Export thread

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/12248010

Well.... let me try to be more clear on that.

Can a company lose money to pirates who never intend to buy game in the first place? I would assume that if a person is a potential customer and face with an option to pirate vs buying, then the company DOES lose money since that is one less potential customer.

How does these company figure the number that they lose billions? Do they go by how many times it was downloaded? does it have a secret software that report to the "home" that these games are hacked?

Can you really claim you lose money if the person never intend to buy? I know that if a person can "steal" X dollars by NOT buying the game and play, but if pirating wasn't available (in a perfect world) then that person may not buy in the first place (supposely)

Now how can a company fight against people who are never willing to pay for a game in the first place? I think making a game affordable may curb some pirates (the people who willing to pay but can't afford the high price tag)

Last but not lease. What kind of customers are there?


People willing to buy collector's edition
People willing to buy regular edition
People who pre-order (either above)
People who can afford games that are less than X dollars
People who are willing to buy games as long doesn't have restrictive DRM
people who are going to play the game and pass time and not willing to pay

I think companies do indeed lose money through piracy. I also think they overstate the amounts they lose to an extreme amount for maximum impact. Since it's literally impossible to track lost cost, it's nothing more than a guess as to how much they lose.

Having said that, there are times when I'd LOVE to give someone money and do not have the avenue to do so. For example, I wanted to buy the DVDs of the BBC show QI. But the only ones I could find could not be played on my DVD player because of regional differences. So I'm currently downloading them. I want to buy them. I can't.

Funnily enough, games are where I don't download. I have before, but for ones that I couldn't find anymore, like the old Sierra or LucasArts games. Abandonware, as it's called. But the moment it pops up on Steam? Well, maybe not the moment, but when they have a sale on it, like their Boxing Week one? Boom, bought. And happily.

That said, I'm not a game fanboy that needs to buy the game as soon as it's released. Games drop in price ridiculously quick, so waiting even a couple of months can save me $30 and up, even new. Though I've broken it twice, I have a personal promise not to buy a game for more than $30. The first time was for pre-ordering Dead Rising 2, but that was with a good chunk of credit. The second was Smackdown 2011, again with a chunk of credit. There are games that I've yet to beat that I've bought, so it's not like I can't wait, anyway.

But yeah, I can understand the company's grief about downloaders. Some don't bother paying money EVER for a copy of a game. But there's enough fanboys to keep their profits high. I firmly believe in the idea of paying for what you like.

Of course, the reason I've now moved most of my movie collection to digital is because I'm tired of paying for what I like...over and over again in different formats (theatre, video, DVD, now Blu-Ray).

That's an easy question: Depends on the pirate.

If it's someone who had zero intention of ever buying the game? Then nope.

If it's someone who was interested in the game and wanted to try it out before buying? Possibly because even if the buyer didn't like the game, at least the company recieved funds.

If it's someone who's going to buy the game when it eventually hits a price mark they can afford? Nope, they'll still get as much money as they were going to in the first place.

But if that person pirates the game, he will not buy the product, hence the product is being used for free, therefore the company loses money.

sixpackshaker said:

But if that person pirates the game, he will not buy the product, hence the product is being used for free, therefore the company loses money.

Click to expand...

some pirates (what I use to do) is download games that seems interesting and then I buy them (if there is no demo) but later I discover steam and since I bought all my games from them (at least most of the PC stuff)

Chibibar said:

some pirates (what I use to do) is download games that seems interesting and then I buy them (if there is no demo) but later I discover steam and since I bought all my games from them (at least most of the PC stuff)

Click to expand...

Sorry you are unbelievably rare. Very few people will buy the cow when the milk is free.

sixpackshaker said:

Sorry you are unbelievably rare. Very few people will buy the cow when the milk is free.

Click to expand...

huh? I don't get that saying but ok.

Not that rare, I'm the last category as well. I can't buy games over $20, so I will "play" them till I can buy them.

In online gaming for example, a company will set up a server based on X amount of documented sales. If I sold a million "Call of Duty: Adammon Ops" discs, and research showed that 65% of those purchases will end up online, I would create server infrastructure to be able to handle 10% of those users at any one time.

Pirating removes any kind of demand restriction and now I either boost up infrastructure to support excessive users (which costs me money) or I don't and I lose customers because the servers can't handle the strain of both paying and non-paying users.

And this is independant of lost opportunity costs.

Adammon said:

In online gaming for example, a company will set up a server based on X amount of documented sales. If I sold a million "Call of Duty: Adammon Ops" discs, and research showed that 65% of those purchases will end up online, I would create server infrastructure to be able to handle 10% of those users at any one time.

Pirating removes any kind of demand restriction and now I either boost up infrastructure to support excessive users (which costs me money) or I don't and I lose customers because the servers can't handle the strain of both paying and non-paying users.

And this is independant of lost opportunity costs.

Click to expand...

but doesn't server stuff like that would need authentication of valid serial key? (kinda like Steam method) so pirate version using the same key/hack key won't work?

Jiarn said:

Not that rare, I'm the last category as well. I can't buy games over $20, so I will "play" them till I can buy them.

Click to expand...

I know you guys say that, but it is still theft. You play a $50 dollar game for two years then wait for the price to drop to $20, still means you stole $30 from the company.

Adammon said:

In online gaming for example, a company will set up a server based on X amount of documented sales. If I sold a million "Call of Duty: Adammon Ops" discs, and research showed that 65% of those purchases will end up online, I would create server infrastructure to be able to handle 10% of those users at any one time.

Pirating removes any kind of demand restriction and now I either boost up infrastructure to support excessive users (which costs me money) or I don't and I lose customers because the servers can't handle the strain of both paying and non-paying users.

And this is independant of lost opportunity costs.

Click to expand...

This is largely why Blizzard now filters all online play through Battle.net, to verify actual registered games.

The obvious answer to everyone's dilemma is, of course, demos followed by Steam-like authentication. I know there are those who HATE that you have to check in online to work a game, but it's really the only way to prevent pirates.

In short, the answer is obviously "yes."

Let's say we have a non-pirateable game (How? Magic, I guess).

-People who want to buy the game will buy it regardless. No lost sale. Cha-ching!
-People who weren't going to buy the game anyway will continue to not buy the game. Also not a lost sale regardless of whether they are 'collectors' who would have had the binary but never played it had they been able to pirate it.
-However, people who were going to have to save/wait/upgrade/etc before they could buy the game may be tempted to get the 'free' copy instead. These people are the lost sales. Yes, there are those who will avoid the temptation of the cracked/free copy (I'm one of 'em, laugh all you want), but there are plenty who will give in and get the unofficial copy. These people are the ones who have cheated the company. Whether they buy it later or not is further clouded by how they acquire it. Buying a used copy fully cheats the original publisher because the second purchase carries no payment/royalty to the publisher (and that's why there's such a huge debate about reselling games, and why so many are moving to subscription).

And I could go on (and still may) but my break time is over, and I must return to work.

--Patrick

sixpackshaker said:

I know you guys say that, but it is still theft. You play a $50 dollar game for two years then wait for the price to drop to $20, still means you stole $30 from the company.

Click to expand...

So someone who doesn't play the game for 2 years stole $30 as well according to you?

I'm pretty sure the unanimous argument for this is "Yes, they do, but not everyone who pirates was willing to buy it in the first place." A sale is only "lost" when the person is actually willing to buy it, but there is no way to measure this objectively, so game companies exaggerate every instance of piracy as a lost sale.

And no, waiting fro a price drop is not stealing. The company already got paid for the copy your buying by the people your buying it from. Your only depriving them of money if you buy used, but that is still legal.

I agree with Dave that I see that kind of model coming.

also perhaps...
"The future will be stream-ivised". Ok that doesn't work so well but you try making it fit with televised.

-it eliminates re-sales (used copies)
-it eliminates a home system needed to put media into or onto
-it nearly eliminates there is even a product. only parts of a product sent to you.
-it allows a company to use online authentication too

Jiarn said:

So someone who doesn't play the game for 2 years stole $30 as well according to you?

Click to expand...

wut?

Jiarn said:

So someone who doesn't play the game for 2 years stole $30 as well according to you?

Click to expand...

you find utility from some one's product and you do not pay for it, it is theft.

I sit on the sidelines and wait until the price drops, I did not use that game when it was $50. I stole nothing, because I did not use that game for those 2 years.

Sorry man, but I'm still buying it. Just because I used it for 2yrs didn't mean anything to the company.

Jiarn said:

Sorry man, but I'm still buying it. Just because I used it for 2yrs didn't mean anything to the company.

Click to expand...

You got two years of unpaid use out of the product. It's electronic, which doesn't make it feel like a tangible thing, but if it weren't you'd consider it completely differently.

It's just a strange society that considers IP so differently than physical property.

Jiarn said:

So someone who doesn't play the game for 2 years stole $30 as well according to you?

Click to expand...

How does that logic apply? Games (and movies) go down in price because people generally want to play new games more than they want to play older ones. There is more demand for new games, so the price is higher. This is basic economics. People are willing to pay for the privilege of certain things. They pay extra for certain brand names. They pay extra for limited editions. They pay extra for backstage passes. They pay extra for early access, and that's what this is. Paying $50 for a new game is paying to have access to it before those who are only willing to pay $20.

Ooh, I like the comparison between brand new games and backstage passes. Kudos, man.

figmentPez said:

How does that logic apply? Games (and movies) go down in price because people generally want to play new games more than they want to play older ones. There is more demand for new games, so the price is higher. This is basic economics. People are willing to pay for the privilege of certain things. They pay extra for certain brand names. They pay extra for limited editions. They pay extra for backstage passes. They pay extra for early access, and that's what this is. Paying $50 for a new game is paying to have access to it before those who are only willing to pay $20.

Click to expand...

Yet explain to me, how they lose $30 with how I do it.

Jiarn said:

Yet explain to me, how they lose $30 with how I do it.

Click to expand...

I never said that they did. Virtual goods are a difficult thing to talk about, because you didn't deprive the company, or some other customer, of any physical goods or effort. However, that doesn't make what you did acceptable. You got access to a game without right. It doesn't matter that you later paid for a license. If you weren't willing to pay the price that the copyright holder fairly and legally offered, then you shouldn't have violated their rights by taking the game anyway.

I've always wondered about if it is ok to dl movies I already have on tape. Technically I already paid for the movie. Did I pay for the tape or what?

Ditto, makare. Like I said above, there's a lot of movies in my collection that I don't care for the special features or a high definition version. So, I've been selling them off and moving them to digital. A vast majority of my collection used to be VHS. And a large number of them I've seen in theatres. So I've paid for them multiple times. The studios have gotten more than enough of my money from the same damn movie.

A judge in California ruled it's legal to make copies of your DVDs, just like it's legal to make MP3s out of your CDs. However, the same judge also said that any software capable of doing so is illegal. That's like saying it's legal to take a recipe and bake it into a cake, but anything that can effectively be used as a pan to bake that cake is illegal. Want to turn flour, sugar, eggs, etc. into delicious cake? Use only your bare hands and the power of your mind!

Hey Dave, not the cheapest of routes, but AnyDVD (http://www.slysoft.com/en/anydvd.html) can play DVD's on your PC no matter what region it's in (and it can burn the DVDs even if it has encription on it) just putting that out there. Basically you install it and have it open on your taskbar pop in the DVD in your PC and it plays in whatever you use, Windows media player for example. It's worked great for me.

I think VLC media player does the same thing, but is also an all-in-one format reader.

figmentPez said:

I never said that they did. Virtual goods are a difficult thing to talk about, because you didn't deprive the company, or some other customer, of any physical goods or effort. However, that doesn't make what you did acceptable. You got access to a game without right. It doesn't matter that you later paid for a license. If you weren't willing to pay the price that the copyright holder fairly and legally offered, then you shouldn't have violated their rights by taking the game anyway.

Click to expand...

This is the argument you should have been making to begin with, instead of claiming money was stolen and muddying the issue.

AshburnerX said:

This is the argument you should have been making to begin with, instead of claiming money was stolen and muddying the issue.

Click to expand...

sixpackshaker was the one who said money was stolen. When Jiarn responded to that with illogic, I pointed it out.

figmentPez said:

sixpackshaker was the one who said money was stolen. When Jiarn responded to that with illogic, I pointed it out.

Click to expand...

Ah, my mistake.

It is like stealing a shirt in the spring and then paying for it once it goes on sale in the fall. You had use of that shirt for 6 months, while it was still more valuable, then pay when it is less expensive. You guys are just lucky the police has so many violent offenders to chase.

wait.... so you are saying if a pirate download a game that is worth at 50$ and later actually buy the game for 20$ they are stealing 30$?

or if I didn't buy the game and wait for the price to drop to 20$ and bought it (like steam sales) am I still stealing 30$?

(I'm so confuse)

figmentPez said:

sixpackshaker was the one who said money was stolen. When Jiarn responded to that with illogic, I pointed it out.

Click to expand...

I pointed out illogic with illogic. It wasn't my "point" I was trying to prove.

Also, the difference here is "It's immoral to use it for those 2 years" and not "The company loses $30".

I'm not denying the immorality of it, I'm saying, the company loses no money the way I do it.

They haven't lost any money, but they have lost an opportunity to make money that is rightfully due to them. 6pack's example with the shirt is an excellent simplified example.

Chibibar said:

wait.... so you are saying if a pirate download a game that is worth at 50$ and later actually buy the game for 20$ they are stealing 30$?

or if I didn't buy the game and wait for the price to drop to 20$ and bought it (like steam sales) am I still stealing 30$?

(I'm so confuse)

Click to expand...

Yes.

How much is the product actually worth though?

makare said:

How much is the product actually worth though?

Click to expand...

Whatever people will pay for it.

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.

SpecialKO said:

They haven't lost any money, but they have lost an opportunity to make money that is rightfully due to them. 6pack's example with the shirt is an excellent simplified example.

Click to expand...

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.

makare said:

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.

Click to expand...

Sometimes it takes a lady to put it into a better perspective than I could have. Thank you.

makare said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Unless they buy it 2 years later.

And the conversation just goes back around in a circle.

Yep.

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.

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.

Jiarn said:

You're using irrelevant comparisons. Because your examples, the company DOES PHYSICALLY lose money because of the transaction.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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...

Piotyr said:

It's just a strange society that considers IP so differently than physical property.

Click to expand...

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...

Dave said:

The obvious answer to everyone's dilemma is, of course, demos followed by Steam-like authentication. I know there are those who HATE that you have to check in online to work a game, but it's really the only way to prevent pirates.

Click to expand...

Yes, that totally stops pirates instead of just inconveniencing legit customers because pirates simply don't have to deal with it...

It is like stealing a shirt in the spring and then paying for it once it goes on sale in the fall. You had use of that shirt for 6 months, while it was still more valuable, then pay when it is less expensive. You guys are just lucky the police has so many violent offenders to chase.

Click to expand...

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

If you enjoy something of higher value before you buy it, you are taking that difference.

Click to expand...

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.

Dave said:

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?

Click to expand...

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...

Dave said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Dave said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Dave said:

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.

Click to expand...

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...

When you sell a physical book you no longer have the object. NOT THE SAME THING! If the person selling keeps a copy then it's NOT legal.

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...

Click to expand...

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.

So waiting for the price to drop at the retailers is as bad as pirating because the retailer is losing money?

Jiarn said:

So waiting for the price to drop at the retailers is as bad as pirating because the retailer is losing money?

Click to expand...

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.

That is the argument and they're bringing morality into a financial discussion.

Why does it have to be EITHER a moral OR a financial decision? It's both.

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.

Dave said:

When you sell a physical book you no longer have the object. NOT THE SAME THING! If the person selling keeps a copy then it's NOT legal.

Click to expand...

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

Dave said:

Why does it have to be EITHER a moral OR a financial decision? It's both.

Click to expand...

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.

Jiarn said:

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.

Click to expand...

Jiarn said:

If I still purchased the game at the discounted price, they lost no money at all.

Click to expand...

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.

Why? Cause it's "wrong"?

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?

Jiarn said:

Why? Cause it's "wrong"?

Again, morality vs financial. You're having the wrong conversation here.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Azurephoenix said:

Do you pirate most of your games early only to buy the discounted version later?

Click to expand...

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.

Jiarn said:

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.

Click to expand...

Fair enough... kids are expensive as hell...

As for the companies don't lose a dime bit... I can see your point, but at the same time... there's got to be something lost when a person gets to use the software for free for a number of months before they buy it at a discounted rate.

Bones said:

TL: DR-> hey look that thing i wanted for X dollars is now Y dollars on clearance, I AM A DIRTY THIEVE!

Click to expand...

Did you miss the part where Jiarn includes having that thing for two years while promising to buy it for Y dollars in the event the publisher lowers the price? That's not the same thing as acquiring something during a clearance sale.

@Li3n said:

either way the end financial result is the same for the company.

Click to expand...

Incorrect, simply because the decision of a company to lower the price is in part also determined by the level of it's first-run sales. If they know that a ton of people pirated their games, they're not going to lower their prices in the forlorn hope that these people who would rather steal than pay the first-run price or wait for the lower clearance price are ever going to buy their games. This also effects the ability of the company to make money back in the same reasonable time period as they are expected to pay their own expenses back.

Jiarn keeps saying, "they'll always get $20", but how do they know that? Besides the impossibility of that, why would anyone think that an anonymous promissory note would actually be good? If you finish a game in a month, why would you pay money for it 2 years later when the price goes down?

Pez, 6Pack, and Dave are quite right; one of the things you're paying the $50 tag for is the right to own and play the game the moment it comes out. If you pirate the game when it comes out, even if you somehow pay $20 for it 2 years later, you've essentially stolen the value of that IP which includes the right of playing it immediately.

Azurephoenix said:

Fair enough... kids are expensive as hell...

As for the companies don't lose a dime bit... I can see your point, but at the same time... there's got to be something lost when a person gets to use the software for free for a number of months before they buy it at a discounted rate.

Click to expand...

There's the conversation of the developer feeling he/they did not get paid for the amount of work they put in, and I can appreciate that. Which is why I'm glad when a game I enjoy does well in it's inital months and if I had the kind of income that would allow those kinds of purchases I would gladly take them at full price. I don't wait for the discounted price just because "I can" because if that was the case, I just would never pay at all.

I still try and give my support in the only way I can which is to purchase it once the price has reached my income level.

Azurephoenix said:

Fair enough... kids are expensive as hell...

As for the companies don't lose a dime bit... I can see your point, but at the same time... there's got to be something lost when a person gets to use the software for free for a number of months before they buy it at a discounted rate.

Click to expand...

There is. Most people after playing the game for a couple months won't bother to actually buy it.

I'm not one of them and he specifically said "then they buy it at a discounted price."

If you wait till the price drop, the games will still be new to you.

Read reviews online to determine if the critics you like, like the game too.

That way you do not cut into into the Publisher's profits.

You've yet to show any way that the publisher lost anything. I'm not "renting to decide if I like the game". You're still not getting it. I check the online reviews to seee if I'll like the game, I find a game I am completely interested in, I find a copy till I can afford it, then I pay what I can, when I can for the game.

It's NO different than borrowing the game from a family member till I can afford it or is that stealing too? Don't give me "Well he paid for it so they got their cost" because they're still not getting money from ME at that point.

If you're going to continue to stick your fingers in your ears and make an attempt to financially justify your piracy again and again despite the ludicrous nature of your claims, there's no further point to discussing it. You are stealing the game, even temporarily, and paying less for it later doesn't justify it.

Ok... so let me see if I understand all of it (I think I do I read all of it but still confuse still)

Software LEET (made up name) original release for 50$ but 6 months down the line it is reduce to 30$ and then 10$at 1year)

If I wait until it is 30$ to buy (cause I didn't want to pay full price) and install and play. I am stealing? (confuse on this part)
If I pirate FIRST and late BUY the software at 10$ I am stealing? (according to some on the board, I would be consider a thief since the time of release to 10$ is 1 year (from above)) cause of time opportunity?
If a pirate download the game and never buys it, we agree it is stealing (no gray areas) but shouldn't be count on loss (IMO) since they will never buy the product in the first place.

Digital products vs physical products differ since physical products there is a limit in quantity. Digital products are virtually unlimited (i.e. just need more serial number which can be generated right?)

Copyrights are in place to protect the maker of these IP so they can make money (pay all their employees and business cost) so they can make MORE products.

Not buying the game at full price can hurt the company in the long run cause they will be less revenue for future development?

Did I get it all?

Piotyr said:

If you're going to continue to stick your fingers in your ears and make an attempt to financially justify your piracy again and again despite the ludicrous nature of your claims, there's no further point to discussing it. You are stealing the game, even temporarily, and paying less for it later doesn't justify it.

Click to expand...

Seeing as how you refuse to debunk any of my points, (Ex: according to your stance, borrowing the game from someone till you purchased it later at discount = stealing) it really does seem like you're the one going "la la la". I've responded to every point instead of saying "I'm right, you're wrong" as you seem to be doing. Sorry to hear you no longer wish to attempt to debate.

They (everybody that is in the supply-chain) lost the the difference in the price from the time you stole their product, until the time you actually buy the product (which I still don't believe.) It is the simplest way to put this. If the utility is $20, wait till the game is $20.

Don't copy that floppy.

If you take the game when it costs $20 and buy it for $9 when it goes on a bigger discount, you still took the difference. It's simple economics. I have an economics minor, I don't use it much, but I've been in these arguments back in college 100's of times.
Added at: 17:02
Chibi, pirating first is subverting market pressure. All the companies involved sell at the high price first because that is what the market bears. As technology changes, tastes change, new games come out, and when the companies involved make their desired profit... market price will lower. So if you jump in and gain "utility" from it when it is expensive and then wait for the market to change, you forced them to lose that difference.

If you just wait for market pressures to change the price, you are just working with the natural flow of the economy.

Jiarn said:

Seeing as how you refuse to debunk any of my points, (Ex: according to your stance, borrowing the game from someone till you purchased it later at discount = stealing) it really does seem like you're the one going "la la la". I've responded to every point instead of saying "I'm right, you're wrong" as you seem to be doing. Sorry to hear you no longer wish to attempt to debate.

Click to expand...

You're an ignorant fool, and haven't really addressed anything.

Borrowing it from someone else is different from pirating, since you're basically taking an extra copy of it. It's simple economics. You take something that is worth $50 for nothing, and then pay $20 for it later and don't think you've taken financial advantage of the situation. It's pretty cut and dry that you aren't interested in a debate, you are justifying something clearly wrong to feel better about yourself about it.

Alright since apparantly we're getting into name calling and personal attacks. I'll go ahead and step out.

Just fyi, it's exactly the same (financially) as borrowing it from a friend. Sorry.

If I use an artist's artwork as a wallpaper with no intention of buying the actual art, is it the same thing as dling a game I never intent to pay for?

makare said:

If I use an artist's artwork as a wallpaper with no intention of buying the actual art, is it the same thing as dling a game I never intent to pay for?

Click to expand...

If there is a GPL or CC license on the work (or the artist said it was okay via ToU or some such), then no.

No the artist did not say it was ok.

Jiarn said:

Alright since apparantly we're getting into name calling and personal attacks. I'll go ahead and step out.

Just fyi, it's exactly the same (financially) as borrowing it from a friend. Sorry.

Click to expand...

Well Jiarn, I think pirating and borrowing from a friend are two different things. At least how I see it.

If you are borrowing from a friend, your friend can't play it since you now hold the license (assuming we currently ignoring the EULA about borrowing)
Pirating, you are technically "borrowing from a friend" but your friend is still playing it. Thus, "technically stealing" during that time.
Now, the "gray area" would be borrowing from a friend AND your friend is still playing BUT paying for it when it is cheaper (in a perfect assuming that you are willing to pay all pirate games at price point of 20$ but you just want to play when it is "worth" 50$)

Am I getting it right?

Pirating, you are technically "borrowing from a friend" but your friend is still playing it. Thus, "technically stealing" during that time.

Click to expand...

Well that's the oddest definition of stealing i ever heard...

SpecialKO said:

Incorrect, simply because the decision of a company to lower the price is in part also determined by the level of it's first-run sales. If they know that a ton of people pirated their games, they're not going to lower their prices in the forlorn hope that these people who would rather steal than pay the first-run price or wait for the lower clearance price are ever going to buy their games. This also effects the ability of the company to make money back in the same reasonable time period as they are expected to pay their own expenses back.

Click to expand...

Like i said, under Jiarn's conditions first-run sales would be the same either way... your argument takes into account the possibility that he's lying to himself or us and that he'd actually buy it at a higher price...

And if we're gonna turn it into that then we won't get anywhere because we don't have any hard data either way... and neither does the company, which is why it's probably a better idea for them to adjust their strategy based on sales instead of how many times a game is d/l from a torrent site.

Piotyr said:

Borrowing it from someone else is different from pirating, since you're basically taking an extra copy of it. It's simple economics.

Click to expand...

Once again with the equating a virtually limitless product with a physical one that's subjected to scarcity... 500 years ago there was no concept of IP even... while scarce resources has been with us forever...

Hell, 500 years ago making a copy of a book and making sure your book stayed as close to the master's was the norm, and without that we wouldn't be where we are.

makare said:

If I use an artist's artwork as a wallpaper with no intention of buying the actual art, is it the same thing as dling a game I never intent to pay for?

Click to expand...

Depends on how long ago the artist was alive... and if it was before Steamboat Willie...

makare said:

No the artist did not say it was ok.

Click to expand...

Is the artist selling digital prints of his work?

@li3n
I am just getting clarification of Jiran's post about his version of pirating (he said he is still paying for them LATER i.e. when it is on sale) he equates it like borrowing from a friend.

Covar said:

Is the artist selling digital prints of his work?

Click to expand...

It does not really matter, if it is for sale digitally or not. If Pablo Picaso was alive now, painted a masterpiece, it is sitting in a gallery for sale, and some one gets a good digital image out. Since the art has not been sold, and it is out on the internet, the artist has the potential for losing profit on the sale.

My brother tries his hardest to keep his clients form posting non-trademarked images on their websites. But generally once he sells an image to a client it is no longer his intellectual property. It now belongs to Shell, Exxon, or Academy. Then if the image is stolen from the end client it is their loss not his.

Use of images has more gray area (fair use policies) than software, copy right, and other intellectual property.

@Li3n said:

@Chibi

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...

Click to expand...

Bullshit. Our enconomy is based on scarcity of anything, be it a physical object, manual labor, expertise, artistic talent, or anything that is limited in supply. Even though some ideas can be readily mass produced once they are implemented, new ideas are still a limited commodity, and the people who not only are capable of implementing those ideas, and have the time, inclination and resources to do so are even rarer.

Patents and copyright are a reflection of the value our society holds for the creation of new ideas. If we value new ideas, the creation of content and the solving of problems, then we'll respect the rights given those creators and try to ensure that the legal framework doing so is fair both to artist/designer/etc. and society at large.

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...

Click to expand...

Strawman argument. We're talking about movies and games. The only people whose quality of life will be directly impacted by these works is the artists, if they can manage to sell their work.
Added at: 14:20

Jiarn said:

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.

Click to expand...

It's really not that simple. There are many ways they could potentially lose money on the situation.
If reports of piracy cause...
- the stock price of any company involved to go down.
- the developer to get denied a sequel.
- people who would have bought the game to pirate it instead.
- retailers to stock fewer copies of future games

That's not to mention the harm caused to other consumers when publishers retaliate against pirates.

Also what limits the dress argument are... where does the happy homemaker get her cloth? her patterns?

Most large clothing companies have their own supply of cloth. If the homemaker is using their cloth, then the designer recoups some of those losses. Or if she buys patterns from McCall's, McCall's will pay a licensing fee to the designer.

To make a copy of the game takes "0" talent or time. The dress maker is so rare, that they can generally go into business for themselves and make much more money than they would save by producing knock-offs.

Selling cloth and patterns will make more money for less investment than game companies will see from pirates that will hopefully wait for a large price-break.

@Li3n said:

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...

Click to expand...

Again, bullshit. Public perception also plays a role here. I'll admit that more people talking about the awesome game they're playing is actually likely to increase the perceived value of the game in question, but at the same time that also decreases the perceived value of the game on sale if it doesn't get fresh buzz from people playing it for the first time when the price drop hits. My point is that there are very real economic differences between gamers playing a pirated version of a new game, and playing a discount copy legitimately bought a year later (or even a few months later. I bough L4D2 for $30, legit, a mere two weeks after it came out).

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.

Click to expand...

Well, except for the whole repspecting another person's property angle. Yeah, I know that people are quick to dismiss the value of ideas and easily reproducible content, but seriously. The creators of the work have made it clear what price they're offering their game for, and pirating the game/movie/book/etc is giving them a big "screw you!" and taking it anyway. It doesn't matter if you pay later when it's gone down in price, the creator is offering it now for a higher price because that's the premium for owning it now. That's what the extra cost is paying for, early access.

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...

Click to expand...

No, you wouldn't because Mark Twain already had his chance to sell his work. Now, we could get into a very interesting argument over if copyright lasts too long (and, yes, it does), but that shouldn't matter for NEW works. We've been talking about pirating games when they're first introduced. Bringing up works that have had their copyright expired, or should have, is a straw-man argument.
Added at: 14:35

@Li3n said:

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.

Click to expand...

Oh for goodness sakes. Yes, many publishers think that used sales are ruining their business. Book companies have been shouting this for longer than video game makers. However, Amazon will tell you that used book sales increase the sales of new books. Gamestop will tell you that 80% of trade-in games go towards new-game purchases.

A used market increases the market size for the media in question, including new sales.

Plus, as a side consideration on both the moral and financial side, it's much harder to make the "vote with your wallet" argument if people pirate.

Companies are very reluctant, even in the face of (almost never) overwhelming evidence, to admit that their $10 million baby came out backwards and no one noticed. It's something that can be very difficult to determine under normal circumstances, especially in an age when people go on Amazon and make 1-star reviews on products they've never bought or played.

So when people pirate things, companies have enormous (and somewhat justified) incentive to say, "it's not that our game sucks and we need to re-price it or re-do it, it's awesome but our customers are scabrous, parrot-loving THIEVES!! If that weren't the case, they wouldn't have pirated it!!! TO THE DRM-MOBILE!!!"

figmentPez said:

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.

Click to expand...

Still waiting for a reply to this one. If money is all we're talking about here, does that make it acceptable to take merchandise for less than the seller would agree to, as long as you "pay" more for the item than it cost to get on the shelf, and you're not preventing any other hypothetical sales?
Added at: 14:42

Jiarn said:

It's NO different than borrowing the game from a family member till I can afford it or is that stealing too? Don't give me "Well he paid for it so they got their cost" because they're still not getting money from ME at that point.

Click to expand...

No, they're not getting money from you at that point, but neither does your family member have access to the game. That's a pretty big distinction. With borrowing, only one copy of the game is shared. With piracy, an unlimited number of copies get played at the same time.
Added at: 14:47

@Li3n said:

500 years ago there was no concept of IP even...

Click to expand...

Bullshit! Heraldry and other forms of identification has been around for at least that long. Try going back several hundred years and wearing a Scottish tartan of another clan and see how they take to your explanation that IP doesn't exist, and that physical scarcity is the only factor.

(EDIT: or go back to Roman times and try to convince the stone mason's guild that making concrete doesn't violate their control of the industry because the real value is in the limited supply of limestone. The only physical scarcity they'll care about is making the flesh scarce on your back.)

For as long as people have protected their ideals, there has been IP. It may not have been called intellectual property, and it may not have had codified laws, but it existed.

I have to agree with Fig. Artisans have made special methods to produce their goods and usually keep it a secret (so no one else can make it) they sell their finish goods, but harder to replicate. Of course, back in the old days, people can get kill for "stealing their idea"

Now-a-days, the actual creation of a game takes some time when you do it from scratch (like most company) you have drawings, game mechanics, engine, story boards, and all kinds of stuff to make a game, but unlike the old days when a person make an item (say folded steel sword) it takes time to replicate it. A game takes matter of minutes to copy. It is replicated and distribute faster now than say 10 years ago. So I can see the damage now (from all the reading) but my main question was wondering while legit people will eventually buy them are still consider pirates if they download early (some say yes, some say no) and those CAN be counted in a lost since people get to play and didn't pay for the "advance access"

while there are people who will NEVER pay for a game and just copy it. If it is not out there, they will find something else.

Now as for used-market. I think the industry (i.e. books and gaming company) does not see the big picture. Money is a limited resources for many. Games are costing upward of 50-60$ EACH, trading in old games (and books..... my textbook cost 100$ and that is cheap compare to other textbook bleh!) to buy new stuff. Sure the company lose money on potential sale of the game when people buy it used, but the people who trade it in can use that money for a new game that came out.

So......... that brings a new question that just pop in my head.
If a person keep trading old stuff and buy use games, does the industry consider these people pirates? since the company who made the game will never see a dime from these customer base? (I use to do that for a long time since used games are cheaper, but now I can actually afford new games )

Chibibar said:

So......... that brings a new question that just pop in my head.
If a person keep trading old stuff and buy use games, does the industry consider these people pirates? since the company who made the game will never see a dime from these customer base? (I use to do that for a long time since used games are cheaper, but now I can actually afford new games )

Click to expand...

There are publishers that have made it absolutely clear that they consider used game sales to be the same as piracy, but I don't think that applies to all publishers, and certainly not to all developers.

Personally I think it's hypocritical for a publisher to advertise at Gamestop (even having midnight launch events there) while at the same time saying that the used game market (which keeps Gamestop in business because of the tiny margins publishers put on new games) is nothing more than legalized piracy.

Dave said:

Why does it have to be EITHER a moral OR a financial decision? It's both.

Click to expand...

It's not! The company, at the end of the day, will get exactly the same amount of money from Jiarn whether he pirates or not. Therefore, the issue is not financial but moral.

Now, you can say that due to piracy, games lose perceived value. That's possible, but that's something more general than what one single person is doing. He may be stealing, if you want, but the company is NOT losing money from his piracy.

tegid said:

It's not! The company, at the end of the day, will get exactly the same amount of money from Jiarn whether he pirates or not. Therefore, the issue is not financial but moral.

Click to expand...

I'll quote myself:
"It's really not that simple. There are many ways they could potentially lose money on the situation.
If reports of piracy cause...
- the stock price of any company involved to go down.
- the developer to get denied a sequel.
- people who would have bought the game to pirate it instead.
- retailers to stock fewer copies of future games"

Indirect financial harm is still financial harm.

Which is what I meant by my second paragraph, more or less. That's still somehow a collective effect where each individual pirated game doesn't make that much of a difference.

tegid said:

Which is what I meant by my second paragraph, more or less. That's still somehow a collective effect where each individual pirated game doesn't make that much of a difference.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I cut that out because it was a steaming pile of crap. "Selling one couple a sub-prime mortgage won't harm anyone, a single defaulted loan won't make much of a difference. It's all those other banks making bad investments that caused the recession."

Uhh... no? Those ARE bad by themselves, whereas the indirect damage of piracy is mostly due to it being reported or known.

tegid said:

It's not! The company, at the end of the day, will get exactly the same amount of money from Jiarn whether he pirates or not. Therefore, the issue is not financial but moral.

Now, you can say that due to piracy, games lose perceived value. That's possible, but that's something more general than what one single person is doing. He may be stealing, if you want, but the company is NOT losing money from his piracy.

Click to expand...

They still lost the difference of the value of the game when the pirate copies the game till the time he "gets around to paying for it."

No, they only lose it if the pirate would have bought it otherwise. Indirect financial harm I can accept, but they don't lose the actual 30$ of price difference.

sixpackshaker said:

They still lost the difference of the value of the game when the pirate copies the game till the time he "gets around to paying for it."

Click to expand...

Ok. But there is no way to truly measure that until every piece of software "phone home" before you can play, but if they are "phone home" then might as well do a validity check of the software, but pirates are very good at cracking many DRM.

tegid said:

No, they only lose it if the pirate would have bought it otherwise. Indirect financial harm I can accept, but they don't lose the actual 30$ of price difference.

Click to expand...

You have a pirate playing a game you make that is worth $50. They lost $50 until the pirate pays $50.
Added at: 18:42

Chibibar said:

Ok. But there is no way to truly measure that until every piece of software "phone home" before you can play, but if they are "phone home" then might as well do a validity check of the software, but pirates are very good at cracking many DRM.

Click to expand...

The company won't know exactly their monetary losses, but they are huge.

Speaking as someone that HAS pirated (movies and TV shows), I think the idea of pirating and buying it much later may not be considered full-on theft, but it's certainly screwing the company out of potential money. As I said before, when it comes to games, I don't tend to buy them new. But I also don't pirate and play them until I do buy them. The only pirated games I've played have been abandonware and even then, if they show up on Steam, I buy 'em. Even then, I likely haven't played them in a very long time.

Straight on pirating and playing? Not cool. Playing it for free until it goes down in price? Also not cool. The game is clearly good enough for you to play now, so your empty wallet overcomes your patience? Bullshit. Now, I pirating a game to demo it (if no such demo exists) and then almost immediately buying it if you like it? That's fine. But you can't "demo" something for six months to a year. Speaking for myself, I wait for the price on a game to go down most times before I buy it. But I don't bloody well pirate and play it before then.

Of course, given that I pirate movies and TV shows makes me a bit of a hypocrite. Pirating TV shows to me is no different than getting a buddy to tape it for you back in the day. If companies didn't charge the same price to buy it new as online, I'd likely buy it online more. I don't need a physical copy of a movie or TV show, anymore, since 99% of the time, I don't care about special features. A good quality .avi file from a UBS stick looks just as good on my PS3. Ditto for movies. The majority of the movies that I have on my drive are ones that I've bought several times, either in theatre, bought or rented on VHS and then again on DVD and sometimes Blu-Ray. The studios have gotten my money more than enough. Star Wars, for example, I won't be buying on BluRay. I saw them in theatres twice (the re-release and the special edition release), bought them on VHS and bought them on DVD. To hell with it and George Lucas.

I'll just leave this here:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2653-Piracy

sixpackshaker said:

You have a pirate playing a game you make that is worth $50. They lost $50 until the pirate pays $50.

Click to expand...

Exactly. To think otherwise is to assume that the game has no value until someone pays for it. It may be a variable value dependent on market factors and personal preference, but it still has value. Otherwise, the pirates wouldn't be bothering to pirate it.

Whether its a strict definition of a "lost sale" is a slightly different question that I think some people are misunderstanding. "Lost sale" as a term refers to the opportunity lost to make money, while "lost revenue" is a much straighter measure of whether an item of inventory has been paid for or not. They're not the same thing.

Chibibar said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/12248010

Well.... let me try to be more clear on that.

Can a company lose money to pirates who never intend to buy game in the first place? I would assume that if a person is a potential customer and face with an option to pirate vs buying, then the company DOES lose money since that is one less potential customer.

How does these company figure the number that they lose billions? Do they go by how many times it was downloaded? does it have a secret software that report to the "home" that these games are hacked?

Can you really claim you lose money if the person never intend to buy? I know that if a person can "steal" X dollars by NOT buying the game and play, but if pirating wasn't available (in a perfect world) then that person may not buy in the first place (supposely)

Now how can a company fight against people who are never willing to pay for a game in the first place? I think making a game affordable may curb some pirates (the people who willing to pay but can't afford the high price tag)

Last but not lease. What kind of customers are there?


People willing to buy collector's edition
People willing to buy regular edition
People who pre-order (either above)
People who can afford games that are less than X dollars
People who are willing to buy games as long doesn't have restrictive DRM
people who are going to play the game and pass time and not willing to pay

Click to expand...

It depends.

For example, lets take me and my cousin in law.

I have a Brazilian iTunes account, which due to mobile games needing a ratings code (unlike in the USA) it doesn't have a Games section. The options for me are either-
a) Try and make an account putting a fake address in the USA and get an american account, which could result in me losing my account
or
b) Jailbreak my idevices and download illegally
or
c) Have a gimped device with no games.
So I chose b). Apple didnt lose anything, because what I intended to buy (Pages and Keynotes) were bought legally in the brazilian store, and I downloaded what I cant get here.

I also dont intend to buy overpriced DS and PSP games (taxes + Nintendo Brazil and Sony being arseholes), nor ever did, and have downloaded every game Ive played on them (but for a few I received as a gift), and if it were impossible to hack them, I would just have bought a GP32X or something. Again, no money lost. But then I do buy PS3 games (sadly, at the brasilian real equivalent of $110) because I'd rather not risk breaking that damn expensive thing.

Now my cousin-in-law? Has an american iTunes account, has an address in the States and gets iTunes gift cards from his family in the US along every other month. He sells them here, and downloads games over the net to his jailbroken iPhone. Could he buy those games? Yep. Does Apple lose money over a potential customer? Maybe.


Im not justifying downloading, mind you (even though here its legally a gray area), but its rather foolish to say that every downloaded copy is lost money, because not everyone who downloads something would buy it.

ITT: People who pirate stuff making themselves feel better about why they pirate stuff.

At least no one's made a 10-paragraph rant on how downloading pirate stuff was a form of "sticking it to the man/big government/big companies".

Sometimes I miss the old image forums :-P

sixpackshaker said:

I know you guys say that, but it is still theft. You play a $50 dollar game for two years then wait for the price to drop to $20, still means you stole $30 from the company.

Click to expand...

Stealing is an incorrect term used by companies to make it look worse than it already is It its piracy, and should you attempt to make money off the illegal copy or pass it off as your own, its IP Theft.

Here's a handy chart.



As for the lawfulness of it? In the U.S. its a crime to download a copy of something you havent paid for, copy something you've paid for or make a copy of it for someone else.So dont rip a dvd that you own, otherwise you are a pirate []

Now some of the users here arent americans, for example, here you can copy, distribute or download. But its illegal to sell a copy you've made, unless you pay taxes, then it is alright. I dont know the legality of it where Chibibar is.

And on the subject of law, and Dave's BBC dvd region problems, DVD region coding actually violates several Trade agreements of several countries (with New Zealand actually managing to pass a law outlawing region coding there) and international trade laws, so get yourself a region-free dvd player. :-P

Chibibar is in Texas Yee ha!

Oh I'm not judging anyone. I don't make excuses for why I do things though. I do it because it's free and quick. Period. I'd rather download a movie quick, watch it, and delete it over waiting for Netflix or going to Blockbuster. I'm a lazy, lazy man.

So when a Somali Pirate pulls up along side a ship, they rip it onto a CD?

sixpackshaker said:

So when a Somali Pirate pulls up along side a ship, they rip it onto a CD?

Click to expand...

Break into a song and dance number?

Chibibar said:

Break into a song and dance number?

Click to expand...

Sing Gilbert and Sullivan?

sixpackshaker said:

So when a Somali Pirate pulls up along side a ship, they rip it onto a CD?

Click to expand...

And when a baseball player steals he actually takes you money, :-P

http://www.thefreedictionary.com
pi·rate (p r t)
n.
1.
a. One who robs at sea or plunders the land from the sea without commission from a sovereign nation.
b. A ship used for this purpose.
2. One who preys on others; a plunderer.
3. One who makes use of or reproduces the work of another without authorization.
4. One that operates an unlicensed, illegal television or radio station.

steal (st l)
v. stole (st l), sto·len (st l n), steal·ing, steals
v.tr.
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
2. To present or use (someone else's words or ideas) as one's own.
3. To get or take secretly or artfully: steal a look at a diary; steal the puck from an opponent.
4. To give or enjoy (a kiss) that is unexpected or unnoticed.
5. To draw attention unexpectedly in (an entertainment), especially by being the outstanding performer: The magician's assistant stole the show with her comic antics.
6. Baseball To advance safely to (another base) during the delivery of a pitch, without the aid of a base hit, walk, passed ball, or wild pitch.
v.intr.
1. To commit theft.
2. To move, happen, or elapse stealthily or unobtrusively.
3. Baseball To steal a base.
m "stealing" for "copying"

Not that piracy isnt illegal there in the USA, which it is. :_P

JCM said:

Stealing is an incorrect term used by companies to make it look worse than it already is It its piracy, and should you attempt to make money off the illegal copy or pass it off as your own, its IP Theft.

Click to expand...

Actually JCM you're wrong... only trying it to pass it off as your own is IP theft... trying to make money off it by selling copies or using the characters/stuff in your own work is still copy right infringement...they'd just get more damages awarded probably.


And stuff like fan fics and fan art are also copy right infringement, and yet for some reason no one here seems to cry about how those are taking money away from artists and writers.

figmentPez said:

Try going back several hundred years and wearing a Scottish tartan of another clan

Click to expand...

Fun fact about that, the whole clan heraldry tartan thing is not as ancient as you think... it's even sourced: Tartan, as we know it today, is not thought to have existed in Scotland before the 16th century. By the late 16th century there are numerous references to striped or checkered plaids. It is not until the late 17th or early 18th century that any kind uniformity in tartan is thought to have occurred.[20]

figmentPez said:

(EDIT: or go back to Roman times and try to convince the stone mason's guild that making concrete doesn't violate their control of the industry because the real value is in the limited supply of limestone. The only physical scarcity they'll care about is making the flesh scarce on your back.)

Click to expand...

Yeah, and i'm sure any other product that threatened their monopoly over and industry was treated in the same way, and yet you wouldn't say that Pepsi was stealing Coca-Cola's money, would you?!

Plus, those guilds where based on keeping the methods secret so only they could benefit from it, not around the idea that whoever invented cement had any moral right to its use (very likely whoever did wasn't even a roman)...

figmentPez said:

Heraldry and other forms of identification has been around for at least that long.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the Picts wouldn't have minded much if someone else used warpaint... but sure, 500 years might not be 100% correct...

Also, the 1st guy that came up with heraldry got his idea stolen by everyone else...

figmentPez said:

For as long as people have protected their ideals, there has been IP. It may not have been called intellectual property, and it may not have had codified laws, but it existed.

Click to expand...

And as long as people had money they also had capitalism?! You're looking at it in too broad a sense. Their ideas about it where very different from ours.




Anyhow, you kinda missed the point about the scarce resources... and that is that our economic system is based on them... at what point someone decided to use an unlimited resource to convince others to give him/her the limited ones doesn't really matter (i'd say whenever religion first showed up myself.), just the fact that there is a difference between the two types.

@Li3n said:

Actually JCM you're wrong... only trying it to pass it off as your own is IP theft... trying to make money off it by selling copies or using the characters/stuff in your own work is still copy right infringement...they'd just get more damages awarded probably.

Click to expand...

Forgot about that.

So its;
stealing someone's idea = IP Theft
selling copies of someone's stuff = copyright
Copying stuff/distributing/downloading = piracy
Physically taking something that belongs to someone else = stealing

And stuff like fan fics and fan art are also copy right infringement, and yet for some reason no one here seems to cry about how those are taking money away from artists and writers

Click to expand...

Since companies are calling copying/piracy = stealing, can I call fanfiction of copyrighted works raping (in the case of het/slash fanfiction, raping my childhood literally)?

@Li3n said:

And stuff like fan fics and fan art are also copy right infringement, and yet for some reason no one here seems to cry about how those are taking money away from artists and writers.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure things like Fan Fiction are covered under Fair Use or Parody.

Have you seen the stuff they write? Topless Robot's blog has a Fanfiction Friday with some damn freaky finds that have forever made me shiver when I hear the words "fan fiction", and "Fair use" and "Parody" is pretty much "up to the court to decide" terms.

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

2) "If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation."
False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that's main difference under the law. It's still a violation if you give it away -- and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property. There is a USA exception for personal copying of music, which is not a violation, though courts seem to have said that doesn't include widescale anonymous personal copying as Napster. If the work has no commercial value, the violation is mostly technical and is unlikely to result in legal action. Fair use determinations (see below) do sometimes depend on the involvement of money.

Click to expand...

Read also the bit on "Fair Use"

Yes, that means almost all "fan fiction" is arguably a copyright violation. If you want to publish a story about Jim Kirk and Mr. Spock, you need Paramount's permission, plain and simple. Now, as it turns out, many, but not all holders of popular copyrights turn a blind eye to "fan fiction" or even subtly encourage it because it helps them. Make no mistake, however, that it is entirely up to them whether to do that.

Click to expand...

AshburnerX said:

I'm pretty sure things like Fan Fiction are covered under Fair Use or Parody.

Click to expand...

Parodies are protected, but actually using characters and other stuff isn't... companies just tend to allow it by not suing...

Remember when Games Workshop stopped (with court papers too i believe) that german fan film because they where afraid that under german law they'd lose copyright?! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damnatus


Of course i for one don't really understand Fair Use beyond it being about using stuff for educational purposes or simple shout outs...

EDIT: Oh, parodies are Fair Use too it seems... so i'm guessing using parts for criticism and in news papers is too...

So its;
stealing someone's idea = IP Theft
selling copies of someone's stuff = copyright
Copying stuff/distributing/downloading = piracy
Physically taking something that belongs to someone else = stealing

Click to expand...

Actually piracy is more like a slang term... both those things in the middle are copyright infringement... it's more like assault and aggravated assault...

A clip of an old interview with Neil Gaiman (Best selling author, poet, and comic book writer) on his feelings about piracy. He's surprisingly OK with it and has actually encouraged it.

I love Neil Gaiman and he raises a great point about books. There are a number of comics that I've lent to friends who wouldn't have read it unless they borrowed it from me. Same with myself, come to think of it. I didn't get into books like Starman and Hellboy until a friend lent them to me. I love his comparison of borrowing a book or advertising it. In the book market, it makes sense.

I don't, however, believe that same idea works for TV and movies. People watch TV shows and movies all the time without hearing of it before. I've had customers in Blockbuster rent something they've only seen on the shelf. Or try a new TV show. Then again, there's less time put into a movie or a show. It takes much longer to read a book, so it's a matter of investment in time.

Dude, go work in a bookstore, i'm sure you'll run into some people that will pick up a book after just seeing it on the shelf...

@Li3n said:

Dude, go work in a bookstore, i'm sure you'll run into some people that will pick up a book after just seeing it on the shelf...

Click to expand...

Or a library.

Oh, I'm sure there are. My point is that there are more people willing to try a TV show or a movie than a book.

Then again, people don't read books as much as they used to.

As JCM mentioned, sometimes you can't go the legit way.

I have 0 options for legit Wii/Xbox games in China. If I COULD get the legit copy I would. I'd LIKE to play on Xbox live with everyone else.

But I can't.

I had my bro bring up a legit copy of FFXII last summer when he came to visit me in China.

REGION ERROR

So I tried.

With PC games however, I buy legitimately, because I can. I can use steam, and that's exactly what I do. I like playing online, I like (some) DLC content that I wouldn't get otherwise without a legit copy.

True.

And not to mention that region encoding is in fact illegal and breaks several trade treaties (and some countries like New Zealand, actually managed to get dvd companies to make region-free dvds for sale there).

Funnily, the same companies that do that are the ones that then say its illegal for you to even make a copy of stuff you already own.
Added at: 15:10


Basically, whoever thinks that they are better than pirates because they buy their stuff, beware, if you rip the cd or dvd you won, you are a pirate too
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,319276,00.html

Destroy the iPod!

I've always liked this better: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=787244

And this: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/new...rs-Sue-Lawyer-Who-Helped-Copyright-Defendants

Or how many times do artists do this and never get called on it: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/35227069 (if you look it up there are countless examples, not to mention how many games where inspired by what came before etc.)

AshburnerX said:

A clip of an old interview with Neil Gaiman (Best selling author, poet, and comic book writer) on his feelings about piracy. He's surprisingly OK with it and has actually encouraged it.

Click to expand...

And that's why the best strategy against piracy is to make people understand that buying stuff helps make new stuff, rewards the devs etc., even if they buy it later when the prices are down etc.

AshburnerX said:

Or a library.

Click to expand...

Over here they're both called libraries...

@Li3n said:

And that's why the best strategy against piracy is to make people understand that buying stuff helps make new stuff, rewards the devs etc., even if they buy it later when the prices are down etc.

Click to expand...

That's similar to my thoughts when I was watching the video. It's important to not let "There's no harm in copying this" turn into "There's no benefit in paying for this." Not that I think the former will inevitably turn into the latter, but I have the sentiment of, paraphrased "I won't pay for media, and that it's up to creators to figure out how to monetize without ever charging the customer".

The only thing I don't pay for is Tv, I watch from the Internet but every time I can I use hulu

you want a really vocal crowd, go tell the anime fansubbers they are pirates and watch them freak the hell out and get all high and mighty.

As I understand amine has no copyrights in my country. I don't really know why

Bones said:

you want a really vocal crowd, go tell the anime fansubbers they are pirates and watch them freak the hell out and get all high and mighty.

Click to expand...

Personally, I can't really blame them. They're consumers that the market hasn't caught up with yet (They have the technology, but they haven't priced the market yet). Kind of like the pre-iTunes folks who just REALLY wanted cheap, song-by-song pricing.

You know, I go back and forth on this argument personally all the time. On the one hand I know that piracy effects companies and industries I enjoy and want to flourish, on the other hand when I see those industries refuse to move past outdated models, treat their artists and the end consumer like crap it makes me think maybe they have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the new world even if it is by piracy. I'm not justifying piracy and I tend to think it is morally and legally wrong in most instances but the reality is the world has changed, and companies who don't keep up are going to end up dying.
Of course I'm not sure thats a bad thing either.

AshburnerX said:

Personally, I can't really blame them. They're consumers that the market hasn't caught up with yet (They have the technology, but they haven't priced the market yet). Kind of like the pre-iTunes folks who just REALLY wanted cheap, song-by-song pricing.

Click to expand...

I am not calling you out man, but I would love to hear this point explained in greater detail, I am not seeing how the two compare?

I think AshburnerX is saying that just as music song by song wasn't available at a fair prize the anime people can't get a product they want because it's not on the market yet

yeah, when I was a kid every body bought their music one song at a time, but the companies threw in a free song on the B-side...

themike said:

I think AshburnerX is saying that just as music song by song wasn't available at a fair prize the anime people can't get a product they want because it's not on the market yet

Click to expand...

Basically this. What the Fan subbers want is the ability to watch their favorite shows within a few days/hours of them coming out in Japan, with subtitles (even if they are sometimes a bit off) and no censorship. Since no one was doing this, they started to translate the shows for themselves and their friends. If companies were willing to offer it at a decent price, people would pay for the ability to get it legally.

That isn't to say that some companies aren't trying to do this. For instance, I know the guys with the Full Metal Alchemist: Brotherhood license put up subbed episodes on Hulu as they are release and they've been making some decent money that way. However, some sites (like Crunchyroll) have proven less apt at it. They seem to vary between charging too much, not getting stuff out in time, or just up and losing licenses. They also have a pretty poor public image.

So basically, we're in that weird transition period between getting nothing and having a reliable supplier. A lot of the problems seem to stem from licensee companies believing they can make more money off of DVD box sets than a-la-cart sales, but those guys will go out of business eventually, especially if they keep censoring the content.

Espy said:

on the other hand when I see those industries refuse to move past outdated models, treat their artists and the end consumer like crap it makes me think maybe they have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the new world even if it is by piracy. I'm not justifying piracy and I tend to think it is morally and legally wrong in most instances but the reality is the world has changed, and companies who don't keep up are going to end up dying.

Click to expand...

Companies have always been dragged screaming into the future... just google how many people though the phonograph was the death of musicians as a profession, or the video tape was going to kill cinema and Tv etc.

@Li3n said:

Companies have always been dragged screaming into the future... just google how many people though the phonograph was the death of musicians as a profession, or the video tape was going to kill cinema and Tv etc.

Click to expand...

That... was kind of my point?

Espy said:

That... was kind of my point?

Click to expand...

Well i was just reacting to your use of the word "maybe"...

Wow this is still going
I guess to sums it up.

Digital goods are tricky stuff when trying to quantify it unlike physical goods. Can't use the example of using the car for 2 years (at no cost) and then pay for it. There is a physical component and finite resources to make it, but digital you can copy it one form or another and use it.

So if you pay later, you "may" hurt the company via future development of a product. I.E. lets say there is a cool game out there cost millions to make and no one is willing to pay a cent for it and just pirate it (or willing to pay the price they are asking) the price never drops (hypothetical) and the company never makes a sequel since they lost millions in making the first one.

So in the example above, people who pirate first and pay later (assuming the price will drop someday) hurt the company in terms of future development.
The company looks at it as potential lost revenue at the time of use.

Did I get that right?

@Li3n said:

Well i was just reacting to your use of the word "maybe"...

Click to expand...

Ah, which really was me sighing and saying "I guess piracy might need to be the tool used to drag them". At least thats what was in my brain

Chibibar said:

So in the example above, people who pirate first and pay later (assuming the price will drop someday) hurt the company in terms of future development.

Click to expand...

Yes.

The company looks at it as potential lost revenue at the time of use.

Click to expand...

Yes, but it's more than that. They also look at it as lost revenue, period. It's what I was saying before, there's a difference between "lost revenue" and "lost sales".
If someone is unwilling to buy something at a given price point, that's a lost sale. Company doesn't make anything, but they haven't lost anything besides the chance to pick up some money.

If someone acquires a copy of their software without paying the company the legal asking price, that's an unpaid inventory liability on a balance sheet. The company has lost what they believe is the fair market value for their product and not gotten anything in return.

If, however, the company chose to implement a new risky pricing strategy that let you download a copy of their software with a pay-what-you-want price point (like Radiohead did successfully for In Rainbows), that would be 100% completely above board and everyone would get what they're looking for.

SpecialKO said:

If someone acquires a copy of their software without paying the company the legal asking price, that's an unpaid inventory liability on a balance sheet. The company has lost what they believe is the fair market value for their product and not gotten anything in return.

Click to expand...

What??

Edit: A more detailed wtf response.

Liabilities on the balance sheet are obligations on the part of the company. Piracy doesn't affect the obligations of the company in any direct way that would be on the balance sheet. An argument could be made that it increases Accounts Receivable (Money that should be paid to the company for the purchase of the product) and then written off to the Allowance for Doubtful Accounts but no company does this because it's nearly impossible to track and record. The principle of prudence from GAAP wouldn't allow for that.


It does affect revenue however in the form of lost revenue. And that still doesn't appear on the balance sheet because you don't put revenue on a balance sheet!

And no, makare, I remain a non-accountant

Adammon said:

What??

Click to expand...

Sorry, I am doing multiple things and tried to cut words out. It goes on their balance sheet as a liability because it's inventory that hasn't been paid for.

SpecialKO said:

Sorry, I am doing multiple things and tried to cut words out. It goes on their balance sheet as a liability because it's inventory that hasn't been paid for.

Click to expand...

You're still wrong.

Adammon said:

You're still wrong.

Click to expand...

I will defer to you, as I'm no accountant. How would you note estimated losses from piracy on financial statements? NVM, thanks very much for the clarification.

EDIT: Couldn't they stick it in deferred net revenue?

Deferred revenue is money you've received but haven't provided a product for yet. Kinda the opposite of what you're looking for

Adammon said:

Deferred revenue is money you've received but haven't provided a product for yet. Kinda the opposite of what you're looking for

Click to expand...

Ah, I see, thank you.

SpecialKO said:

Sorry, I am doing multiple things and tried to cut words out. It goes on their balance sheet as a liability because it's inventory that hasn't been paid for.

Click to expand...

Unless it's a stolen disk they can't even have it as part of their inventory... best to leave accounting out of this really.

And there's the caveat that the same thing happens if the game doesn't sell and there is no piracy... which just leave us with the fact that the problem is with people that would have bought it at the initial price if they couldn't pirate it.

@Li3n said:

Unless it's a stolen disk they can't even have it as part of their inventory... best to leave accounting out of this really.

And there's the caveat that the same thing happens if the game doesn't sell and there is no piracy... which just leave us with the fact that the problem is with people that would have bought it at the initial price if they couldn't pirate it.

Click to expand...

I guess the only way to do it (at least curb as much as they can) is the software has to phone home each time it is launched when internet is available or at least once for activation BUT NEVER keep phoning home while playing. Regardless of system, people who will never pay will figure out a way to play the game.