Piracy

[Lord of Lost Socks]

Unless the downloaded copy is a from a legitimate purchase, in which case your math is the same. This makes downloading indie games more morally reconcileable because they are rarely leaked and the pirated copy is always a legitimate purchase in origin.

 

I'm not disputing that companies lose money to piracy. What I'm arguing is that in my case, Let's Plays lose companies more money than my piracy. People who do not pay for games they enjoy are in my opinion little better than thieves. I however have paid for every game I have finished(apart from a few borrowed console games). And a fair number of my games I have not finished, or even installed... Nevermind the second-hand console game market which the companies hate as much as piracy.

 

Funnily enough. This forces me to pirate within my budget. Because if I wish to finish the game I have to buy it. Ironic, ain't it? My friend who is a bonified pirate says I'm crazy. I only do what I consider moral according to the information I have.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Lord of Lost Socks

[Mamoulian War]

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.

 

But when we play with silly numbers, one torrent can produce in the end much more sales, than the friend, because more people are exposed to it

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Unless the downloaded copy is a from a legitimate purchase, in which case your math is the same.

 

That would depend on the amount of people who download from the same source. You would have to take the purchase and compare that to the number of people who only downloaded it verses the number of people who both downloaded it and then bought a copy. Also, you would have to look at the number of people who are 'lost sales', the number that are 'gained sales', and the number of downloaders who would never have bought the game anyways. This is contrasted to the friend's legal copy that has more quantifiable numbers (it might expand slightly if multiple people watched or borrowed the game, and then you would have to start looking at the same statistics that were covered above). I, honestly, would find it fascinating to see, or even preform, a wider study of the file-sharing phenomenon to grasp some of the exact numbers involved.

 

This makes downloading indie games more morally reconcileable because they are rarely leaked and the pirated copy is always a legitimate purchase in origin.

 

A counterpoint would be that indie games are often hurt more by piracy than AAA releases (making it more 'morally reconcileable' to download them).

[Deadly_Nightshade]

But when we play with silly numbers, one torrent can produce in the end much more sales, than the friend, because more people are exposed to it

 

Or it might produce a net-loss, as I posted above you would have to break down and compare the differing factors before making a final conclusion (i.e. more sales are not, necessarily, healthier than the 'watching or borrowing' scenario if the gain of those sales also lost you an equal or greater number).

[Mamoulian War]

Unless the downloaded copy is a from a legitimate purchase, in which case your math is the same.

 

That would depend on the amount of people who download from the same source. You would have to take the purchase and compare that to the number of people who only downloaded it verses the number of people who both downloaded it and then bought a copy. Also, you would have to look at the number of people who are 'lost sales', the number that are 'gained sales', and the number of downloaders who would never have bought the game anyways. This is contrasted to the friend's legal copy that has more quantifiable numbers (it might expand slightly if multiple people watched or borrowed the game, and then you would have to start looking at the same statistics that were covered above). I, honestly, would find it fascinating to see, or even preform, a wider study of the file-sharing phenomenon to grasp some of the exact numbers involved.

 

 

I really would like to see some study like this as well, but I honestly do not believe that anybody will ever do this, because pirate boogieman is very convenient scapegoat...

 

So in the end, it will always end up with us arguing over the internet, thinking that only our own opinion is valid and everybody else is WRONG

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I guess the numbers for the download options should actually be something like:

 

f(x) + 0 = f(x) or f(x) + 1 = f(x) + 1

 

f(x) = 1/X-Y where X is the number of sales gained and Y is the number of sales lost.

 

I'm currently recovering from the Flu and it is after 2:30 in the morning so my math might be a bit fuzzy, I'm sure that someone could clean it up if needed, but it should be semi-correct at least.

[Lord of Lost Socks]

Unless the downloaded copy is a from a legitimate purchase, in which case your math is the same.

 

That would depend on the amount of people who download from the same source. You would have to take the purchase and compare that to the number of people who only downloaded it verses the number of people who both downloaded it and then bought a copy. Also, you would have to look at the number of people who are 'lost sales', the number that are 'gained sales', and the number of downloaders who would never have bought the game anyways. This is contrasted to the friend's legal copy that has more quantifiable numbers (it might expand slightly if multiple people watched or borrowed the game, and then you would have to start looking at the same statistics that were covered above). I, honestly, would find it fascinating to see, or even preform, a wider study of the file-sharing phenomenon to grasp some of the exact numbers involved.

 

That would be an interesting study indeed. I have no doubt that piracy hurts company sales. Because most pirates do not pirate to test. Most pirates pirate to steal. One of the reasons I do not seed illegal torrents. I happily seed legit stuff like mods or Age of Decadence. (I'm still pissed that I have to use a proxy site to access the official place to torrent the latest Age of Decadence demo, because that site is called Pirate Bay. Luckily those ISP blocks are easy for most gamers to circumvent, but if they make it harder, that would negatively impact an indie developer and a few Total War mods aswell. Funny how that works out.)

By the point I am forced to pirate a game to see if I want to buy it, there are only gained sales at stake. Because if I do not pirate, I will not purchase either.

 

This makes downloading indie games more morally reconcileable because they are rarely leaked and the pirated copy is always a legitimate purchase in origin.

A counterpoint would be that indie games are often hurt more by piracy than AAA releases (making it more 'morally reconcileable' to download them).

 

In my case, by the point I am forced to pirate there are two options.

1. Me not pirating is a guaranteed loss in sales.

2. Me pirating is a potential sale.

[BruceVC]

 

In my case, by the point I am forced to pirate there are two options.

1. Me not pirating is a guaranteed loss in sales.

2. Me pirating is a potential sale.

 

I appreciate your candid responses to this topic.

 

I want to ask you some questions. Do you own a Rolex Daytona watch ? It will cost you about $10,000.00 but its a classic and amazing piece of engineering

 

http://www.watchfinder.co.uk/Rolex/Daytona/116520/6418/item/23339

 

If you don't why don't you walk into your local Rolex store, put the watch in your pocket and walk out with it. Trust me you won't regret owning one.

 

Please only answer the questions above, I'll get to the Pirating connection later

[melkathi]

I'm just amused everytime I see someone claim that they are "forced" to pirate

[Mamoulian War]

And I am amused, that how can someone with any sense of reality connect Rolex watches with any kind of digital goods...

[BruceVC]

And I am amused, that how can someone with any sense of reality connect Rolex watches with any kind of digital goods...

 

I am surprised you cannot just answer the question I asked? Its not that difficult to understand, just humor me and play along with where I am going with this train of thought

[Lord of Lost Socks]

No because, I can not afford it, nor do I use watches. If I take the watch without permission I am hurting the sale of the watch. If I used watches and had the budget for it and liked it, I would probably buy it, though, since I can usually test the watch in the store. If I had an obscene amount of money where 10 000 would be in proportion what a few bucks is to me now, I might buy it on a whim online. But I would definately not buy it online otherwise.

 

A difference between watches and software is that watches are restricted by the physical world. You can not copy it and lend it for a limited period of time without giving the original or giving a copy. Software you can copy ad infinitum without cost. Which is why I fervently support demos, especially if you're a developer that is a little unknown trying to sell an ambitious product.

 

And forced is perhaps the wrong word. I am rarely forced to pirate(except Civilization IV because for some unfathomable reason the legit copy I bought did not work).

Edited December 11, 2012 by Lord of Lost Socks

[BruceVC]

No because, I can not afford it, nor do I use watches. If I take the watch without permission I am hurting the sale of the watch. If I used watches and had the budget for it and liked it, I would probably buy it, though, since I can usually test the watch in the store. If I had an obscene amount of money where 10 000 would in proportion what a few bucks is to me now, I might buy it on a whim online. But I would definately not buy it online otherwise.

 

A difference between watches and software is that watches are restricted by the physical world. You can not copy it and lend it for a limited period of time without giving the original or giving a copy. Software you can copy ad infinitum without cost. Which is why I fervently support demos, especially if you're a developer that is a little unknown trying to sell an ambitious product.

No because, I can not afford it, nor do I use watches. If I take the watch without permission I am hurting the sale of the watch. If I used watches and had the budget for it and liked it, I would probably buy it, though, since I can usually test the watch in the store. If I had an obscene amount of money where 10 000 would in proportion what a few bucks is to me now, I might buy it on a whim online. But I would definately not buy it online otherwise.

 

A difference between watches and software is that watches are restricted by the physical world. You can not copy it and lend it for a limited period of time without giving the original or giving a copy. Software you can copy ad infinitum without cost. Which is why I fervently support demos, especially if you're a developer that is a little unknown trying to sell an ambitious product.

 

Thanks for your honest response, you don't own such a watch for the same reason that 99% of the people in this world don't own one. They can't afford it. I have a second question. Lets say you decided to take the watch but you were caught shoplifting. When you went to court what do you think the judge would say if your defense was

" I was planning to buy the watch once I determined that it does add value in my life"

 

Do you think he would dismiss charges against you? If you think he won't please tell me why. Once again can you only answer the question

[Lord of Lost Socks]

Of course he would not. I am not arguing the legality, but the morality. There's nothing to argue regarding the legality.

 

And this comparison is a bit off already because I can afford the games I pirate. But, do go on. If I pirate a game I do have the money for it, but I am still on the fence. A good game is worth living on noodles for the rest of the month. A bad game is worth nothing to me. In fact it's something that costs me time if I would decide to play it.

 

To put it in perspective. I never pirate a game because I can't afford it. I pirate a game because I am wondering whether I should buy it. Not pirating will lead to me not buying it, guaranteed.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Lord of Lost Socks

[BruceVC]

Of course he would not. I am not arguing the legality, but the morality.

 

And this comparison is a bit off already because I can afford the games I pirate. But, do go on.

 

I am not attacking you directly, so please don't see it like this. I am making a point around the principle of justifying Pirating that people seem to make and I disagree with. This point I am making is an analogy so it may be about watches but it applies to everything else including Pirating. In summary

• You have agreed with me that there are things in life that you don't own because the result of stealing them is not worth you being caught. You are an honest person and like most of us you don't want to go to jail
  
• You have agreed with me that there is no legal precedence that says you can use something without paying for it and then decide if you want to pay for it
  
• So the reason why the majority of people Pirate is that they can. I want to stress this point, they can. There are no real consequences for Pirating.
  
• Almost every single moral or legal debate around Pirating would become moot if there real consequences, you would not make a moral argument if you could get caught. You just wouldn't risk Pirating
  
• You can argue " but is it illegal to Pirate, is it theft? " In every country in the world the law says it is. So therefore from a legal perspective it is.
  

End of the day I am hoping to convince you to see that Pirating software for whatever reason is the same as taking the Rolex, I cannot see the moral justification. People pirate software because they can get away without paying for it.

Edited December 11, 2012 by BruceVC

[Lord of Lost Socks]

Of course he would not. I am not arguing the legality, but the morality.

 

And this comparison is a bit off already because I can afford the games I pirate. But, do go on.

 

I am not attacking you directly, so please don't see it like this. I am making a point around the principle of justifying Pirating that people seem to make and I disagree with. This point I am making is an analogy so it may be about watches but it applies to everything else including Pirating. In summary

• You have agreed with me that there are things in life that you don't own because the result of stealing them is not worth you being caught. You are an honest person and like most of us you don't want to go to jail
  
• You have agreed with me that there is no legal precedence that says you can use something without paying for it and then decide if you want to pay for it
  
• So the reason why the majority of people Pirate is that they can. I want to stress this point, they can. There are no real consequences for Pirating.
  
• Almost every single moral or legal debate around Pirating would become moot if there real consequences, you would not make a moral argument if you could get caught. You just wouldn't risk Pirating
  
• You can argue " but is it illegal to Pirate, is it theft? " In every country in the world the law says it is. So therefore from a legal perspective it is.
  

 

I agree with almost everything up to here. If there we consequences to piracy I would not do it ever. That would lead in a decrease in company revenue that they receive from me. But since most pirates are not like me, it would increase their revenues received in general. The legality on this issue is clear.

 

I would stop pirating if there were consequences, however I would still argue the morality of my case even louder.

 

End of the day I am hoping to convince you to see that Pirating software for whatever reason is the same as taking the Rolex, I cannot see the moral justification. People pirate software because they can get away without paying for it.

 

This is where I differ with you, though you may just be unclear in if you're referring to me directly or to pirates in general(seems to be directed at both). If it is directed at me, my point is this:

I will buy a good game if I am convinced by the dev's, reviewers, fans or friends that it's a good game. If I am still on the fence I will either not buy it or I will pirate it if I'm intrigued by the concept but unconvinced of the execution(this has happened around 10 times in my life). If the game is good, that means less money for the food industry and more money for the game developer. If the game is bad the money goes to food, because I have no interest in playing a bad game and therefore I uninstall it. In case you still have trouble understanding, I made a quick flowchart. My way of piracy can only increase the sales of the product.

 

This is the only way of pirating that I can approve of morally. Enjoying a game without paying for it, is in my opinion morally wrong. Both are equally wrong legally.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Lord of Lost Socks

[BruceVC]

Of course he would not. I am not arguing the legality, but the morality.

 

And this comparison is a bit off already because I can afford the games I pirate. But, do go on.

 

I am not attacking you directly, so please don't see it like this. I am making a point around the principle of justifying Pirating that people seem to make and I disagree with. This point I am making is an analogy so it may be about watches but it applies to everything else including Pirating. In summary

• You have agreed with me that there are things in life that you don't own because the result of stealing them is not worth you being caught. You are an honest person and like most of us you don't want to go to jail
  
• You have agreed with me that there is no legal precedence that says you can use something without paying for it and then decide if you want to pay for it
  
• So the reason why the majority of people Pirate is that they can. I want to stress this point, they can. There are no real consequences for Pirating.
  
• Almost every single moral or legal debate around Pirating would become moot if there real consequences, you would not make a moral argument if you could get caught. You just wouldn't risk Pirating
  
• You can argue " but is it illegal to Pirate, is it theft? " In every country in the world the law says it is. So therefore from a legal perspective it is.
  

 

I agree with almost everything up to here. If there we consequences to piracy I would not do it ever. That would lead in a decrease in company revenue that they receive from me. But since most pirates are not like me, it would increase their revenues received in general. The legality on this issue is clear.

 

I would stop pirating if there were consequences, however I would still argue the morality of my case even louder.

 

End of the day I am hoping to convince you to see that Pirating software for whatever reason is the same as taking the Rolex, I cannot see the moral justification. People pirate software because they can get away without paying for it.

 

This is where I differ with you, though you may just be unclear in if you're referring to me directly or to pirates in general(seems to be directed at both). If it is directed at me, my point is this:

I will buy a good game if I am convinced by the dev's, reviewers, fans or friends that it's a good game. If I am still on the fence I will either not buy it or I will pirate it if I'm intrigued by the concept but unconvinced of the execution(this has happened around 10 times in my life). If the game is good, that means less money for the food industry and more money for the game developer. If the game is bad the money goes to food, because I have no interest in playing a bad game and therefore I uninstall it. In case you still have trouble understanding, I made a quick flowchart. My way of piracy can only increase the sales of the product.

 

This is the only way of pirating that I can approve of morally. Enjoying a game without paying for it, is in my opinion morally wrong. Both are equally wrong legally.

 

You have made some good points. The flowchart does explain things, so Pirating is your last option in deciding to play a game.

 

I do think you are the exception in this whole system pf Pirating, I believe the majority of people will happily Pirate games and not pay for them even if they enjoy them. So I have to be completely against pirating in any respects. I also work for a global software company so I see the insidious impact of Pirating.

Edited December 11, 2012 by BruceVC

[Lord of Lost Socks]

Just thought I'd bring up my unconventional utilization of piracy and to paint some grey in an otherwise black and white discussion. And I fully realize I am the exception. My mom told me I'm special from a very young age

 

Anyway, another thing that annoys me is that books in paperform don't automatically include rights to a digital copy of the book. It has led to me buying all my books in electronic format, because it's much more convenient, but my book shelf could do with a few more books.

 

I actually bought Inception in blu-ray format simply because it also came with a DVD and a digital copy. I thought the concept was so brilliant I bought it just to support it. I don't even particurarily care for the movie.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Lord of Lost Socks

[AGX-17]

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.

 

But if you eat the entire apple and only then decide whether it's good or not, you're a thief. Legally speaking. I mean, I personally am a pragmatist who would steal gleefully (except from intelligent, attractive women,) if there were no threat of justice coming down (or while drunk,) and I have pirated a few games in my time. I'm still a thief. A criminal. A fareless rider on a mandatory fare public transit system. If they're not offering free samples the samples aren't free. Everyone breaks laws, it all comes down to magnitude. A pirate with 40tb of content is worth the FBI's resources, a pirate with 3 games from a defunct company is irrelevant. It's all arbitrary. Like I said, humans take what they want for free if they can get it for free. I make no moral judgments here, just observations. That said, I am a P:E funder so I expect some degree of ethical compliance on that front from everyone on Obsidian's forums. The world must have more games by J.E. Sawyer (according to the gaming social network Raptr I'm the #1 player of New Vegas on planet Earth, that is how much I love his games. I canot get enough of that folksy Wisconsin accent.) MCA and Feargus are cool too, though.

Edited December 11, 2012 by AGX-17

[Malcador]

Well, they can always do another kickstarter to raise money for the games the world needs.

[mute688]

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.

 

Just a small disclaimer to start with: I don't pirate software or movies. Not because of some moralistic or ethical dilemma, pirating in my situation is simply a poor ROI.

 

We're on a bit of a slippery slope here. First copyright was justified as protection for the creators of original work, now it's necessary to protect the investment of those who sell other people's original work. You say that the publisher holding the copyright is necessitated by the high cost of game development. I would argue that the high cost of video game development is caused by publisher copyright and interference. The argument becomes, publishers create high costs which justify them holding copyright which is justified by the high cost of game development. The publisher dominated system creates an artificial necessity for their involvement. Publishers are like a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

I've been gaming for nearly forty years. In that time I have seen the industry change from one where publishers backed a developer who had or would create a product that was then marketed, to one where the developers create a product that ticks all the publishers required boxes. The problem with this is that I doubt many people get into game development for the money. The main driving force would probably be a love of games. Publishers, on the other hand, care about ROI and maximising the number of product sold. This means that publisher dominance creates a situation where all games must conform to a set of bullet points to maximise purchases while minimising time and money invested. The result...DA3, ME 4, Resistance 3, Gears of War 3, Zelda 18 Skyward Sword, Mortal Kombat 9, Pokemon 23 (“Black/white" version), Elder Scrolls 5, Battlefield 3, Uncharted 3, FarCry 3, Max Payne 3, Metal Gear 9, Deus Ex 3, Call of Duty 8: Modern Warfare 3, Saint's Row 3, SOCOM 4, Diablo 3, Forza 4, Final Fantasy 14 and Madden 20. The industry has changed from one of innovation and reward to one of iteration, mediocrity and a race for the lowest common denominator.

 

This all ties into the topic of piracy. Almost every other non-perishable product sold has the ability to try before you buy, or, at the least, some consumer protections that allow for the return of goods that do not meet vendor claims. Not so with video game products. You have no recourse for a bad game purchase that had to be made on faith because publishers don't want you to see their product's faults before purchase. Faith should have no place in a commercial transaction. With the decline of demos, video game purchases have become a crap-shoot. This is, I believe, why piracy is prevalent.

 

I'm not trying to justify pirating. I simply give my view on why I think some people pirate games. I also think this is where the industry is taking the wrong path. They seem to be only looking how many people are pirating (as if any of these industry analysts can give anything other than a guess) and attempting to stop them. I believe they should be looking at why people pirate games and trying to eliminate those causes. The people who pirate simply because they can are irrelevant. They would be unlikely to purchase a game at full retail price even if pirating were unavailable. They were never a lost customer.

[Diagoras]

You can argue " but is it illegal to Pirate, is it theft? " In every country in the world the law says it is. So therefore from a legal perspective it is.

 

Really? Because it's my understanding that in every single country in the world, copyright infringement is explicitly not theft. That's why "copyright infringement" and "theft" are two different crimes.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Diagoras

[Mamoulian War]

You can argue " but is it illegal to Pirate, is it theft? " In every country in the world the law says it is. So therefore from a legal perspective it is.

 

 

Wrong!

 

Because of the levy put on every single CD and DVD sold in many countries (so called piracy tax), law says you are able to download copy of a movie or a song for personal use after it has been publicly aired in Movie Theatre or Radio.

 

You can be persecuted if you share it while downloading, because that is direct infringement of the copyright.

 

OFC software does not fall into this category, because of two reasons...

 

1 - piracy tax is payed only to the movie and music industry copyright organization.

2 - there are now ways of legal public performance of the software.

 

That is called a balance between state mandatory tax going to some white collars without any effort made from people who never pirated but are using these media for movies of their children, pets, etc etc... and fair use.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Mamoulian War

[Rosbjerg]

You can argue " but is it illegal to Pirate, is it theft? " In every country in the world the law says it is. So therefore from a legal perspective it is.

 

Really? Because it's my understanding that in every single country in the world, copyright infringement is explicitly not theft. That's why "copyright infringement" and "theft" are two different crimes.

 

Well (and I'm guessing here) if you download a copy that you don't own and then share it, isn't it technically theft and then copyright infringement. If you however own a copy and then share it, then it's only CF.

[Lord of Lost Socks]

I would also like to say that one of the reasons piracy is so common is because of copyright laws and how they quite frankly give the customer a ****ty service instead of giving a good service.

 

Spotify has done so much more against music piracy than any of the Pirate Bay blocks. Because Spotify provides a good service at an affordable price. Netflix does the same, except the movie industry still seems terrified of it and on occasion flat out refuses to accept it. The fact remains that copyright laws are making my life in many cases worse.

 

I bought Mass Effect 3. Most of my games are on steam. Now I don't give a rats ass whether Origin or Steam is the norm. But the convenience of having everything I've bought on one platform as opposed to spreading it around to all of these softwares directly leads to the companies doing me a disservice. Now as a student in Business Administration(majoring in investments and funding) I have been taught that a companies primary focus should be to provide the customer with a good service that he wants to buy. Not making the customers life worse to gain profit. In an ideal world where these publishers would learn to work together, it wouldn't really matter what program I use. I could add my Origin friends on Steam and vice versa. When browsing for sales I would be using one program that shows me the sales for both. THAT is good service, and the copyright laws that hinder these things from happening are doing everyone a disservice, and frankly they're doing themselves a disservice because I have given up on Origin and rarely log on to it anymore. I would however be interested to buy Dragon Age 2 on a sale, but the hassle of using Origin outweighs my enjoyment of the game. If it was on Steam I'd buy it on the next steam sale.

 

And I'm not a Steam advocate. I'm just using it because that's where my games are and I have no way to transfer them anywhere else due to guess what.

 

I do realize there are financial challenges in the new world of internet. But frankly, those are challenges the companies have to face and work around instead of trying to go back to the past.

 

Here's an article I enjoyed reading about the subject: http://www.forbes.co...never-kill-you/

Edited December 11, 2012 by Lord of Lost Socks