Piracy

[Mamoulian War]

Ah, we got our first big sense of entitlement post in while, awesome

 

Your life will go on if you don't play the latest and greatest video games. What you are doing is completely morally wrong.

 

Can you please explain me, what is morally wrong on downloading a game today and paying full price few days later?

[Diagoras]

The first person could have stolen it. We've seen games leaked to the internet by finding and hacking a server before they were released.

 

And, to my knowledge, there is no one who opposes prosecuting people guilty of theft or hacking. If someone has done that, then that is both illegal and immoral. I don't think that's controversial.

 

Even if the first person bought a copy, what right do they have - other than that they can - to distribute a copy they've made (as opposed to selling their copy)?

 

You generally have the right to do whatever you want with a product you own. You can set it on fire, throw it in a swimming pool, give it to someone else, or copy it. Copyright is where the state grants certain entities limited time monopolies on the copying of something (among a bunch of other things), thus suppressing the consumer right to copy it if they want to, due to a compelling economic interest on the part of the government.

 

Now, this type of thing isn't controversial. Your rights are suppressed every time you're forced to pay taxes or follow a regulation - that's part of the deal of living in a nation-state. But establishing which direction coercive force is flowing is important for establishing burden of proof. If you want to abrogate people's rights, the burden of proof is on you to establish why. What that level of proof is varies, but it's important to note that people don't have to justify their rights, governments have to justify abrogating them.

 

Everything above applies primarily to the US, so I can't vouch for philosophies of government outside of it. However, the whole "burden of proof on expansion of state power" paradigm applies to all liberal democracies I can think of, although exactly what constitutes "proof" varies a lot across different countries and different issues within one country - even more so as we're talking about political philosophy rather than law.

 

If the ultimate idea is to keep things secret than there wouldn't be anything shared to anyone, though. If the ultimate idea is that unique ideas should be shared then certainly there should be some rational reason why a person would share?

 

IIRC, the point that was referring to was the idea that copying something without the creator's permission is immoral. I was pointing out that it's insisting that people not copy your work and using coercion to enforce it that's actually morally questionable. This is disconnected from the question you're asking here, which is about the practical value of providing an incentive for people to distribute content. Do I understand that correctly?

 

Because it gives the author the benefit of their creation but still allows a reasonable window for the work to move into the public domain and thus be inspirational for derivative works.

 

You think it takes the lifetime of the author to recoup the expenses of distributing the work? Or even to generate an ROI?

[Diagoras]

What you are doing is completely morally wrong.

 

Insofar as breaking the law is morally wrong, yes.

[alanschu]

Can you please explain me, what is morally wrong on downloading a game today and paying full price few days later?

 

Depends on what your stance is on things like DRM.

 

If you are adamantly against DRM, you should never download because all you do is provide data points that encourage people to enact various types of DRM. Best to stick exclusively with DRM free software.

 

In other words, only download something if you are okay with the fact that your action will provide additional incentive for new DRMs (even if paradoxically DRM isn't as effective as some would like it to be).

Edited December 10, 2012 by alanschu

[Hurlshort]

Ah, we got our first big sense of entitlement post in while, awesome

 

Your life will go on if you don't play the latest and greatest video games. What you are doing is completely morally wrong.

 

Can you please explain me, what is morally wrong on downloading a game today and paying full price few days later?

 

The seller is not offering their games in that way. They aren't running an honor system here, they are running a business. They have chosen not to give you a taste of their product before you buy. Your choice is to pay up front or refuse to buy. To take that taste without their permission is illegal and quite clearly immoral.

 

There are plenty of other services that do offer the try before you buy option. Enjoy those instead.

[Mamoulian War]

Ah, we got our first big sense of entitlement post in while, awesome

 

Your life will go on if you don't play the latest and greatest video games. What you are doing is completely morally wrong.

 

Can you please explain me, what is morally wrong on downloading a game today and paying full price few days later?

 

The seller is not offering their games in that way. They aren't running an honor system here, they are running a business. They have chosen not to give you a taste of their product before you buy. Your choice is to pay up front or refuse to buy. To take that taste without their permission is illegal and quite clearly immoral.

 

There are plenty of other services that do offer the try before you buy option. Enjoy those instead.

 

Yes and maybe next time you accuse somebody that he is immoral because he was playing the game at his friends place and not bought it himself...

 

Seems right...

[alanschu]

Hmmm, does the licensing agreement state that no friends are allowed to look at the game?

[Hurlshort]

Yes, downloading a game illegally and playing it at your friend's house are clearly the same thing.

[Mamoulian War]

Can you please explain me, what is morally wrong on downloading a game today and paying full price few days later?

 

Depends on what your stance is on things like DRM.

 

If you are adamantly against DRM, you should never download because all you do is provide data points that encourage people to enact various types of DRM. Best to stick exclusively with DRM free software.

 

In other words, only download something if you are okay with the fact that your action will provide additional incentive for new DRMs (even if paradoxically DRM isn't as effective as some would like it to be).

 

I know this is kind of hard to discuss this because in different countries there are different laws about DRM circumvention and fair use...

 

But using DRM free software only is impossible in this world, therefore lot of countries allow as a basic right of the customers to make one working copy of your software or music or movie and the only option how to achieve this is DRM circumvention.

 

I am complying to our local law and every time I buy myself a game, be it PC or console, I make myself this one fair use copy either by burning software, or if the DRM is to complicated, I download my backup copy from the internet. Works for me like a charm. I still have working CDs from 1996 and floppies from even earlier, because I was able according our law to use my backup copies for personal entertainment.

[Mamoulian War]

Yes, downloading a game illegally and playing it at your friend's house are clearly the same thing.

 

 

no it is completely the same as playing the game at friends house and buying it next day in your brick and mortar store...

 

You get free ride for one day and then you shell out your hard earned money for your own copy of the game few hours later...

Edited December 10, 2012 by Mamoulian War

[Diagoras]

If you are adamantly against DRM, you should never download because all you do is provide data points that encourage people to enact various types of DRM. Best to stick exclusively with DRM free software.

 

Does software piracy drive DRM adoption?

[Diagoras]

Yes, downloading a game illegally and playing it at your friend's house are clearly the same thing.

 

Depending on the terms of the license and the jurisdiction you're in, both could be illegal. If singing "Happy Birthday" in a restaurant is...

[Deadly_Nightshade]

no it is completely the same as playing the game at friends house and buying it next day in your brick and mortar store...

 

Incorrect. if you're playing a game at a friend's house, or even borrowing the disc(s), a copy was, unless your friend is a pirate, originally paid for (i.e. a legal copy). Thus, unlike if you download a copy, at least one copy was bought.

[AGX-17]

I've pirated a total amount of 10 games in my life. 5 of them I bought later. 5 of them were games without demos that I was on the fence and they turned out to be horrible(never finished them).

The reason I pirated them, is because as a student I live on a very tight budget. I can't afford to buy games I don't like over games I like. That said, I donated 50 dollars to Project: Eternity and I lived on noodles the rest of the month.

 

I don't find this morally wrong. The basis of our economical system is that the rational consumer works with a complete knowledge of the product and all the alternatives. Only then can the economy work efficiently. If the companies do not provide this information, then I'll find the information elsewhere. Naturally that does not happen. But the closer you get to complete information, the more efficient the market becomes.

 

And money I did not spend on the games I've pirated has been spent on other games I've bought. Because they were better.

 

And anyone claiming that every time I pirate they lose money are idiots. My bank account is close to empty after each month. There is no way I can pay more to these companies than I already am, so I pay those who have the best products. Lesson to be learned here? Make good ****.

 

Also:

http://www.forbes.co...never-kill-you/

 

No, the basis of our economic system is human belief in the system. You're following the confirmed-for-not-true economic model of the "perfect market," which is an idealized thought experiment that has fallaciously become the basis for conservative/chicago/austrian school economists. There is no aspect of the global economy or any nation's economy which adheres to the model of the "perfect market." You are not perfectly informed if you pirate games to gain information about them. You are not perfectly rational if you are aware of the laws and flaunt them. You are making an emotional decision to take what you want because it's free, as humans are wont to do, something that the "perfect market" model dismisses as a physical impossibility as it assumes emotions do not exist.

 

 

Ah, we got our first big sense of entitlement post in while, awesome

 

Your life will go on if you don't play the latest and greatest video games. What you are doing is completely morally wrong.

 

Morality is an abstract. It's a construct of the society to which it applies. Morality is just the same as social rules and heirarchy in a Baboon troupe but at a dramatically increased level of complexity. On a moral scale, he is not "completely morally wrong," from which I can only infer "genocidal sociopathic sadist," he's on the level of purse snatcher or incompetent identity thief in terms of morality.

Edited December 10, 2012 by AGX-17

[Diagoras]

You are not perfectly informed if you pirate games to gain information about them. You are not perfectly rational if you are aware of the law and flaunt them. You are making an emotional decision to take what you want because it's free, as humans are wont to do, something that the "perfect market" model dismisses as a physical impossibility as emotions do not exist in this model.

 

...what?

 

On a moral scale, he is not "completely morally wrong," from which I can only infer "genocidal sociopathic sadist," he's on the level of purse snatcher or incompetent identity thief in terms of morality.

 

What?

 

Can you expand on both those points?

[Lord of Lost Socks]

he's on the level of purse snatcher or incompetent identity thief in terms of morality.

I am on the level of a consumer wanting to see the apple, so I know it's fresh, before buying the apple.

 

And no I am not perfectly informed, nor am I completely rational. That can not exist. But I can come as close as possible to make an informed decision on which product I like the most. If I believed in a free and perfect market, I would also be against copyright laws(which I am not in principle, just the way they are now). I do not believe that copyright laws regarding video game piracy need to change much, though. I believe the publishers and developers are more to blame for trying to market products that are faulty or just not what the ad promises. Best way to sell me a game is to let me try the game.

 

You may call me a hypocrite for not applying the same principle for, for example, flour. The difference is that I have never seen a store sell bad flour. I have seen plenty of bad apples and bad games, and until the games are all of similar quality I will test them before I buy them, unless other sources(reviews, youtube vids, etc) manage to convince me. Which they usually do, hence only 10 games pirated.

 

I have some issues with how copyright laws are put to use in some areas. Like SEGA's recent rampage against fanmade youtube videos about their Shining series where SEGA flagged multiple accounts for copyright breach that led to many accounts being shut down. These accounts committed such horrible acts like "Let's Plays", "Reviews", and god forbid a guy talking in his webcam about the game without ever showing a single snipped of the gameplay. Truly a terrible breach against SEGA's rights. I do hope, however, hope that both video game piracy and copyright abuse are dealt with in the future. I just hope that video game developers and publisher get their act together before that happens.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Lord of Lost Socks

[Hurlshort]

Actually you are biting into the apple, and then deciding if it is worth buying or not. Yes, I know we are talking physical versus digital goods, but it wasnt my analogy.

 

I know morality can vary, but when someone offers something they created and asks for payment, its a pretty black and white scenario. You pay or you dont, again we arent talking about a life saving serum. It becomes gray when you are talking about regional locks, games out of print, etc. But that isnt what the sock lord was talking about.

[Lord of Lost Socks]

Biting the apple decreases the value on the apple. One could make the argument from a purely practical point of view, that because I'll probably not buy the game at all unless I try it first, I am infact increasing the potential sales of the product. Sometimes I do find games very cheap, though(steam), and that's when convenience outweighs financial prudence.

 

And since I never seed when I download pirated stuff, I also slow down those without my outstanding moral character.

 

Minecraft is a game I pirated first. I heard about it, looked at videos, didn't really get it. Tried the alpha, wasn't convinced, but a friend told me the real version and alpha are completely different. I then pirated. Played it for a few hours. Loved it. Bought it. Transferred my pirated save to my bought copy. And boom, my first Minecraft creation:

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p25/Alarim/2011-05-24_024532.png

[mute688]

Actually you are biting into the apple, and then deciding if it is worth buying or not. Yes, I know we are talking physical versus digital goods, but it wasnt my analogy.

 

I know morality can vary, but when someone offers something they created and asks for payment, its a pretty black and white scenario. You pay or you dont, again we arent talking about a life saving serum. It becomes gray when you are talking about regional locks, games out of print, etc. But that isnt what the sock lord was talking about.

 

Based on my very limited understanding of the video game industry, the problem I see with your statement about "black and white" scenarios is that in many cases the copyright holder (the publisher) has created nothing. They have bought a product from the developers. The developers are the creators of the product and in many cases have already received payment for their work, yet often have very limited or even no copyright. I personally find the practice of granting copyright to something other than the creator of a product to be ethically challenging.

 

Not being the creators of the product, what ethical right does a publisher have to the copyrights to a product?

[Hurlshort]

Actually you are biting into the apple, and then deciding if it is worth buying or not. Yes, I know we are talking physical versus digital goods, but it wasnt my analogy.

 

I know morality can vary, but when someone offers something they created and asks for payment, its a pretty black and white scenario. You pay or you dont, again we arent talking about a life saving serum. It becomes gray when you are talking about regional locks, games out of print, etc. But that isnt what the sock lord was talking about.

 

Based on my very limited understanding of the video game industry, the problem I see with your statement about "black and white" scenarios is that in many cases the copyright holder (the publisher) has created nothing. They have bought a product from the developers. The developers are the creators of the product and in many cases have already received payment for their work, yet often have very limited or even no copyright. I personally find the practice of granting copyright to something other than the creator of a product to be ethically challenging.

 

Not being the creators of the product, what ethical right does a publisher have to the copyrights to a product?

 

I am not a huge fan of publishers and studios holding copyrights where the creators have no say in their use, but it is often necessitated by the high costs of creating a game. The publisher is controlling the copyright because they are the ones taking on all the financial risks. They are paying the developer, paying for advertisements, and paying for production. If they are making a game based on an established property, they even have to pay to licence it from the original IP holder. That is the way the business works.

 

A smart developer can work around that system if they want to maintain control. Obsidian is doing that with Project Eternity. Independent developers do that by keeping costs down. So if you aren't happy with the system, then support those projects.

 

But the business model doesn't excuse piracy. People pirate indie stuff all the time. Heck, Lord Socks already admitted pirating Minecraft, which was money that went directly to the creator. How do you justify that? Does it matter that he payed for it later? What if he decided he didn't like it and didn't pay for it?

 

The morally just action is to not buy a game if you have any concerns about it. I don't see how you can justify anything else.

[Lord of Lost Socks]

What if he decided he didn't like it and didn't pay for it?

 

Then it goes on the huge pile of other indie games I haven't bought that have not made it past the initial screening. People making "Let's play"-video's and reviews, even though they are positive in tone, have lost game developers way more of my money than piracy ever did. And I never paid to watch those either. Piracy to test a game is less morally abhorrent in many cases that Let's Plays because LP's record everything in a game except the way I feel when playing them.

 

There's a reason why there is no "Let's Watch Dark Knight Rises" on youtube. Many single-player FPS can only offer the story, yet watching a let's play of it is somehow morally less wrong than trying it out for 20 minutes to maybe, just maybe, realize that the gameplay is actually fun and then buy it and see the story. Usually I don't bother, though. I watched Killzone 1 story on youtube before I played my copy of Killzone 2 for this reason.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Lord of Lost Socks

[Deadly_Nightshade]

People making "Let's play"-video's and reviews, even though they are positive in tone, have lost game developers way more of my money than piracy ever did.

 

But, again, like I said before when someone mentioned watching others play, unless the person you are watching pirated the game they are a legitimate customer - something you are not if you pirate the game (i.e. the producer got some money from them, something that doesn't happen if you download).

[Lord of Lost Socks]

Nor am I a legitimate customer if I watch let's play. And it's not exactly unusual for the original uploader of a torrent to have a real copy.

[Mamoulian War]

no it is completely the same as playing the game at friends house and buying it next day in your brick and mortar store...

 

Incorrect. if you're playing a game at a friend's house, or even borrowing the disc(s), a copy was, unless your friend is a pirate, originally paid for (i.e. a legal copy). Thus, unlike if you download a copy, at least one copy was bought.

 

But the end effect for the industry is the same, one additional copy of the game will be bought in in both cases.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Nor am I a legitimate customer if I watch let's play.

 

Watching a Let's Play is not equal to playing the game, nor is it equal to downloading the game.

 

And it's not exactly unusual for the original uploader of a torrent to have a real copy.

 

So? Again, watching a video does not equal playing through the game yourself - nor does uploading a Let's Play equal to uploading a torrent (and, honestly, most torrent uploaders do not have a real copy as most torrents are 'Scene' releases that got taken from 'Top Sites' - the cracking groups might have had an original copy or two, and might even have paid, but it's not normal for those groups to use P2P methods to distribute unless it's a P2P group).

 

But the end effect for the industry is the same, one additional copy of the game will be bought in in both cases.

 

Again, incorrect. In one scenario you have one purchased copy and the potential for another purchased copy; the other merely has the potential for one purchased copy.

 

To put in in more mathematical terms:

 

The watching option has these outcomes:

1+0 = 1 or 1+1 = 2

 

The downloading option has these outcomes:

0+0 = 0 or 0+1 = 1

 

The net outcome of watching/borrowing is, at worst, the same as the best-case outcome of downloading while also having the potential for an additional sale over the original.