Piracy

[LadyCrimson]

4. I think the items that they classify under piracy has grown FAR too expansive and too large.

I think the circumstances of what constitutes piracy (vs fair use) has definitely become too large, and yes that's largely because of sue-happy, profit-mongering companies. Avatars, or screen captures on a forum/blog etc., in my mind, should be "fair use." If anything, that's like free advertising. "What's that screenshot from?" "Diablo3." "Cool, looks interesting, might check it out."

 

But illegally (not paying for it) DL'ing Photoshop so you can use it to edit photos ... you're using that program to benefit you, your life, your hobby, even if you're not making a monetary profit. You're using the service, so to speak, of Photoshop's capabilities, without paying for it. To me that's like needing a screwdriver for your carpentry, not knowing how/not having the facilities to make one yourself, and then being outraged that you may have to pay (a reasonable amount) to get one ready-made.

 

Gaming, same thing. The difference there is the service/use benefit is harder to define, because "fun" is so subjective.

 

Of course, the difficulty of tracking exactly who pirates what, how many copies of what are pirated, etc., makes turning piracy into an 'activist' gesture rather difficult - anyone arguing for that last point about DRM would have a hard time because of all the indie/DRM-free games that get pirated, and so forth. That's why something like Kickstarter, despite its risks and problems, presents a much stronger message to the industry.

Agreed.

 

Thought experiment: what would really decide once and for all whether piracy is an act of cowardliness or making a point against industry exploitation? Answer: if piracy had a non-monetary cost. E.g. if piracy really ran the risk of legal problems for you, or you being locked out of online game services, etc - and you still pirated games despite those kinds of risks. If you simply decided not to play games anymore or pay for them, it would imply that actually, your former pirating was more about wanting stuff you can't afford.

If piracy became a situation where - in regards to digital piracy - it was easily discovered that "you" were doing it and/or the punishment for it was very affecting in some way, then I think you'd find the incidence of such would drop dramatically. It wouldn't go away...never does imo...but it would be less rampant. The relative anonymity of the internet/file sharing is one reason (imo) that it has exploded into such an issue now. Again...it's not like walking into a store, taking the gamebox off the shelf, and trying to walk out again. Digital piracy has removed a lot of the consequence risk from pirating, so if you brought it back, I think the results would end up implying the latter (wanting stuff can't afford).

Edited May 4, 2012 by LadyCrimson

[Gorth]

Do you go to church? Many of those songs (well in Protestant church's) are actually still under copyright. A LOT of people sing those songs (and that's actually a good thing, believe it or not...I think the songwriters wouldn't mind in MOST cases...that's what they want even) on their own without paying rights. In fact modern religious tunes are perhaps one of the most pirated...but not on software...in performances without the express approval of the songwriter and composers (performance being ANYTHING done where A SINGLE CREATURE could actually hear you...).

No idea what people sing in a protestant church (I usually only go there for funerals and when somebody I know gets married), but the stretch of land where I originated from they would mostly sing traditionals. They are no longer "copyrighted", although a particular song book or recording of them would be. That means, you couldn't just photocopy the book or play the record at a gathering, but nothing prevented you from singing it your self or get some musicians together to perform it.

 

As for "Happy Birthday", besides birthdays being much overrated, how many people actually sing that at large public gatherings? Alternatively, wait until it expires in 2030

[Tigranes]

In my experience, CCMs (Contemporary Christian Music) present quite a logistical dilemma for small-time church worship teams. You need to distribute mp3s so people can learn the songs to perform, and you don't want to tell everyone to pirate, but they're as expensive as pop music CDs. Usually the solution is mix CDs and a 'blind eye'. The idea being that you don't want to openly provide free CCMs to everyone, but you assume the people who made these CDs are more than happy to see that kind of 'group use'.

 

Same with sheet music books and the like - you buy them when you can, but you can't exactly require every aspiring worshipper to buy 2 CDs and three songbooks, or something. All this is actually quite analogous to academia, though universities often spend a boatload of money to buy access to journal databases, a library and the like, so it's a rather different proposition when you see some dude scan an entire book and email the class for the next week.

[Gorgon]

If people didn't pirate windows they would have to give a version away for free. Students and assorted poor personages would use linux out of necessity and eat away at the PC OS monopoly microsoft has enjoyed for so long. It would be nothing short of disasterous long term. There is a similar synergetic effect with software. People who have learned the ropes with a cracked version tend to stick with it when they eventually end up buying. Assuming they don't get too used to not paying. If used in a professional capacity one would want to have one's affairs in order anyway, and it's a deductable.

[Hurlshort]

DRM is a pain and I'm no fan of it, but it's simply the publisher's attempt at protecting their product. It may be misguided, but it could be a lot worse as well. At least the publisher's aren't trying to make up for the fact their products are pirated by charging the paying customers more. Game budgets have skyrocketed over the years and we still continue to pay the same price.

[Tigranes]

I think that's exactly what they do, actually. The cost of games have been going up at every level - initial production costs, marketing costs, and in many cases, end consumer costs. It's harder to tell if you're a PC only gamer, but with licensing fees as part of the reason, console games have led $60 and now even pricier games, and new PC AAA titles are now beginning to debut at well over 50 (e.g. Starcraft 2). And even when the cost doesn't filter down directly to how much one game costs, it does fuel publishers turning developers into whipping boys, designing by committee, adopting the Hollywood corporatization model and the Reign of the Suits, etc.

 

Piracy is only one part of all these seismic shifts, and it's impossible to tell how big a factor it is at any juncture, but its effect isn't just on DRM.

[Hurlshort]

It's funny, but after I wrote that I read an article about a bunch of DLC and how multi-tiered collector's editions are beginning to become more common. I guess costs are going up!

[Malcador]

Sure is an interesting approach.

[213374U]

On a slightly related note, EA servers seem to be down. As a result, users are locked out of their games -you know, the stuff they paid for- especially those that actually paid more for one of those Collector thingy editions that came bundled with DLC that needs authentication every time the game is booted up.

 

So, apparently, the more money you give these people, the worse they treat you. On the other hand, if you pirate, you get the better product, 100% hassle free. It's funny 'cause it's true.

 

But what really boggles my mind is that you still have people pop up and defend the rights of these suits, when they are perfectly happy to trump -paying- customers' rights in return. Have fun getting shafted, I guess.

[Hurlshort]

Did they take the servers down on purpose?

 

I just don't get the whole attitude here. There are quite a few things in my life that I have bought that didn't work exactly the way I wanted. That doesn't give me a reason to start stealing those things. I either deal with, or I buy a different brand, or numerous other solutions that don't involve anything illegal.

[Gorgon]

I don't see a moral issue with using a crack for offline play, assuming you have payed for the game.

[Malcador]

Did they take the servers down on purpose?

 

I just don't get the whole attitude here. There are quite a few things in my life that I have bought that didn't work exactly the way I wanted. That doesn't give me a reason to start stealing those things. I either deal with, or I buy a different brand, or numerous other solutions that don't involve anything illegal.

 

Different from not working at all. Odd that there's no backup service so you're not locked out of a single player game due to planned or unplanned outages. Cracking a game you paid for doesn't really seem like stealing in any sense, either.

[GhostofAnakin]

On a slightly related note, EA servers seem to be down. As a result, users are locked out of their games -you know, the stuff they paid for- especially those that actually paid more for one of those Collector thingy editions that came bundled with DLC that needs authentication every time the game is booted up.

 

So, apparently, the more money you give these people, the worse they treat you. On the other hand, if you pirate, you get the better product, 100% hassle free. It's funny 'cause it's true.

 

But what really boggles my mind is that you still have people pop up and defend the rights of these suits, when they are perfectly happy to trump -paying- customers' rights in return. Have fun getting shafted, I guess.

 

This is one of the things that really bugs me about games making it so you have to have internet access to play any sort of DLC content associated with a game because of that authenticity requirement each time you start up the game, especially when a lot of the time it's their servers that are causing the issue, not just a case of someone simply not wanting to be connected to the 'net.

[Hurlshort]

I don't see a moral issue with using a crack for offline play, assuming you have payed for the game.

 

I don't either. I wish it weren't necessary, but this typically isn't what we are referring to when we talk about piracy.

 

edit: Numbers man didn't say anything about buying and cracking the game. He said:

 

So, apparently, the more money you give these people, the worse they treat you. On the other hand, if you pirate, you get the better product, 100% hassle free. It's funny 'cause it's true.

Edited May 5, 2012 by Hurlshot

[Monte Carlo]

But what really boggles my mind is that you still have people pop up and defend the rights of these suits, when they are perfectly happy to trump -paying- customers' rights in return. Have fun getting shafted, I guess.

 

Halfwit.

 

Do you really,*honestly* believe drivel like 'the suits' FFS? Trust me, whatever happens 'the suits' will turn a dime. The people you and people like you are *really* screwing are the likes of Avellone and Sawyer and Ferg and the guy who designs the cover art or manufactures jewel cases or drives the delivery truck or designs the architecture for the website that delivers the digital version...

 

Piracy robs people of their jobs. Period. The ****ing adolescent squealing of the pro-piracy lobby (or, 'thieves' as we call them in the real world) actually turns my stomach.

 

Srsy, grow the **** up. Because you sound like a tard.

[greylord]

I don't see a moral issue with using a crack for offline play, assuming you have payed for the game.

 

I don't either. I wish it weren't necessary, but this typically isn't what we are referring to when we talk about piracy.

 

edit: Numbers man didn't say anything about buying and cracking the game. He said:

 

So, apparently, the more money you give these people, the worse they treat you. On the other hand, if you pirate, you get the better product, 100% hassle free. It's funny 'cause it's true.

 

Actually, it IS what we are talkinga bout when we are discussing piracy. That's one of the big focus arenas for Game Publishers.

 

If you've cracked a game you've pirated it.

 

Don't agree...well...maybe you should take it up with EA and Activision.

 

HOWEVER, that debate goes back before DRM and internet activations, and in fact was ONE OF THE MAJOR reasons for them requiring internet activations. Accordingly they felt it was harder for the exe to be cracked if you had to go and get that it was an authentic copy over the internet via their authentication (either at first when installed, every time you start it up, or by always having to be on internet when you play) then the older versions of requiring a CD check or other types of game anti-piracy measures.

 

If you used a crack, you're part of the problem and are making life difficult for the rest of us. At least that's what the publishers want us to think. Thankfully I don't buy into the logic of theives (the publishers) who would steal your money and give you a game that you can't use occasionally at their whim...and instead blame them.

 

But...if you've cracked an exe or a game...then yes...that actually is considered a MAJOR problem with piracy. Its also considered a major problem with game authentications and such via second hand sales and second hand games...as you are bypassing their method to only allow ONE game per PC (or if you are lucky, per account).

 

Plus, how can they do invasion of privacy and monitor what you are doing with your game if you refuse to log in? They want to commit their crimes as well...and if you commit your piracy...they can't do that!

 

They've even made LAWS against that in the US (luckily other nations are MORE sane), if you circumvent some of their protections, NOT ONLY are you a pirate at that point, but you've also committed a pretty serious crime in and of itself.

 

As I said, fortunately, OTHER nations are more sane and not quite so interested in hurting it's own citizens as the US is in this matter. Unfortunately the US seems to show a predilection to go after other nations citizens to prosecute those citizens for US laws instead of whatever nations laws are actually in effect.

[greylord]

But what really boggles my mind is that you still have people pop up and defend the rights of these suits, when they are perfectly happy to trump -paying- customers' rights in return. Have fun getting shafted, I guess.

 

Halfwit.

 

Do you really,*honestly* believe drivel like 'the suits' FFS? Trust me, whatever happens 'the suits' will turn a dime. The people you and people like you are *really* screwing are the likes of Avellone and Sawyer and Ferg and the guy who designs the cover art or manufactures jewel cases or drives the delivery truck or designs the architecture for the website that delivers the digital version...

 

Piracy robs people of their jobs. Period. The ****ing adolescent squealing of the pro-piracy lobby (or, 'thieves' as we call them in the real world) actually turns my stomach.

 

Srsy, grow the **** up. Because you sound like a tard.

 

I disagree. You want to know why I don't buy as many PC games as I used to.

 

DRM and stupid Anti-piracy items.

 

Period.

 

You want to know why just about EVERYONE I know has ceased buying as many PC games as they used to.

 

DRM and stupid anti-piracy models.

 

I game more on the Consoles specifically because they don't give me the anti-piracy stupidity of DRM as much these days. Unless it's a pretty major game (I did get ME3 on PC, I also got all the bioware games on PC, and I do game on the PC with some major releases, also have Starcraft 2 on PC) that I think I'll enjoy more on the PC than a console (I prefer RTS games, Point and click games, and shooters on PC) then I'll go with my PS3.

 

The most brilliant idea I've seen recently against Piracy...Kickstarter.

 

Anti-piracy measures are what's killing FAR more sales in the Western nations where I live than any stupid piracy itself.

 

Now in the Middle East, china, and most of asia when I travel there, it could be a different matter as almost all that's available are pirated games on the market, but in the West...the anti-piracy measures are some of the stupidest decisions I've ever seen.

 

It's not the pirates hurting the game makers, it's their treating customers as pirates and hence shooting themselves in the foot.

[Monte Carlo]

^ Games are a product. They aren't a necessity.

 

You could compare it to music. I don't like live music gigs. I find the oppressive security, crowds, merchandising and travel onerous (yep, like online activation etc). So I buy a CD or digital copy of an album instead.

 

Am I missing out because of a condition of buying the product (i.e. live music at a gig)? Yes. Is that my choice? Yes.

 

If you want to sock it to 'the man' wait until the game is DRM free on a site like GoG or go buy small indie games and flip the big boys the finger. Then they might listen. Stealing only makes them build up their security. Legitimate lack of custom doesn't.

 

In reality this is about wanting free stuff. The rest of these arguments, albeit ingenious, are exactly the type of thing you'll hear in mitigation from shop-lifters, burglars and fraudsters of every stripe.

 

In short? Not liking the way a product is delivered or administered does not excuse theft. That I even have to explain this is astonishing.

[Malcador]

Would be cool if we could get an accurate metric of how much money a company "loses" due to piracy.

[Hurlshort]

You guys are putting the cart before the horse here.

 

DRM and stupid anti-piracy models exist because of piracy. Using those as an excuse to pirate is not logical.

[Tigranes]

I find the DRM argument incomplete at best, because I somehow doubt it's the chief motivator for piracy in general. That said:

 

You could compare it to music. I don't like live music gigs. I find the oppressive security, crowds, merchandising and travel onerous (yep, like online activation etc). So I buy a CD or digital copy of an album instead.

 

Am I missing out because of a condition of buying the product (i.e. live music at a gig)? Yes. Is that my choice? Yes.

 

I find this logic equally problematic, because it assumes that the way the industry and law currently works is The Way It Is, and the only choice the consumer has is to bend over and get with the program, or refuse by denying oneself access to the product. Why is that? If I really want to go to live music gigs, but hate the oppressive security, wouldn't the ideal solution be to try and find some way that live music gigs gradually reduce that? Idealistic, sure, and not always possible, but oppressive security came into being in the first place because of the consumers and their behaviour and wishes; stands to reason that consumer behaviour and wishes can also play a role in getting rid of it.

 

If you're an avid gamer, you care about getting good games in the future, you want to support devs like Obsidian, and you want DRM and other measures to stop screwing you over, then you don't give yourself the choice of buying, say, Ubisoft DRM games or not buying anything, you try and figure out how you can meaningfully influence that situation. Is the answer piracy, to lend your +1 to the torrent download figures? Or is it something else? Or is everything we do going to have no effect? I think that's the real question and a very tricky one to answer. Certainly I find "pirate to fight the man" in itself ridiculous, because there's nothing to show that pirating actually helps your cause, but I find "buy or don't buy" equally ridiculous, because it actively disenfranchises your own right and capability as a consumer.

[Meshugger]

But what really boggles my mind is that you still have people pop up and defend the rights of these suits, when they are perfectly happy to trump -paying- customers' rights in return. Have fun getting shafted, I guess.

 

Halfwit.

 

Do you really,*honestly* believe drivel like 'the suits' FFS? Trust me, whatever happens 'the suits' will turn a dime. The people you and people like you are *really* screwing are the likes of Avellone and Sawyer and Ferg and the guy who designs the cover art or manufactures jewel cases or drives the delivery truck or designs the architecture for the website that delivers the digital version...

 

Piracy robs people of their jobs. Period. The ****ing adolescent squealing of the pro-piracy lobby (or, 'thieves' as we call them in the real world) actually turns my stomach.

 

Srsy, grow the **** up. Because you sound like a tard.

 

It doesn't really matter how wrong it is or how angry you become about it. As long as pirates offer better service than the publishers, people will pirate the **** out of anything.

 

There's an example from the other end of the spectrum: People prefer to buy electronics from trusted manufacturers because of the reliability, stability, quality and warranty. Pirates can't provide that and thus the market is in the manufacturers favour.

[Orogun01]

You guys are putting the cart before the horse here.

 

DRM and stupid anti-piracy models exist because of piracy. Using those as an excuse to pirate is not logical.

Yet this a point in the escalation of DRM and piracy that companies should really consider another mean to stop pirates.

Think of it as M.A.D. and the pirates being ****roaches able to survive a nuclear strike, companies are destroying only themselves with their measures.

[Monte Carlo]

But what really boggles my mind is that you still have people pop up and defend the rights of these suits, when they are perfectly happy to trump -paying- customers' rights in return. Have fun getting shafted, I guess.

 

Halfwit.

 

Do you really,*honestly* believe drivel like 'the suits' FFS? Trust me, whatever happens 'the suits' will turn a dime. The people you and people like you are *really* screwing are the likes of Avellone and Sawyer and Ferg and the guy who designs the cover art or manufactures jewel cases or drives the delivery truck or designs the architecture for the website that delivers the digital version...

 

Piracy robs people of their jobs. Period. The ****ing adolescent squealing of the pro-piracy lobby (or, 'thieves' as we call them in the real world) actually turns my stomach.

 

Srsy, grow the **** up. Because you sound like a tard.

 

It doesn't really matter how wrong it is or how angry you become about it. As long as pirates offer better service than the publishers, people will pirate the **** out of anything.

 

There's an example from the other end of the spectrum: People prefer to buy electronics from trusted manufacturers because of the reliability, stability, quality and warranty. Pirates can't provide that and thus the market is in the manufacturers favour.

 

Reality doesn't bother me. Puerile excuses do. People should just say "I want free stuff - yeah I'm a thief." Then we can move on and discuss. At the moment you've got these ****tards in denial about reality.

[Blarghagh]

What I don't even...

 

You know what those "suits" will do if a game they financed and published doesn't sell? They stop giving money to the game developers to make new games, that's what. Boycotting because of DRM is pointless - you're eventually just hurting the thing you love, and publishers won't stop using DRM anyway.

 

I think people here are assuming that their reasoning for piracy is also the same as other people's. I hear people here complaining about DRM or online activation or whatever, sure, fine, you have your reasons. Faulty reasons, but at least you've done some basic thinking. But guess what, you're one of about three or four people who care about that. Everyone else just wants their stuff for free. Those people are why there is DRM on every game, and they're making sure your issues exist. Being pro-piracy because of something directly caused by piracy is moronic at best and vile and criminal at worst.