games actually pirate them. I do think a lot of kids who can't afford them do, and I do think that anyone given the choice would buy a rel copy, especially if it comes with a nice printed manual and (non-photocopiable) tea towel.

 

You see, all the copy protection available now is a pale shadow of the nasty and ingenious technology used twenty years ago on the Apple ][. And the crackers were even more ingenious, too. And the best defence, then as now, was "hearts and minds": if the people WANT to buy your application, then they won't pirate it. Richard Garriott knew this, and he made a squillion dollars in the same Apple ][ marketplace.

[Spider]

The music industry actually made some headway in getting paid for music downloads by slapping injunctions on various sites, issuing subpoenas for customer data such as their servers, etc, and randoming going after some of those customers to prove that they could.  I'm too lazy to look up legal analysis of all those cases, but it seems to me that they threatened to report customers of illegal download sites to their servers.  In a nutshell, it became too costly and too dangerous to continue to host illegal music  downloads for most folks, so they all went to the bargaining table. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have no idea where you get your information, but clearly you and I occupy different internets.

 

First, the availability of pirated music on the web has not lessened in any way shape or form. There are more people downloading (and thus usually also sharing) than there has ever been. Some sites and programs are shut down, but more pop up to take their place. The industry closed Napster and along came Kazaa. Kazaa is on the decline and along comes BitTorrent and so on and so forth. The efforts of the music industry hasn't really accomplished anything. Given how much they spend on copy protections and lawyers, it's entirely possible that it has actually cost them more than they lose on piracy in the first place.

 

Second, the reason the music industry started getting paid for music downloaded from the web is because they started selling music on the web. A lot of people who download music do so because they like having their music in digitalized form. And when a legal alternative came along a lot of people started using it. The fact that more pirates are inclined to buy music online than nonpirates. Imo the main thing the music industry has done wrong was to not start something along the lines of iTunes when music downloading started to become popular. Had they done so the internet landscape could have been a very different place. Instead they chose to fight in order to preserve their archaic business model.

[~Di]

The biggest impediment to your argument is conceptual, and you don't seem to be au fait with it. Not everyone considers the sharing of their ideas as an act of theft. For example, there is an entire world that works, quite effectively, using something called the GNU Public Licence.

 

 

Some music artists, for example,  have found that the sharing of fans' copies of their music has increased sales (I think The Grateful Dead are one famous example).

 

If The Grateful Dead or any other artist gives permission for his/her work to be freely downloaded, then it isn't piracy or theft to take advantage of the invitation. But just because one group wants to give freebies doesn't mean that the public has license to take the music of other groups without permission.

 

Ergo, the concept that pirating is stealing is not altogether true and definitely not proven so.

 

In this country, at least, it is quite provable. If you take the work product of another without permission and without paying for it, you have stolen it.

 

I don't believe too many people who can afford to buy games actually pirate them. I do think a lot of kids who can't afford them do, and I do think that anyone given the choice would buy a rel copy, especially if it comes with a nice printed manual and (non-photocopiable) tea towel.

 

I've already commented upon the "poverty-stricken" excuse. It's not like folks require Max Paine to live, after all. Video games are not food, they are luxuries... luxuries that require a rather pricy piece of equipment even to use. Sorry, I don't buy the "I'm too poor, so I should be entitled to take what I want without paying excuse." Others may accept that. I personally do not. And although there may be some exceptions to the rule, I suspect few game developers would accept it either, since including a link to a warez-type site is a banning offense on many game developer boards. I'm impressed, and a little surprised, that Obsidian is allowing discussions which of course will include defense of piracy here on their boards.

 

@Spider: As I've cheerfully noted, I'm too lazy to look up all the legal precedents set in the RIAA matters, but the fact remains that the biggest, baddest illegal music download sites were brought to their knees, and the bargaining table, by legal action. Many lawsuits were brought; the music industry won every single one of them. Most of the originally-targeted sites now offer music downloads at a minimum cost, and a percentage of that goes back into the music industry.

 

I have no doubt that illegal download sites continue to spring up. Thing is, they are also being prosecuted, and they should be. Crack cocaine continues to flood into the USA too; we still prosecute drug dealers, and users too, rather than throw up our hands and give up because there will always be law breakers.

 

The basic arguments in this kind of discussion usually centers around a few main points, some of which include: (A) People who cannot afford what they want should have a right to take it anyway; (B) Game/Music/Movie companies charge too much for their product, so it's their own fault if people steal it; © People who steal downloads for games/music/movies wouldn't have bought them in the first place, so nobody really loses any money; and (D) There's no way to stop mass piracy/theft so it's foolish even to try.

 

I understand those viewpoints. I simply disagree with them.

Edited November 23, 2005 by ~Di

[dufflover]

I think I'll stay out the whole piracy definition thing (although my view is that it is in the end stealing to some extent).

 

I don't think you can stop piracy completely but it is possible to neglect it's main effect of lowering sales:

- As mentioned, the good ol' CD-Key for multiplayer; heaps of games now are just full-on multiplayer, or boring otherwise. (I reckon this is the cheapest and effective way; seemed to work for Half-Life/Counter-Strike)

- Some of the new systems like uhhh...Securom something or StarForce something, are apparently starting to work much better (at least getting impatient people to buy games)

- Lower the price, although some people won't want to pay anything at all.

Edited November 23, 2005 by dufflover

[metadigital]

The biggest impediment to your argument is conceptual, and you don't seem to be au fait with it. Not everyone considers the sharing of their ideas as an act of theft. For example, there is an entire world that works, quite effectively, using something called the GNU Public Licence.

 

Some music artists, for example,  have found that the sharing of fans' copies of their music has increased sales (I think The Grateful Dead are one famous example).

 

If The Grateful Dead or any other artist gives permission for his/her work to be freely downloaded, then it isn't piracy or theft to take advantage of the invitation. But just because one group wants to give freebies doesn't mean that the public has license to take the music of other groups without permission.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I never suggested that the existence of the GNU GPL is a licence for wholesale pirating; I was simply challenging your definition of "piracy = bad" being an axiomatic and universally accepted truism, which it is not.

Hence my summary:

Ergo, the concept that pirating is stealing is not altogether true and definitely not proven so.

And you even restate my comment, highlighting a differnt pov:

In this country, at least, it is quite provable.  If you take the work product of another without permission and without paying for it, you have stolen it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...

And although there may be some exceptions to the rule, I suspect few game developers would accept it either, since including a link to a warez-type site is a banning offense on many game developer boards.  I'm impressed, and a little surprised, that Obsidian is allowing discussions which of course will include defense of piracy here on their boards. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Have you not heard of shareware? There is a sizeable market for beginners to ply their wares (see what I did there?) using the "shareware" model: i.e. free to try and please contribute something to the developer if you like it.

 

As much as you seem to be trying to discount this business model, it has already proved effective. Maybe you've heard of Id Software? How about Gearbox?

 

...

I have no doubt that illegal download sites continue to spring up.  Thing is, they are also being prosecuted, and they should be.  Crack cocaine continues to flood into the USA too; we still prosecute drug dealers, and users too, rather than throw up our hands and give up because there will always be law breakers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And yet prohibition ended in 1933. And the Netherlands has a lower percentage of her population addicted to drugs classified as "illegal" in other Western democracies, than those same democracies. Go figure.

...

The basic arguments in this kind of discussion usually centers around a few main points, some of which include: (A) People who cannot afford what they want should have a right to take it anyway; (B) Game/Music/Movie companies charge too much for their product, so it's their own fault if people steal it;

[Spider]

- Some of the new systems like uhhh...Securom something or StarForce something, are apparently starting to work much better (at least getting impatient people to buy games)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The question is if the impatient people are actually getting the games or simply just don't play them instead.

 

And in regards to StarForce, I know of several people who refuse to buy any game that uses that paticular protection because it messed up their computer. Not only made the game unplayable (which is more common) but actually stopped things from working.

[Janmanden]

Not only made the game unplayable (which is more common) but actually stopped things from working.

 

That's true. I have had some problems with Silent Storm and other games, because of *some* issues with totally unrelated hardware (DVD), where I actually had to resort to hacking (no-cd versions) to play my legal games. I don't like that at all.

[LadyCrimson]

Lady Crimson wrote:

How much of the 'loss' of book sales are actually more from people 'borrowing' books from friends to read rather than actual pure theft?

 

I Wrote:

I don't think anyone is arguing that lending your copy of a game to a friend is piracy.

 

Your response:

Didn't say anyone was.

 

Clearly, you are.

 

Oh...I thought you meant that I was specifcally countering someone else's statement in this particular thread, which is not what I was doing.

 

So yes, if you think I'm making some kind of global statement to that effect, I can understand that perspective. From my point of view tho, that is not what I was doing. It was not an actual accusation that lending books actually should be considered piracy - I already stated that from my social upbringing that I don't think that's the case - it was just a statement that one could view it as a mild form of piracy if one was of a mind, simply because lending a book means the loss of a sale to the people who created/marketed the book.

 

It was a 'food for thought' statement, nothing more.

 

From a company viewpoint, it's likely possible to view ANY action that results in a loss of sale as some kind of theft, if you want to, because they're thinking money/capitalism. All I was saying is where do you draw the line - one copy to a friend is ok, but multiple copies to multiple people (even with no profit to yourself) is not? To some that could be seen as a hypocrisy of some sort...I am NOT saying it definitely is, just that it could be viewed that way.

 

Some people think all art should be freely shared for the cultural benefit of everyone - capitalism, the need for a monetary economic system, and the concept of "paid for my work/I own this" is not conducive to that concept, and thus the debate rages on.

[~Di]

I'm not going to issue a dull reply to each of your dull replies to my even duller statements. I believe, and in most cases the law is on my side, that pirating is the illegal taking of the work product of another without permission and without paying for it . I consider that to be theft. Simply pointing out that Joe Blow allows his stuff to be taken by anyone who wishes it does not negate that definition, since one cannot steal that which one has been freely given.

 

I must, however, comment upon this:

 

...But, the whole copyright concept is only a model designed to exploit the capitalist concept of exploiting the author: publishers, rather than authors, were the first to seek restrictions on copying printed works. Given that publishers now obtain the copyright from the authors as a condition of mass reproduction of a work, one of the criticisms of the current system is that it benefits publishers more than it does authors. This is a chief argument of the proponents of peer-to-peer file sharing systems.

 

I do not know where you are from, so perhaps laws are different there. Here in the USA copyright laws, while complex and cumbersome, were not created to "exploit" the author. They were created to protect the author's work, and for the most part they assist in doing that. Some publishers (God knows there are thousands upon thousands of publishers of various forms of written work out there) may require authors to relinquish their copyrights, but I personally have never heard of that happening here with the major print publishers of the western world.

 

I do have a bit of experience in this, since I have many novels in print worldwide, and have dealt with publishers in several western countries. None of them have requested my copyright, and I would not allow it if they had. What they have requested, however, is the right to distribute my work for a certain period of time in certain genres, after which those rights I temporarily sold to them will revert back to me. Do not confuse the purchase of certain rights for first American printing, first hard copy printing, first worldwide release, etc., to be the same as the relinquishment of copyright. It is not the same thing at all. I have sold many rights to my work to many publishers, but ALL of my copyrights are now and always have been in my name alone. Copyright law does indeed protect the authors. If it didn't you can be certain that the Authors Guild, of which I've been a member for nearly two decades, would be camped on congress's doorstep.

 

If some authors have been coerced into signing their copyrights over to shady publishers, I am heartsick to hear about it. That is not, however, the fault of the copyright laws; rather it is the result of a deceitful company taking advantage of a naive and uninformed writer.

 

Just didn't want any confusion with the copyright laws as they pertain to novelists and authors with the piracy of work product from gaming companies, movie studios and recording artists.

 

As for the rest of your post, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Edited November 23, 2005 by ~Di

[metadigital]

I agree that the inventors / authors deserve reward for their idea. I disagree that this is happening in a fair and consistent manner.

 

The quote that you have commented on refers mainly to games developers, who do not (under normal circumstances) retain control over their IP. (Recording artists get residuals, but this is not generally the case with games developers, AFAIK.)

 

I think the main problem is that the system is broken; it is skewed by the middlemen who are trying to maintain a business model that clearly doesn't work anymore, if it ever did.

 

I think that technology can save the situation (and will, eventually, as any interference can only cause delay) by allowing greater visibility / granularity of micropayments for use (something that has been, until now, completely infeasible and frankly science fiction). Once there is a robust virtual economy, using secure credit transactions, then the need for (or rather, job description of) a publisher will recede into virtual redundancy.

 

I don't pirate. I don't condone pirating. I just don't think that the views you are extolling are realistic, practical or useful. They are idealistic and na

[Drakron]

Metadigital raises a good point but he forgets that its the publishers that most of the time are funding the development of the game.

 

Few companies can self-fund, let alone self-publish ... I remenber everyone being happy with Valve and Steam but not only Valve CAN self-fund but their self-publishing Steam is a spyware system (read its EULA) and they had no problems in going to EA to futher publish Half Life 2.

 

The problem is the same of why artists cannot simply self record their songs, the huge publishing machines made it neat impossible to reach success without working with then.

[Krookie]

I don't think they'll ever really do anything about piracy.

[Craigboy2]

I should start by saying that I have no idea about what to do to solve piracy. I think if the prices of games were lower it would help a bit but I don't even know if it's feasible to lower the prices at all.

 

Anyway, I think that piracy is one of the biggest problems with video gaming. It affects the amount of money that get to developers. It makes investment in the gaming industry seem like an iffy idea. It's plain stealing.

 

 

So, does anyone have any ideas on what can be done about piracy?

 

 

P.S.: What do Obsidian's devs think of piracy?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know how to end it, almost all my friends have a crap load of stuff that's been pirated. I don't pirate stuff or atleast I haven't since my old days with Kazaa back when I was ten.

Edited November 23, 2005 by Craigboy2

[Child of Flame]

I'm not going to issue a dull reply to each of your dull replies to my even duller statements.    I believe, and in most cases the law is on my side, that pirating is the illegal taking of the work product of another without permission and without paying for it .  I consider that to be theft.  Simply pointing out that Joe Blow allows his stuff to be taken by anyone who wishes it does not negate that definition, since one cannot steal that which one has been freely given.

 

I must, however, comment upon this:

 

...But, the whole copyright concept is only a model designed to exploit the capitalist concept of exploiting the author: publishers, rather than authors, were the first to seek restrictions on copying printed works. Given that publishers now obtain the copyright from the authors as a condition of mass reproduction of a work, one of the criticisms of the current system is that it benefits publishers more than it does authors. This is a chief argument of the proponents of peer-to-peer file sharing systems.

 

I do not know where you are from, so perhaps laws are different there. Here in the USA copyright laws, while complex and cumbersome, were not created to "exploit" the author. They were created to protect the author's work, and for the most part they assist in doing that. Some publishers (God knows there are thousands upon thousands of publishers of various forms of written work out there) may require authors to relinquish their copyrights, but I personally have never heard of that happening here with the major print publishers of the western world.

 

I do have a bit of experience in this, since I have many novels in print worldwide, and have dealt with publishers in several western countries. None of them have requested my copyright, and I would not allow it if they had. What they have requested, however, is the right to distribute my work for a certain period of time in certain genres, after which those rights I temporarily sold to them will revert back to me. Do not confuse the purchase of certain rights for first American printing, first hard copy printing, first worldwide release, etc., to be the same as the relinquishment of copyright. It is not the same thing at all. I have sold many rights to my work to many publishers, but ALL of my copyrights are now and always have been in my name alone. Copyright law does indeed protect the authors. If it didn't you can be certain that the Authors Guild, of which I've been a member for nearly two decades, would be camped on congress's doorstep.

 

If some authors have been coerced into signing their copyrights over to shady publishers, I am heartsick to hear about it. That is not, however, the fault of the copyright laws; rather it is the result of a deceitful company taking advantage of a naive and uninformed writer.

 

Just didn't want any confusion with the copyright laws as they pertain to novelists and authors with the piracy of work product from gaming companies, movie studios and recording artists.

 

As for the rest of your post, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

~Di, if you are going to call up examples from your writing career, you need to give us your name so we know they are valid.

So I can stalk you.

It's not fair to have an effectively split personality and then call on experiences from your offline personality as defense in an argument.

I will find out who you are!

[Hell Kitty]

The last game I pirated was Morrowind. It resulted in me buying Morrowind and it's first expansion. I think this is an example of a time when piracy doesn't equal "bad".

[alanschu]

Just think, in the time the "profit maker" sells one copy, 1000's of copies could be DL'ed from the web.

 

Now, the spreaders for the DL may not get cash out of it, but guess what gives more loss to the music company if it get's pirated, 1 CD (of the "profit maker", or 1000 (from DL)?

 

Yeah, hot damn. Because that's usually the way these things go. For every million or so sold copy of, say, Diablo, there's A BILLION of people just clicking said god-forsaken wishy-washy pinko commie link, depriving Blizzard of their hard-earned bucks.

 

Lol, did you write what I think you did?

 

I wasn't talking about per copy 1000 illegal copies get downloaded. I was talking about why DL'ing was more of a problem than "burn and sellers", that spread illegal software ALOT slower...

 

Read before posting...

Don't just start ripping things FAR out of their context

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Actually I'd wager that the "burn and sellers" distribute way more pirated games than simply getting free copies from the Internet. It's the predominant form of piracy in Asia, which is generally referred to as the place with the most rampant piracy.

 

The thing about the "burn and sell" methodology is that it appeals to average, computer illiterate joe blow. Believe it or not, but downloading stuff with torrents and cracking it is reserved purely for those with ample computer literacy. As an anecdote, my best friend has no idea about any of those things. But if he was to go into a store or to a street vendor (both of which are things that happen in the large "burn and sell" markets in Asia), he'd have no problems buying that copy at 95% off. Anyone with the ability to put a CD in the drive and let the autorun do its thing can do that.

 

I mean, to be honest I am not even that aware of how to torrent (I haven't used it as I haven't had the need). I bet I could do a quick look around for some BitTorrent download managers and figure it out pretty quickly. But the fact that even I would need to do some research on the topic likely puts it out of scope for the vast, vast majority of people out there.

 

We as computer geeks are not an accurate sample of the computer user population.

[alanschu]

Have you not heard of shareware? There is a sizeable market for beginners to ply their wares (see what I did there?) using the "shareware" model: i.e. free to try and please contribute something to the developer if you like it.

 

As much as you seem to be trying to discount this business model, it has already proved effective. Maybe you've heard of Id Software? How about Gearbox?

 

Isn't that more Freeware or Public Domain? The Shareware model that I'm familiar with is usually either trial based, or with limited functionality. Doom for instance, only had the first episode available as Shareware. If you wanted to play the other levels, you had to buy the game. It wasn't "please contribute if you like it." It was "please contribute if you want to play more." Alternative styles are the 30 day trial periods that offer full functionality (well, usually), but disable themselves after the trial period is over.

 

 

I do not know where you are from, so perhaps laws are different there. Here in the USA copyright laws, while complex and cumbersome, were not created to "exploit" the author. They were created to protect the author's work, and for the most part they assist in doing that. Some publishers (God knows there are thousands upon thousands of publishers of various forms of written work out there) may require authors to relinquish their copyrights, but I personally have never heard of that happening here with the major print publishers of the western world.

 

It's the predominant model for video games. And it's actually becoming a predominant model for many other things as well, including books. This also includes music. The publishers acquire the copyright in exchange for mass distribution.

 

And I am talking from a North American perspective.

Edited November 23, 2005 by alanschu

[BattleCookiee]

First; to the post 2 posts above mine:

 

I was aiming on our Western Society. We don't have Crime Organisations running Game Distribution, or some Gang Lord who beats you up if you beat him fair in a MMORPG (and that is a common sight in South-Korea it seems)

 

What we do have is a load of people with experience with PC and the Internet, and thus can easily take whatever we want from the net.

 

Now, I ask you, what hurts more; a DL in a country where people have the money to spend on your game, or a Illegal Sold copy in a Asian country were selling prices are already a lot lower because they have less money?

 

The basic arguments in this kind of discussion usually centers around a few main points, some of which include: (A) People who cannot afford what they want should have a right to take it anyway; (B) Game/Music/Movie companies charge too much for their product, so it's their own fault if people steal it;

Edited November 23, 2005 by Battlewookiee

[alanschu]

I know the point that people like to get across with respect to the ferrari example.

 

 

Even though I'm against software piracy, this example does not hold for software piracy (or any kind of copyright infringment). This is because "stealing" software isn't really "stealing" at all. It's actually copyright infringement.

 

The problem with the ferrari example is that if I steal a ferrari from you that you are trying to sell, then you are no longer able to sell that ferrari. If I burn a copy of a CD that you are trying to sell, you are still able to sell that CD to someone else and still make money off of it. To reiterate, you cannot do that with a Ferrari.

 

 

 

Having said that, I do agree with your assessment regarding the "try and buy" perspective on piracy. This only works if the person does buy it. However, I don't think it's a stretch of the imagination to assume that it would be unusual for someone to buy a game that they have already beaten, even if they really liked it. Especially if there were no other benefits liks a MP component or something. It's tough to justify something that you literally will not gain from, as you've already received the experience.

 

 

 

I was aiming on our Western Society. We don't have Crime Organisations running Game Distribution, or some Gang Lord who beats you up if you beat him fair in a MMORPG (and that is a common sight in South-Korea it seems)

 

What we do have is a load of people with experience with PC and the Internet, and thus can easily take whatever we want from the net.

 

Now, I ask you, what hurts more; a DL in a country where people have the money to spend on your game, or a Illegal Sold copy in a Asian country were selling prices are already a lot lower because they have less money?

 

I still think it's convenient to just ignore probably the largest source of software piracy in the world. I suspect that the fact that these people make money off of other people's hard work is much more infuriating than the guy that downloads his free copy.

 

 

Furthermore, downloading and cracking software is still a niche thing even in North America. But the main reason why "burn and sell" isn't as effective in North America is because it's waaaaaay easier to enforce. Walmart can't just throw up the $5.95 bootleg copy of KOTOR 2 without getting in legal troubles. This is not the case in Asia.

 

It's tough to say how what hurts more. I'd imagine that if even 1% of the people that pirate games in Asia could no longer (i.e. not possible at all) buy the bootleg copies, a huge influx of capital would come in for game developers (well, publishers). 1% might be too optimistic. I'd still say that even 1/100000 would result in larger income streams than removing all the "free" downloads in North America.

Edited November 23, 2005 by alanschu

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

"Now, I ask you, what hurts more; a DL in a country where people have the money to spend on your game, or a Illegal Sold copy in a Asian country were selling prices are already a lot lower because they have less money?"

 

A flawed question. How do you expect it to be answered, when there's no way to tell how often a download would turn into a sale if downloading wasn't an option. Besides, at least with illegal copies, there is provably enough interest in the product to pay money for it.

 

"A. Hey! I can't pay a Farrari... Can I take one?"

 

Your example is flawed.

 

"B. Game prices haven't fluctuated with the Inflation for many, many, many years. Profit per copy is less than it used to be, while the money costs per copy are way higher. A price reduction is equal to a financial suicide..."

 

Why is it absolutely necessary to spend so much money on it? Plenty of low budget games that have been targeted to niche markets have succeeded.

 

"C. So, they wan't to test it, eh? Ever heard of DEMO'S? Because that is what they are for (try before the buy), not a complete copy of the game..., after which like 30% of the DL'ers don't buy even if they like it and completed it trice ("hey, why buy it, if I already have it")..."

 

Not every game has a demo, and even if they do, a demo is something that is probably made to show the best parts of the game and none of the worst (ideally, from a marketing POV -- in truth, though, most demos suck pretty bad. Poor representation of the final product, either way).

 

99% of people who make up statistics are retarded morons.

 

"D. Heavy punishment on the user side would be a big step in scarring them off..."

 

Much in the same way that death sentence for pickpocketing is effective deterrant to it. Besides, it would be rather immoral to set a warning example instead of just punishment, don't you think?

[BattleCookiee]

Even though I'm against software piracy, this example does not hold for software piracy (or any kind of copyright infringment).  This is because "stealing" software isn't really "stealing" at all.  It's actually copyright infringement.

 

The problem with the ferrari example is that if I steal a ferrari from you that you are trying to sell, then you are no longer able to sell that ferrari.  If I burn a copy of a CD that you are trying to sell, you are still able to sell that CD to someone else and still make money off of it.  To reiterate, you cannot do that with a Ferrari.

 

It was more based on the "Can't pay but must play" that some have...

 

But, you say if they DL a copy they can still sell that copy makes it any different I have to object.

 

Alright, it might not be the same copy, but you still take away cash from the developers. You steal it without any "physical appearance", but it is still stealing.

 

If I break into the CIA Computers and spread everything I find over there they still have it, but it would damn well be stealing, and hurting that company (not to say national security) even if they still have the info, and can still spread it to other intelligence agencies.

Now you might wonder why I compare "stealing games" to "cracking governmental systems", but it is basically the same. At both you steal and spread software you shouldn't posses, and while the "gaming DL'ing" is *accepted*, hacking into a governmental probably gets you haunted...

 

And to further go onto that if you Hack into a governmental agency and spread it would that also be "copyright infringment" or outright Theft?

 

And to the second: If you burn a copy, yes I can sell the other one, but the creator already lost the cash for that copied one.

To compare it again to Ferrari's it would be like manufacturing another car at the factory and just hand that one out on the street, free for everyone... (now copying cars might take longer, and is more expensive... but you should get the point)

[BattleCookiee]

"Now, I ask you, what hurts more; a DL in a country where people have the money to spend on your game, or a Illegal Sold copy in a Asian country were selling prices are already a lot lower because they have less money?"

 

A flawed question. How do you expect it to be answered, when there's no way to tell how often a download would turn into a sale if downloading wasn't an option. Besides, at least with illegal copies, there is provably enough interest in the product to pay money for it.

 

Yes. But how much CAN they pay for it. Do note Asian is still not as wealthy as the US or Europe. Same with Eastern Europe and Russia, they just don't have the financials to pay for it a legit way, and the only way it would sell would be large reductions in price...which would mean less profit.

Note though, that should not make "I am poor, but must have it" a fist-rule. I am still against copying there; only noting why DL'ing is more of a fiancial problem than these countries...

 

"A. Hey! I can't pay a Farrari... Can I take one?"

 

Your example is flawed.

 

Exelent counter. Your example is flawed. No reasons given why.

I think alot of people misinterpretate my meaning here (also seeing your respons). I was talking about the mentality of "Can't pay for it, so I am bound to take it", not comparing PC-games to Ferrari's

 

"B. Game prices haven't fluctuated with the Inflation for many, many, many years. Profit per copy is less than it used to be, while the money costs per copy are way higher. A price reduction is equal to a financial suicide..."

 

Why is it absolutely necessary to spend so much money on it? Plenty of low budget games that have been targeted to niche markets have succeeded.

 

Because pretty engines (+$) who take alot of time to make (+$) usually sell more, since there are a lot of dumb Human-beings on this planet. So, the companies make those expansive thingies for them...

 

"C. So, they wan't to test it, eh? Ever heard of DEMO'S? Because that is what they are for (try before the buy), not a complete copy of the game..., after which like 30% of the DL'ers don't buy even if they like it and completed it trice ("hey, why buy it, if I already have it")..."

 

Not every game has a demo, and even if they do, a demo is something that is probably made to show the best parts of the game and none of the worst (ideally, from a marketing POV -- in truth, though, most demos suck pretty bad. Poor representation of the final product, either way).

 

So, to have a *GOOD* indication of a game you have to complete the complete Retail version?

Damn genious statement, let all companies present demo's featuring the whole game; that will get our interest...

 

"D. Heavy punishment on the user side would be a big step in scarring them off..."

 

Much in the same way that death sentence for pickpocketing is effective deterrant to it. Besides, it would be rather immoral to set a warning example instead of just punishment, don't you think?

 

No, cutting off the offenders hand should be enough

There have been quite alot of investigations done in how crime can be reduced, and scaring the criminals off with heavy punishments and a large police-squad that actively hunts criminals was far more effective than trying to understand why crime is being done, and than pull the these causes away...

 

-Fixed quotage tags :">

Edited November 23, 2005 by Battlewookiee

[alanschu]

Even though I'm against software piracy, this example does not hold for software piracy (or any kind of copyright infringment).  This is because "stealing" software isn't really "stealing" at all.  It's actually copyright infringement.

 

The problem with the ferrari example is that if I steal a ferrari from you that you are trying to sell, then you are no longer able to sell that ferrari.  If I burn a copy of a CD that you are trying to sell, you are still able to sell that CD to someone else and still make money off of it.  To reiterate, you cannot do that with a Ferrari.

 

It was more based on the "Can't pay but must play" that some have...

 

But, you say if they DL a copy they can still sell that copy makes it any different I have to object.

 

Alright, it might not be the same copy, but you still take away cash from the developers. You steal it without any "physical appearance", but it is still stealing.

.

 

Playing the semantic game, it actually is not "stealing." However, many people (myself included probably) do consider it to be a loose form of "theft." But it's still exceptionally different than stealing a specific, tangible object such as a Ferrari.

 

 

 

If I break into the CIA Computers and spread everything I find over there they still have it, but it would damn well be stealing, and hurting that company (not to say national security) even if they still have the info, and can still spread it to other intelligence agencies.

Now you might wonder why I compare "stealing games" to "cracking governmental systems", but it is basically the same. At both you steal and spread software you shouldn't posses, and while the "gaming DL'ing" is *accepted*, hacking into a governmental probably gets you haunted...

.

 

Well, what exactly are you "stealing?" You're certainly getting access to unauthorized information. Would it still be stealing if you found a way into the CIA offices and read the information off a piece of paper without taking it?

 

 

And to further go onto that if you Hack into a governmental agency and spread it would that also be "copyright infringment" or outright Theft?

 

Copyright Infringement. Assuming the information was copyrighted. The crime most likely committed in this situation is probably treason though.

 

And to the second: If you burn a copy, yes I can sell the other one, but the creator already lost the cash for that copied one.

 

This is where the shady ground comes in and why pirates are able to rationalize their actions. There is some merit to their assertions that if they had to pay for it, then they probably wouldn't play it (my roommate is living proof of this).

 

To compare it again to Ferrari's it would be like manufacturing another car at the factory and just hand that one out on the street, free for everyone... (now copying cars might take longer, and is more expensive... but you should get the point)

 

If you were to build a Ferrari-like car with the exact same parts with legally acquired goods, you could do whatever you want with it and would not be breaking the law. It's why people can make facsimilies of famous paintings and not get in trouble. The second they start claiming it IS a Ferrari though, and selling it (or giving it away) as a Ferrari. At least from a copyright perspective. It's possible they have patents, but that is different than a copyright.

 

Ferrari also doesn't lose money in this situation, since they still have the material good to sell to someone else.

 

If you insist on using Ferrari's (or material goods in general) as a comparison, then you are basically claiming that what we buy is the CD. However, what we are really paying for is the ideas stored on that CD. When we buy a Ferrari, we're buying a car made of tangible materials.

Edited November 23, 2005 by alanschu