- Status
Might as well weigh in (for once, I'm gonna be part of a crowd! Woo!):
Piracy is theft. My Webster's (an older version, I admit) defines theft as "the act of stealing" and stealing as "to take without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force" or "to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance". Not a lot of question here.
Having said that, I don't pirate games and have never done so. Mostly because I don't want to, but also because I don't have the foggiest idea how.
Piracy is theft. My Webster's (an older version, I admit) defines theft as "the act of stealing" and stealing as "to take without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force" or "to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance". Not a lot of question here.
Having said that, I don't pirate games and have never done so. Mostly because I don't want to, but also because I don't have the foggiest idea how.
If I might ask, then, why do you do it anyways? Convenience?[/QUOTE]
He can't afford to get them himself.
Devil's advocate position:Might as well weigh in (for once, I'm gonna be part of a crowd! Woo!):
Piracy is theft. My Webster's (an older version, I admit) defines theft as "the act of stealing" and stealing as "to take without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force" or "to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance". Not a lot of question here.
Having said that, I don't pirate games and have never done so. Mostly because I don't want to, but also because I don't have the foggiest idea how.
Your analogy breaks down when you unilaterally equate piracy with theft.
Theft is a crime.
Copyright infringement is not defined as theft under the law.
If I copy a game, what have I physically taken from you?
these are the kinds of piracy <> theft arguments I've seen before.
Devil's advocate position:Might as well weigh in (for once, I'm gonna be part of a crowd! Woo!):
Piracy is theft. My Webster's (an older version, I admit) defines theft as "the act of stealing" and stealing as "to take without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force" or "to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance". Not a lot of question here.
Having said that, I don't pirate games and have never done so. Mostly because I don't want to, but also because I don't have the foggiest idea how.
Your analogy breaks down when you unilaterally equate piracy with theft.
Theft is a crime.
Copyright infringement is not defined as theft under the law.
If I copy a game, what have I physically taken from you?
these are the kinds of piracy <> theft arguments I've seen before.[/QUOTE]
What it ends up being is an argument over semantics. Just because you're taking something digitally doesn't mean you aren't taking it. I have no doubt that in the future, copywrite laws will start moving into theft territory, especially with the advent of purely digital media that can't be defined by tangible objects.
yeah, but what I'm taking isn't the game.
The publisher is not deprived of it's use (which is where theft laws originated).
What I'm taking is potential profits, which is a purely civil matter.
The publisher is not deprived of it's use (which is where theft laws originated).
What I'm taking is potential profits, which is a purely civil matter.
A combination of saving money and convenience.
Which is CURRENTLY a civil matter. I have a feeling that it won't stay that way forever.
T
Twitch
Someone may have said it but you often have to put your own money down to publish a book. It is very VERY high risk.
Which is CURRENTLY a civil matter. I have a feeling that it won't stay that way forever.[/quote]
Perhaps. But I doubt it.
What you describe has a very slippery slope. What if I hack World of Warcraft to dupe gold or dupe epic items for myself? I've essenitally made digital copies of something, and deprived the publisher of revenue. Should I be thrown in jail, the same as if I shoplifted from a store? That's the scenario we're looking at under your 'feeling'. It's no different than copying an mp3, a game, or any other 'intellectual property'. I looked at some bits that someone says that they own, copied them, and gave the copy to myself.
When I make a digital copy, I create a new thing, out of nothing. The orignal is neither harmed nor removed. If I steal an apple, that apple is gone. No one else can eat it. It is lost to the world forever. When I make a digital copy, I can provide as many eApples as I want to the world. I'm only harming the original creator of the eApple.
This is not a good example because Blizzard doesn't charge you to possess those things, just the access to them. You're not depriving them of revenue at all, you're just violating their EULA/ToS, because you still need to access them. They could kick your ass off the server, but it wouldn't even be a civil matter.
That's the whole point of IP law.
Which is CURRENTLY a civil matter. I have a feeling that it won't stay that way forever.[/quote]
Perhaps. But I doubt it.
What you describe has a very slippery slope. What if I hack World of Warcraft to dupe gold or dupe epic items for myself? I've essenitally made digital copies of something, and deprived the publisher of revenue. Should I be thrown in jail, the same as if I shoplifted from a store? That's the scenario we're looking at under your 'feeling'. It's no different than copying an mp3, a game, or any other 'intellectual property'. I looked at some bits that someone says that they own, copied them, and gave the copy to myself.
When I make a digital copy, I create a new thing, out of nothing. The orignal is neither harmed nor removed. If I steal an apple, that apple is gone. No one else can eat it. It is lost to the world forever. When I make a digital copy, I can provide as many eApples as I want to the world. I'm only harming the original creator of the eApple.[/QUOTE]
The problem being, as we progress in technology, information (IE virtual things) is becoming more valuable than actual things. When this happens, and I'm not saying that it will be any time soon, the laws will change to reflect it. IMO it's only a matter of time.
Also, loss of a potential sale, in the economic sense, is still a loss.
It's a good example of an extreme slippery slope, because I am still copying bits, which is pretty much the essence of what we're talking about if you make copying bits a crime.
And yes, if you copy enough bits and it's worth it to Blizzard, they can sue you in civil court, with no change in existing law today.
Bowie: I know it's a loss...I have never argued that lost profits != loss.
However, the fact remains that the original was unharmed. Theft law originally was conceived on the notion that you deprived the original owner of the use of their own property. In digital copying, no one is denied the use of the use of the original.
What we have here is essentially the invention of the replicator, albeit only for the digital world: We can create new copies of old things, essentially for free, without changing or damaging the original. All of copyright law and theft law to this point has had the presumption that you still had a physical thing that had to change hands. Right of first sale, for instance, in copyright law, is based upon the theory that you have PHYSICAL object that embodies the copyrighted work. A book, a CD, a paper manuscript. You're allowed to sell that physical thing, but once it's sold, the new owner is allowed to sell it if they want, without regard to the original creator. Just go to any pawnshop or secondhand bookstore to see that in action.
In this new digital world, I can buy a CD, and give it away, without ever losing the original. I can create a perfect copy, for free. The old concept of right of first sale doesn't really work any more.
If someone were to create a replicator that duplicated physical objects, I'm sure the economy would collapse for a time, since wealth is pretty much defined by the scarcity of physical goods. What we are seeing here is that same theory attempting to hold back the floodgates of a world in which the only scarcity of digital goods is artificial. It's going to take a while for the world to catch up the idea of this new reality, though we are seeing shifts toward acceptance every year.
And yes, if you copy enough bits and it's worth it to Blizzard, they can sue you in civil court, with no change in existing law today.
Bowie: I know it's a loss...I have never argued that lost profits != loss.
However, the fact remains that the original was unharmed. Theft law originally was conceived on the notion that you deprived the original owner of the use of their own property. In digital copying, no one is denied the use of the use of the original.
What we have here is essentially the invention of the replicator, albeit only for the digital world: We can create new copies of old things, essentially for free, without changing or damaging the original. All of copyright law and theft law to this point has had the presumption that you still had a physical thing that had to change hands. Right of first sale, for instance, in copyright law, is based upon the theory that you have PHYSICAL object that embodies the copyrighted work. A book, a CD, a paper manuscript. You're allowed to sell that physical thing, but once it's sold, the new owner is allowed to sell it if they want, without regard to the original creator. Just go to any pawnshop or secondhand bookstore to see that in action.
In this new digital world, I can buy a CD, and give it away, without ever losing the original. I can create a perfect copy, for free. The old concept of right of first sale doesn't really work any more.
If someone were to create a replicator that duplicated physical objects, I'm sure the economy would collapse for a time, since wealth is pretty much defined by the scarcity of physical goods. What we are seeing here is that same theory attempting to hold back the floodgates of a world in which the only scarcity of digital goods is artificial. It's going to take a while for the world to catch up the idea of this new reality, though we are seeing shifts toward acceptance every year.
figmentPez
Staff member
Arguing that piracy isn't stealing because theft has a specific legal definition that piracy doesn't meet is like arguing that slander isn't verbal attack because it doesn't meet the legal definition of assault. It doesn't matter if slander is a civil matter and not a criminal one, it's still an attack on someone's character or reputation, even if it isn't a physical one. Piracy is a form of theft, even if it is not a physical theft that is dealt with by criminal law.
actually, figment, slander doesn't bloody noses, break bones, or kill people. And there's the reason why it is not classified as assault, and why it carries different punishments.
Thanks for bolstering my point
Thanks for bolstering my point
S
Silvanesti
Thats not necessarly true. We can and have ordered individual books, with one book in an entire order. (especially if its a patron request). Libraries can do it because there's no law that forbids allow books to be loaned out. Now what we cant support is if someone takes that book and photocopies every page of it (though it has happened, and I don't care enough to stop someone). Publisheres give a slight discount, nothing great but otherwise dont care that they're selling to a library.
also, we can just buy a book straight from a bookstore if we need just one copy.
figmentPez
Staff member
What exactly is your point then?actually, figment, slander doesn't bloody noses, break bones, or kill people. And there's the reason why it is not classified as assault, and why it carries different punishments.
Thanks for bolstering my point
Assault doesn't have to bloody noses, break bones or kill people. You don't even have to touch someone to assault them, depending on the definition of assault in any given area. It is possible to verbally assault someone and face criminal charges for it. (Slander just happens to be an attack of a different sort.) Is it a "slippery slope" for someone to be charged with assault for saying "I'm going to kill you" and making threatening motions? That seems to be what you're implying with your suggestions that something physical has to happen for it to be a criminal matter, which is certainly not the case.
As for "copying bits", much of banking is purely virtual these days. Would copying digital stock certificates be any different than forging paper copies of the same item? If the original owners still have their copies, is anything really stolen by making a copy? What about art forgery? Does it make a difference if it's a copy of an original one-of-a-kind oil painting, or a limited run lithograph, or a million copy comic book run? How is it that forgery is a criminal offense if the original owners still have their copies?
R
Rubicon
SecureRom is a virus.
Sure it supposedly keeps content DRM'ed but it can cripple a PC, it performs virus like functions and has the ability to forever latch itself onto a PC requiring a format.
Oh and if we're covering all forms of media you can pirate, need I mention the Sony Rootkit fiasco? Yea, lets code a backdoor trojan into our music cd's and not tell the customers, awesomesauce!
E
elph
SecureRom is a virus.
Sure it supposedly keeps content DRM'ed but it can cripple a PC, it performs virus like functions and has the ability to forever latch itself onto a PC requiring a format.
Oh and if we're covering all forms of media you can pirate, need I mention the Sony Rootkit fiasco? Yea, lets code a backdoor trojan into our music cd's and not tell the customers, awesomesauce![/QUOTE]
This ^
And again I say, I have simply never downloaded any game that came with a virus or hidden tracker. I do scans every couple of weeks (but do not run any resident scanners) and come up with nothing malicious on my machine. I bet this can be said by Charlie and many of the other people that pirate.
I have even had software run better as a pirated copy then as a purchased copy and never had any purchased copy run better then a pirated (it's run at least as good though, at best).
What exactly is your point then?actually, figment, slander doesn't bloody noses, break bones, or kill people. And there's the reason why it is not classified as assault, and why it carries different punishments.
Thanks for bolstering my point
Assault doesn't have to bloody noses, break bones or kill people. You don't even have to touch someone to assault them, depending on the definition of assault in any given area. It is possible to verbally assault someone and face criminal charges for it. (Slander just happens to be an attack of a different sort.) Is it a "slippery slope" for someone to be charged with assault for saying "I'm going to kill you" and making threatening motions? That seems to be what you're implying with your suggestions that something physical has to happen for it to be a criminal matter, which is certainly not the case.
As for "copying bits", much of banking is purely virtual these days. Would copying digital stock certificates be any different than forging paper copies of the same item? If the original owners still have their copies, is anything really stolen by making a copy? What about art forgery? Does it make a difference if it's a copy of an original one-of-a-kind oil painting, or a limited run lithograph, or a million copy comic book run? How is it that forgery is a criminal offense if the original owners still have their copies?[/QUOTE]
People make copies of art all the time, trying to imitate the masters. Look on the web. It's only a crime (fraud) if they try to sell it. The crime isn't in the copying, it's in the fraudulent selling. Ie: Trying to pawn something off as a scarce commodity that isn't. Your analogy fails.
Let me point you to a website:
http://www.answers.com/topic/counterfeiting
The mere act of copying (for artistic purposes, for instance) is not a crime. The crime is intent to defraud.
Likewise, slander is NOT assault, or it would carry the same penalties as assault.
figmentPez
Staff member
You're right, slander is not assault, but your following statement does not necessarily follow. For instance, until recently it could be said that "cyber-stalking is not stalking, or it would carry the same penalties" or "cyber-bullying is not harassment, or it would carry the same penalties". However, recently states have begun to change the laws to reflect the reality of what can be done online. It should also be considered that two different things can have the same punishments.
Slander is not assault, because it does not involve a physical attack, or threat of physical attack. Slander does, however, have many things in common with assault, because it is an attack, it is illegal, and can still do a great deal of harm. Claiming that it is not an attack because it is not physical or not a criminal act is irrelevant. Slander is an attempt to harm someone else. Similarly, software piracy is stealing because it is an attempt to obtain what one does not have the legal rights to. It does not matter if it is depriving someone else, or if it can be subject to criminal prosecution, it is still stealing by the dictionary definition of the word.
Steal:
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force:
2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
Defraud: to deprive of a right, money, or property by fraud
Fraud: deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
What part of piracy is not defrauding the copyright owners? They own their intellectual property, and they have the right to be compensated for their work. When an individual downloads something they should have paid for, they have practiced trickery in order to unfairly gain access to the works of another. They have the intent to take what is not rightfully theirs, so they have the intent to defraud.
J
JONJONAUG
SecureRom is a virus.
Sure it supposedly keeps content DRM'ed but it can cripple a PC, it performs virus like functions and has the ability to forever latch itself onto a PC requiring a format.
Oh and if we're covering all forms of media you can pirate, need I mention the Sony Rootkit fiasco? Yea, lets code a backdoor trojan into our music cd's and not tell the customers, awesomesauce![/QUOTE]
SecuROM can reproduce itself onto other computers?
It isn't a virus, it's just needlessly obstructive and badly coded to the point where it can seriously screw up your system under certain conditions.
R
Rubicon
SecureRom is a virus.
Sure it supposedly keeps content DRM'ed but it can cripple a PC, it performs virus like functions and has the ability to forever latch itself onto a PC requiring a format.
Oh and if we're covering all forms of media you can pirate, need I mention the Sony Rootkit fiasco? Yea, lets code a backdoor trojan into our music cd's and not tell the customers, awesomesauce![/QUOTE]
SecuROM can reproduce itself onto other computers?
It isn't a virus, it's just needlessly obstructive and badly coded to the point where it can seriously screw up your system under certain conditions.[/QUOTE]
Ok no it can't replicate itself and spread onto other PC's, but with more games using it and more services like Steam and Direct2Drive offering these games for sale, it's easy to get it stuck on multiple PC's you own/have owned quite simply.
It's behavior is that of a virus, it cant be removed most of the time without gutting the registry beyond repair, it often restricts access to the software it protects, for whatever reasons (usually false positives for piracy, i.e. "disk not in drive" b.s.). etc etc etc
But that's just one example of a company injecting something into a game, based on the above examples of legit games being "completely safe".
I passed up on Spore, cause it had SecueRom on it. This was before the reviews all came out saying it was average at best as a game, so the hype was still insanely high. Still passed on it because of that software.
When game companies stop treating their customers like criminals from the start, maybe things would be a little different. I haven't pirated a game in years, I can buy them as I want. But the days of shareware versions of games, or even your run of the mill DEMO of games are going the way of the Dodo.
if anything is killing PC gaming (which judging from 11 million WoW players i dont see happening), it's the companies themselves. They figure they might lose X amount of sales on PC but their console ports will still see high sales figures. This might be true, but its not from a lack of us purchasing the game, its a lack of either piss poor implementation of a pc port or no way to really try the game before buying it.
case in point, Champions Online. I was interested in this. It's Open Beta, keyword..open..., lasted about a week. A single week. Remember when Open Betas were a month or two months long? Anyway, there was two ways to get into the "open" beta, Pay Fileplanet/Steam/Direct2Drive for a subscription to download/pre order OR get in on one of the "contests" various sites had where they obtained X amount of beta keys to give away, which always ended up gone in a matter of minutes. So basically, you were left with an option to PAY to demo an OPEN beta. Week passes, beta closes, game goes gold. Of course after it goes gold, theres no trial, nothing. You plunk down your $50 and get your 30 free days. What if you dislike the game on day 1? Thats $50 wasted.
I remember, and this wasn't but 3 or 4 years ago, when a MMO (for examples sake), would release an open beta, that was truly open. You simply signed up on their website, downloaded a client, and played till it ended. No paying money, no restriction, just an open beta. And they usually lasted more than a single 5-7 day period.
So yea, I can see where pirates get pissed off.
Buying a video game should not be like studying for a college thesis paper, I shouldn't have to do field research, reading reviews, watching videos, testing theories and asking questions, I should be able to try a game, before I hand over legal tender to purchase it. You might not torrent a car, but you sure do test drive it before hand. No, you don't illegally drive off in it if a dealership refuses a test drive but you get the point, how is Company X going to get a sale from some of us if they refuse to let us try a game?
*shrug* let them do what they want, i simply move on if a game offers no demo or trial. it might be the most awesomest game of all time, if i have to offer up money before hand, its not worth it, in my opinion
G
Gill Kaiser
What exactly is your point then?actually, figment, slander doesn't bloody noses, break bones, or kill people. And there's the reason why it is not classified as assault, and why it carries different punishments.
Thanks for bolstering my point
Assault doesn't have to bloody noses, break bones or kill people. You don't even have to touch someone to assault them, depending on the definition of assault in any given area. It is possible to verbally assault someone and face criminal charges for it. (Slander just happens to be an attack of a different sort.) Is it a "slippery slope" for someone to be charged with assault for saying "I'm going to kill you" and making threatening motions? That seems to be what you're implying with your suggestions that something physical has to happen for it to be a criminal matter, which is certainly not the case.
As for "copying bits", much of banking is purely virtual these days. Would copying digital stock certificates be any different than forging paper copies of the same item? If the original owners still have their copies, is anything really stolen by making a copy? What about art forgery? Does it make a difference if it's a copy of an original one-of-a-kind oil painting, or a limited run lithograph, or a million copy comic book run? How is it that forgery is a criminal offense if the original owners still have their copies?[/QUOTE]
His point is that there's a difference between slander and assault, just as there's a difference between piracy and theft. Nobody here is arguing that piracy isn't illegal, but those of you who are saying unequivocally that piracy is the same as theft are grossly oversimplifying.
Also, art forgery? It's not illegal to copy a unique piece of art, it's only a crime to sell the copy and claim it's the original, just as it's a crime to sell pirated software. Presumably, none of us are a street vendor from Singapore, so the analogy doesn't hold.
figmentPez
Staff member
I've never said that there is no difference between piracy and the theft of physical items. However, piracy is still stealing by the dictionary definition of the word, even if it's not a criminally punishable theft.
You should also note I never said slander is assault. I said that slander is an attack, despite it not being assault. See the parallel?
Again, I didn't quote that to say that game piracy is exactly like art forgery, I was just debunking the idea that "if the owner still has a copy, it's a victimless crime". I'm showing the logic is flawed. In other posts I've already pointed out that harm is caused by piracy because public perception of the value of software is diminished when people take it for free, which encourages others to do the same.
Furthermore, software isn't like a famous painting. The value in software is it's utility and entertainment. The high value in a Picasso is primarily in it's rarity. The motivation behind the copying is different (not to mention a digital copy of software can be perfect beyond the greatest forgery). A person who paints a copy of a Picasso, and hangs it in his own home is doing nothing wrong, but if he tells visitors that it's an original, he's defrauded them, even if he doesn't sell them the painting. He'd never face prosecution as long as he never tries to sell the painting, but it is fraud none-the-less. It doesn't matter if it's criminal fraud, it is fraud. He has practiced deceit for the purposes of personal gain (even if that's just impressing a few visitors).
It's the same for software piracy. It is stealing, regardless of if it is criminally prosecutable theft. Legal statutes and criminal prosecution are not the sole benchmark for the application of words like steal, attack, theft, etc.
I pirate because I'm a college student and I kind of lack money. And no, just dropping one of my main non-destructive outlets because I can't pay $70 a week for new games wouldn't work out well.
Besides, if a game is good enough I'll find a way to pay for it. Last week, I bought Assassin's Creed. And if Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines is any good, I'll buy it through Steam.
Besides, if a game is good enough I'll find a way to pay for it. Last week, I bought Assassin's Creed. And if Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines is any good, I'll buy it through Steam.
Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines IS very good, but your going to need to patch the hell out of it. You'll need the official patch and then the fan patch, which puts bugged out content back into the game, like crossbows and torches.
So when someone publishes a book that's in the public domain without paying the former copyright owned he's stealing it?! Because the legal status is the only difference there.
Wow, talk about arguing over semantics... sheesh. Anyone have a time machine so i can go back and make sure the word attack doesn't have that connotation?
G
GeneralOrder24
Bah, I made it through with no patches! I'm 100% sure that they couldn't make it worse, though
Whoever's arguing securom is a virus: Virus = Self Replicating, not malicious. Just because it's packed in an installer doesn't make it self replicating, either.
I haven't pirated a game in ages. Not because i think it's wrong or anything... It's not my problem.
It's just i want to keep companies i like in the black and therefore i do my part.
I agree games are stupidly expensive especially console games but i want devs to keep creating shit other than the sims and all that mmo crap
It's just i want to keep companies i like in the black and therefore i do my part.
I agree games are stupidly expensive especially console games but i want devs to keep creating shit other than the sims and all that mmo crap
I dunno about where you live, but here in Texas, cyberstalking carries the same penalties as stalking. They're the same crime.
It's very relevant. The harms are different. And thusly, the two crimes carry different penalties. That's my entire freaking point. Stealing a physical object has very different harms than copying a game. One will put you in the slammer, and one will see you pay a civil monetary penalty. They're not even in the same ballpark in terms of harms. Your own examples that you keep bringing up time and time again point this out.
So what's YOUR point? That there is a loss in copying games? I conceded that when I first started posting...why are you belaboring the point? If you pay attention and quit getting hung up on the semantics, we can agree on this point, and move on from there.
So let's move back to the concept of the magical replicator: IF I were somehow able to replicate my car, for free, and sell the copy, I would be harming Chevrolet. I would be taking money from their pockets, because I'd be in direct competition with them with their own product. I can see where that would be unethical. It lines up nicely with the copyright law having harsher penalties for distribution.
Now lets say I didn't have a car. I saw my neighbor's car, and decided to replicate it. Is that a crime? According to you, it is, because I've taken money from Chevrolet. But, for some reason, in the real world and not the 'digital world', the concept that this should be a crime seems absurd. If I can create a thing out of thin air, I should go to jail because it happens to be a copy of someone else's thing? Ridiculous.
And yet, what if I could make as many cars as I wanted, magically? Hundreds...thousands. Millions? The car industry would collapse, because they wouldn't be able to keep up with my ability to make magical free cars. The only thing keeping the car industry in business is that making cars is hard, and costs money..so you're willing to pay large sums of money to have someone do it for you.
Now imagine if everyone had the power to replicate anything. You can understand the chaos that would ensue: Some people would keep paying for things, out of loyalty or principle or a sense of obligation. If you read about why some people don't pirate games, you'll hear similar reasoning. Some people would think anyone who paid for anything was a sucker, and replicate everything they wanted. You'll hear that argument in the piracy debate as well. Some people will do so because of convenience, or because they're poor. But whatever the reasoning for paying for free goods, the global economy would collapse because no one would HAVE to pay for anything, except by legislative fiat. But simply making it illegal to replicate things would only hold back the tide so long, and once people realized that everything was essentially free, they would stop paying for things. The world would have to find another way to create the concept of wealth, if it could.
That's the situation we find ourselves in, in the digital world. In the good old days, to get an album, you still needed something physical to copy it to, and media wasn't cheap. It'd take an hour to move from album to tape, and you had to buy tapes. This helped keep piracy in check, as the process was cumbersome, and not cheap, and duplicates were inferior to the original. But still, people passed 'mix tapes' and stuff around, or xeroxed documents, etc.
And that brings up the matter of distribution. If you made a copy of a mix tape, you had one tape. You could give it to a friend, and make another, but it was still a physical object, and distribution was limited. But nowadays, you can make unlimited copies, nearly instantly, for essentially free, and make them freely available, instantly, to anyone in the world. And those copies are essentially perfect, rather than inferior copies. The only thing holding back piracy now is law and ideology. The physical barriers have all been removed.
Now, you can say that piracy=theft, because it causes a "loss"...and I agree that companies lose money when games are pirated. But it's an artificial loss. The company hasn't lost the product. The product isn't gone. It's not like me stealing a car. When I steal a car, the owner doesn't have it any longer. But if I duplicate a car, the original owner has suffered no harm at all. The only harm is to the car manufacturer, because they can no longer make money by charging me for cars. It's simply a loss due to business model failure. The business model of "I have something that is scarce, so you must pay me if you want it" no longer works in today's world in digital media--because these things are no longer scarce! If i want Taylor Swift's newest single, or Activision's newest game, I can get them, for free, with less effort than my primitive ancestors used picking an apple from a tree.
So, should I be jailed because some company's business plan failed? Is a failed business plan theft? Of course not.
There are plenty of companies that make money giving their software away. They have found other ways to generate revenue from their work. Look at DDO for instance. They have doubled their profits since going 'free' than they were making previously. It costs me nothing to download their game, and costs me nothing to play. But somehow, DDO is now thriving on that model. Likewise, There are plenty of bands encouraging people to distribute their music. They are finding other avenues (such as t-shirt sales and touring) to make money.
That's the world we're moving toward in this new reality. And, rather than Bowielee's theory that soon you will be jailed for writing down a particular set of ones and zeroes, my theory is that decades from now, there will be almost no money in artificially making a digital product scarce, but rather, companies that survive will have found a different way to monetize their product.
(edit because I had to leave for work before i could finish my points here..)
Exactly. I think i've made the point clearly enough. However, it's to his benefit and bolsters his point if he can make us agree on the point that "Piracy=Theft", when clearly it isn't.
And yet, in the digital world, we have exactly this situation. By some estimation, 80%-90% piracy rates, because millions of people want something that they know they don't have to pay for.
How do you put the genie back in that bottle?
My long-winded post above theorizes that you don't have to. That you can't. Instead, you accept the new reality and learn a new way to make your business work. We are finally starting to see some real movement in that direction from companies, and I think those are the right moves.
C
Chazwozel
I respect that you have the nuts to just admit it. I've pirated shit myself. I'm not going to make excuses to justify it either. I'm naturally a person that jumps on a 'free lunch', so to speak. If I find 20 bucks on the ground, I'm going to keep it etc...
To this day I still download songs instead of buying CD's. Why? Because I can and it's more convenient and cheaper than buying CDs or downloading mp3's from Applestore. Who actually buys CD's anymore? I know that songs are like a buck each, but 100 songs = 100 bucks. I don't feel like spending that, nor does Apple "backup" my mp3 purchase. I would possibly consider buying music if I had a guarantee to redownload it, if I had to. I know it's wrong. I know I'm in the wrong for doing it. But in my eyes, I don't get the security that I need to purchase. (which is why I do the same for movies)
The single reason I no longer download pirated video games is because I prefer to have a box/cd/download available on deck in case my computer settings change/computer messes up such that I need to reinstall. Plus I like the security of full software support and updates. I figure that security and the rarity that I purchase games to begin with is enough to warrant a purchase rather than a download.
---------- Post added at 08:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:01 AM ----------
We are finally starting to see some real movement in that direction from companies, and I think those are the right moves.[/QUOTE]
Things like Steam are a step in the right direction. You have to use Steam to verify the game purchase (some games are discounted), but Steam also allows the convenience of auto updates, support, community etc...
- Status