- Status
M
makare
How much is the product actually worth though?
figmentPez
Staff member
Whatever people will pay for it.
M
makare
Then if people are only willing to pay for it once it gets to a certain price than that should be fair. Because that was the value of it.
J
Jiarn
6packs example doesn't work actually, because it becomes devalued. The game does not gain or lose value based on when it's purchased. They also did not lose an opportunity, because I was never going to purchase it at full price, so again, I don't see how that applies.
Sometimes it takes a lady to put it into a better perspective than I could have. Thank you.
figmentPez
Staff member
Not if the seller doesn't agree to that price. Just because that price is all it's worth to certain people doesn't mean that they have a right to purchase.
J
Jiarn
Unless they buy it 2 years later.
figmentPez
Staff member
And the conversation just goes back around in a circle.
J
Jiarn
Yep.
figmentPez
Staff member
Hypothetical situation. A convenience store has beef jerky that it sells for $5 a pack. The cost the store pays wholesale is $1 for that same package. They have plenty in stock, can get more quickly, and it's sitting on the shelf dusty (basically, ignore the possibility of lost sales). Someone walks in, throws $2 on the counter, and steals a package of beef jerky. Did they just aquire $5 worth of beef jerky or $1 worth? Did they pay for the jerky or did they steal it? If the jerky might go on clearance sale later, did it make it acceptable to pay the cheaper price now?
I know my answers. It doesn't matter to me what dollar figure we put on the beef jerky. They didn't have the right to make a deal without the consent of the convenience store owner, even if he came out ahead on the deal. The price that the jerky might be in the future is irrelevant to what the convenience store is charging now. If the seller doesn't agree to the sale, it's theft (and I realize that many hold that copyright infringement isn't theft, and I know there's legal merit to that argument, but the non-legal definition of theft "to steal:
to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment." still fits.)
Now, we could talk all day about the effects of piracy on the value of a game. If people who are open about pirating make others less willing to pay full-price for the game, or if more people having the game (by any means) makes it more desirable in general. However, I don't think that's relevant. It doesn't matter if the beef jerky thief causes people to envy his snacking and run out to get their own, he's still a thief. Depriving someone of their right to intellectual property may not have the exact same consequences as being deprived of physical property, but that doesn't mean there are none. If we as a society value the creative efforts of artists, inventors, designers, architects and others, then we will protect their works and their rights to those works. Denying them the control the law grants them over their work shows disrespect both to the law and to the creators of the work that is infringed. Tossing them some money after the fact doesn't make it any better, in fact it just adds insult to injury.
I know my answers. It doesn't matter to me what dollar figure we put on the beef jerky. They didn't have the right to make a deal without the consent of the convenience store owner, even if he came out ahead on the deal. The price that the jerky might be in the future is irrelevant to what the convenience store is charging now. If the seller doesn't agree to the sale, it's theft (and I realize that many hold that copyright infringement isn't theft, and I know there's legal merit to that argument, but the non-legal definition of theft "to steal:
to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment." still fits.)
Now, we could talk all day about the effects of piracy on the value of a game. If people who are open about pirating make others less willing to pay full-price for the game, or if more people having the game (by any means) makes it more desirable in general. However, I don't think that's relevant. It doesn't matter if the beef jerky thief causes people to envy his snacking and run out to get their own, he's still a thief. Depriving someone of their right to intellectual property may not have the exact same consequences as being deprived of physical property, but that doesn't mean there are none. If we as a society value the creative efforts of artists, inventors, designers, architects and others, then we will protect their works and their rights to those works. Denying them the control the law grants them over their work shows disrespect both to the law and to the creators of the work that is infringed. Tossing them some money after the fact doesn't make it any better, in fact it just adds insult to injury.
J
Jiarn
You're using irrelevant comparisons. Because your examples, the company DOES PHYSICALLY lose money because of the transaction.
In mine, they were always going to get the $20. I just played it sooner. They didn't lose their distributor costs, their packaging costs, their shipping costs, their materials cost. Nothing.
In mine, they were always going to get the $20. I just played it sooner. They didn't lose their distributor costs, their packaging costs, their shipping costs, their materials cost. Nothing.
figmentPez
Staff member
Tell me, where does the convenience store loose money? They received more for the product than it cost them, and it was just sitting on the shelf gathering dust otherwise. They were always going to get $2 (at the clearance sale just before it's expiration date), the thief just got his jerky a little sooner.
You're right, they didn't loose any money. They only had their rights violated. You can decide yourself how much you value those rights, and the creative efforts of the people that made the game you played.
@Chibi
Well economically you lose money when the buyer chooses your competitors product, so that's rather relative...
If we're gonna go with the "money they could have made" then if someone that could afford it pirates it then it is a loss, even if the person is unsure if he'd like it or even says he wasn't gonna buy it, because there's always a chance he would have taken a risk an bought it to try it out... if we're talking about places where the medium income is around 100$/month then let's face it, unless the pirate is rich (in that economy) it's pretty obvious that there's no way you would sold it there...
If someone could spend 3 years to make a five loaves and two fish that could be used to feed everybody in the world i'm pretty sure if they sold each little piece for 50$ while people starved most people would agree that the guy that made them would be morally wrong...
What if i simply saw a shirt i liked at the store then went home and made a perfect copy of it... would i be stealing from the store? (no, but i would likely be stealing someone's shirt design... seeing how that's what IP is).
Well economically you lose money when the buyer chooses your competitors product, so that's rather relative...
If we're gonna go with the "money they could have made" then if someone that could afford it pirates it then it is a loss, even if the person is unsure if he'd like it or even says he wasn't gonna buy it, because there's always a chance he would have taken a risk an bought it to try it out... if we're talking about places where the medium income is around 100$/month then let's face it, unless the pirate is rich (in that economy) it's pretty obvious that there's no way you would sold it there...
Yeah, it's not like our entire economic system is based on the scarcity of physical objects, something which doesn't apply to ideas once someone comes up with them...
If someone could spend 3 years to make a five loaves and two fish that could be used to feed everybody in the world i'm pretty sure if they sold each little piece for 50$ while people starved most people would agree that the guy that made them would be morally wrong...
Yes, that totally stops pirates instead of just inconveniencing legit customers because pirates simply don't have to deal with it...
Except there's one giant difference... the store has 1 less physical object there to sell...
What if i simply saw a shirt i liked at the store then went home and made a perfect copy of it... would i be stealing from the store? (no, but i would likely be stealing someone's shirt design... seeing how that's what IP is).
the problem with IP's and in the same sense legal sales of products containing said IP's. is that you would also have to indict the retailer selling the product for less in the equation as well if you were to accuse them of stealing. lets say for example, best buy decides that after 3 or 4 years they need to unload barbies horse adventures. ya know it just didn't sell, so now its clearanced for 5 dollars a pop. The company has already lost their investment but they would still rather make a small amount back then just throw them in the dumpster. I guess what I am getting at is anytime any of us has picked up a special deal from any retailer we have become dirty thieves! 
TL: DR-> hey look that thing i wanted for X dollars is now Y dollars on clearance, I AM A DIRTY THIEVE!
TL: DR-> hey look that thing i wanted for X dollars is now Y dollars on clearance, I AM A DIRTY THIEVE!
Dave
Staff member
People who justify pirating are lying to themselves. Pirating IS stealing. You get something for nothing. That something took a lot of people a lot of time and effort to make and you are not giving them their pay. We have a lot of writers (or wannabes like me) and musicians here. How would they feel if their stuff was pirated?
And the home sewing thing? Fucking please! Talk about a stupid attempt at making apples into oranges. Let's make it a 1-to-1 thing. You at home write a book or record a song. That's not illegal. Stop being disingenuous.
And the home sewing thing? Fucking please! Talk about a stupid attempt at making apples into oranges. Let's make it a 1-to-1 thing. You at home write a book or record a song. That's not illegal. Stop being disingenuous.
You buy something on clearance is not theft.
The value of the theft is determined by the value of the game at the time of the theft.
Don't think about this as only Vevendi losing money. Every one involved in getting that product to the store lose out on piracy.
If you can not afford to play cutting edge games, find another hobby, or wait till it is within your price range. That is what I basically do. I am still waiting for Civ V to have its price drop.
If you enjoy something of higher value before you buy it, you are taking that difference.
The only time they don't lose money to pirates, is when the pirate plays the game and like it so much he buys it right away. I DOUBT THAT EVER HAPPENED.
The value of the theft is determined by the value of the game at the time of the theft.
Don't think about this as only Vevendi losing money. Every one involved in getting that product to the store lose out on piracy.
If you can not afford to play cutting edge games, find another hobby, or wait till it is within your price range. That is what I basically do. I am still waiting for Civ V to have its price drop.
If you enjoy something of higher value before you buy it, you are taking that difference.
The only time they don't lose money to pirates, is when the pirate plays the game and like it so much he buys it right away. I DOUBT THAT EVER HAPPENED.
J
Jiarn
Again, it's a moral issue and you're trying to turn it into a money issue. It is not.
They, again, are always going to recieve the $20 instead of $60. By downloading a digital copy of the game, not even from their servers, they've lost nothing financially in the situation.
I agree it's not the most moral way to do it, but you have to stop thinking on those lines if you're going to understand the reality of it.
They, again, are always going to recieve the $20 instead of $60. By downloading a digital copy of the game, not even from their servers, they've lost nothing financially in the situation.
I agree it's not the most moral way to do it, but you have to stop thinking on those lines if you're going to understand the reality of it.
Dave
Staff member
Dude! Of COURSE it's a money issue! When you STEAL SOMETHING someone loses out. In this case, the makers of the product put sweat and tears into the creation and instead of people buying it, they steal it. This means that the author/artist, manager, etc. all the way down to the janitor lose money on the deal. A BUSINESS that doesn't sell as many products loses money. This is a moral issue for those who steal and a money issue for those who are the victims of the theft.
In economic terms enjoying it or not in the time until it reaches a price you're willing to pay for it makes little difference... what matters is whether or not the extra money is spent.The only argument is that if pirating wasn't an option the person in question would have bought it earlier for the higher price...
Morally there's little difference between pirating it for a little while vs doing it forever, isn't it... how long you do it is only relevant when it comes to punishment/repentance/etc.
Well fun fact, if i take Mark Twain's book and make copies of it and sell it it's totally legal... yet i would be doing to him the same thing i'd be doing to an author that's alive today...
Why we should pay for a virtually unlimited resource like IP is because the people producing them need to eat and acquire those resources that are still scarce.... people recognizing that is why copyright law was created in the first place. But they also recognized that at some point copy right should expire... otherwise when we make fire we'd not only have to pay for the material we're burning but also the whole concept of fire...
Actually the home-sewing thing was used to mock certain arguments being used that work just as well against someone building a reasonable facsimile at home... hell, if you look at it historically the phonograph was going to kill being a musicians as a paying gig and all sorts of stuff.
J
Jiarn
Sorry Dave, they were always going to get the $20. Putting software on discount is a choice the company makes to continue making money on a product they can no longer sell at full price.
And if he did the same thing sixpackshaker is doing with Civ V the company would still receive the same amount of money...the only thing different is that he would have taken the moral high road and set a better example...
And if you sell your book to someone else the people that made it make no money either... and yet not only it's not stealing but it's an actual right of the buyer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_sale_doctrine Of course according to the developers/publishers that doesn't apply to software because you're only buying a license... why the license isn't transferable beats me though...
Since the option is to pirate (steal,) until the price drops, Best Buy, WalMart, Steam, etc. are losing their rightful revenue for developing and marketing the game. The extra money can also help the recovery of the economy, instead the pirates are benefiting nobody.
The reason retailers and online game sellers can sell the game for less in a year or two time, is that the developer sends a price break to the marketers, who then send the lower price down to the customer.
The home tailor does hold up as an argument, especially if they can make an exact copy of the "dress" trade marks and all.
That is why Chinatowns all across America get the warehouses raided because of all the knock offs that are coming in to the country. They are stealing intellectual property as much as a pirating organization. Even more so because because they are selling the "dress" for a profit, where there is normally no money changing hands in most piracy cases.
J
Jiarn
So waiting for the price to drop at the retailers is as bad as pirating because the retailer is losing money?
this is what i was getting at to build a strawman of the argument. (Not a good use of the terminology, but its the most fitting use for what i was trying to do)
you know I honestly thought the argument was simply that it was stealing to wait for a game to drop in price. i forgot that krisken already explained to me it included first pirating the game.
J
Jiarn
That is the argument and they're bringing morality into a financial discussion.
J
Jiarn
It's not. That's just it. If I'm not physically taking anything that cost them a sale (such as stealing the box full of CDs, art, boxing, manuals etc) they spent nothing and lost no copy to sell to other customers.
If I still purchased the game at the discounted price, they lost no money at all.
If I still purchased the game at the discounted price, they lost no money at all.
Eh... i think you misunderstood why i said the thing about the game... i was just thinking out loud on how the people making games do see them as different then a book... really, see here: News: Pre-owned 'cheats developers' - THQ - ComputerAndVideoGames.com You'd no longer have the disk either.
Also, if you made a copy you'd also no longer have the object... you'd have another object with he same text on it... but that's just me nitpicking (i got one, what if you memorize the book and then sell it... you are keeping a copy of it in your head... )!
On the actual subject: the point about selling the book forward was about how the makers of it don't get any money, they lose out as you put it... they don't sell an extra copy because you sold it instead of them... that's why they went to court over that and the courts had to instate the 1st sale thing... thus that alone is not a compelling argument.
Added at: 15:26
The point is that while it's both the financial argument isn't as strong as the moral one under the conditions Jiarn outlined because either way the end financial result is the same for the company.
You only want to pay the sale price for a game? Then wait until it actually goes on sale and then buy it while the rest of us suckers pay full price but get the chance to play it right away. Simple.
J
Jiarn
Why? Cause it's "wrong"?
Again, morality vs financial. You're having the wrong conversation here.
Again, morality vs financial. You're having the wrong conversation here.
Why is it okay for you to dictate how much you want to pay for the game?
Do you pirate most of your games early only to buy the discounted version later?
Do you pirate most of your games early only to buy the discounted version later?
I think you are having the wrong conversation, not really sure where you are on the situation. You are asking if the company loses money when you steal their product. They do. Lets move on.
J
Jiarn
Yet you've not proven my point wrong other than a morality issue.
They did not lose a copy of the game to sell at full price, they did not lose shipping costs, they did not lose material costs for the actual game. I'm sorry but they didn't lose a dime. I still pay for the game on the same time frame and cost that I was going to initially.
They did not lose a copy of the game to sell at full price, they did not lose shipping costs, they did not lose material costs for the actual game. I'm sorry but they didn't lose a dime. I still pay for the game on the same time frame and cost that I was going to initially.
Yes because as a single father of two kids with a very small income, it's the only way I can afford to play games. That doesn't make it "right". That's just my reason.
- Status