Export thread

Soo After reading tycho's blog I got curious about what people's feelings on PC piracy. Music piracy seems different because it is, at least, easier to rationalize, but Video game piracy seems to be more destructive. So halforum, whats your opinion? I have to say, I used to partake but now, I am not a fan.

edit: Just realized, I probably should have posted this in the video games section.

I don't because if I wrote a book I'd want the money from people buying it. I feel that software writers probably feel the same. If I want to continue seeing quality products out there then it's in my best interest to purchase whatever I use.

It's stealing. It is literally taking something without paying for it. There is nothing different between it and downloading an album, a TV show, a movie, a book, or a program.

I worked at a Gamestop for 3 years. I take a dim view of software piracy as a result.

I will pirate a game in the terms of demoing it. If the game is on my system for longer then a day or 2, I will purchase it. I will typically delete it and wait until it goes down to a price I find reasonable though.

I have run into too many situations in which games either didn't run on my system (or run well enough to be playable) and my system meet or beat by a step or two all the 'recommended requirements'. Games that didn't live up to the hype (or come close - Spore for example).

So yes, I will pirate a game in terms of demo usage and benchmarking.

I get to play games for free anyway.:noidea:

Additionally, the only time I've "pirated" is if I already own(ed) the game. (NES/SNES/PC games with damaged disks)

General Specific said:

I worked at a Gamestop for 3 years. I take a dim view of software piracy as a result.

Click to expand...

Funny, I have a dim view of Gamestop

In all seriousness, Blizzard has ruined PC gaming for me, so I can't even remember the last time I bought OR downloaded a game because WoW keeps me playing.

Console gaming I have to purchase the game to play it (unmodded PS3) so *shrug*.

if it's a niche title that won't be seeing a release in the American market

I've pirated a lot, most games I ended up buying, some I did not. While it's harmfull, I think it's overall effect is somewhat exaggerated. For small developers however, it can really destroy them.

So if you pirate, please just pirate stuff from the big dogs, not the little guy.

elph said:

I will pirate a game in the terms of demoing it. If the game is on my system for longer then a day or 2, I will purchase it. I will typically delete it and wait until it goes down to a price I find reasonable though.

I have run into too many situations in which games either didn't run on my system (or run well enough to be playable) and my system meet or beat by a step or two all the 'recommended requirements'. Games that didn't live up to the hype (or come close - Spore for example).

So yes, I will pirate a game in terms of demo usage and benchmarking.

Click to expand...

I do the same thing, but rather than a few days I keep one pirated title on my computer and will play it until I decide it's worth purchasing or I feel I need to buy it because of the amount of time I've owned it. It's saved me alot of money in the case of some games and I wish I did this back when Spore came out...

Adammon;283775][quote=General Specific said:

I worked at a Gamestop for 3 years. I take a dim view of software piracy as a result.

Click to expand...

Funny, I have a dim view of Gamestop

[/QUOTE]

Heh, yeah. I have a dim view of them now as well. Mostly through what they did while I worked there and some from what's happened since.

No MP = No $

There are a few rare cases though....

I will, on occasion, "acquire" the PC version of a console game I bought to poke around with cheat/noclip codes. It's not that these games get played through completley, I just want to see what's behind the curtain.

I know a few too many folks in the industry (and have been a member occasionally myself) to agree with piracy of games pretty much ever. It feels like stealing from your best friend.

It's stealing from ZenMonkey and Mr. ZenMonkey.

Think about that.

But, if you're not physically stealing anything, it's not stealing....

That's the rationale I hear most often, anyway.

BTW, I think it's a retarded rationale.

It's stealing. Rationalize it all you want by pretending it's not money they were getting anyway, or that you are instituting your own "try before you buy" policy, or that somehow taking data/information without paying is some kind of God-given right, but it's stealing.

The only games that I've pirated were ones that I could no longer buy in the store. Then it is mostly just borrowing a friend's old games. I've never bit-torrented a damn thing.

Piotyr said:

It's stealing. Rationalize it all you want by pretending it's not money they were getting anyway, or that you are instituting your own "try before you buy" policy, or that somehow taking data/information without paying is some kind of God-given right, but it's stealing.

Click to expand...

My view is it's also stealing in when a company misrepresents it's product in terms of system requirements, features, or scope of product. Rationalize it all they want, they're still asking for my money to cover their costs. They're supposed to be selling an item of entertainment, if I don't find it entertaining, I won't buy it. If it doesn't work on my machine, I won't buy it. However, I also will not keep it on my machine for that long.

Besides, who's to say my religion isn't the kind that encourages the freedom of data/information? In that case, it is my god given right.

Here's how it goes in my scale.

If it's a single player game, I will check to see how well it runs. If it runs well and it's still a title that interests me (usually by going through tutorials or the first 'level' or such) I will remove the game from my system, to purchase it when I see it at a price point I find reasonable. They're still getting the sale if they've made a product I found worth it.

If it's a multiplayer game (or has multiplayer features), I will likely buy it outright once I see how well it runs on my system based to how many of my gamer friends have also purchased it, because if none of them did, then it wouldn't get played anyway and I'd have no need to buy it.

It's a fair system in my mind because if I were to purchase any other product (non IP speaking), I would have the right to return it based on my satisfaction of services. If I bought a TV (or other electronic device, or many other things) and it didn't quite live up to expectations, I'm free to return it and get my money back. That is not the case for most IP topics.

I can return a board game if it didn't live up to my expectations, I should also be able to return software under the same conditions. However, this isn't the reality we live in. The reality we live in is that software companies can do what they want and cry victim when they release shit product. Software companies know they have you by the balls once you unwrap that box. Your money's spent and it's over and done.

I no longer live under the ideal of "Well, they fooled me this time. I just won't buy their product next time." I feel my method is a bit better. I buy about the same amount of software as I did before (slightly less on average), I'm just happier with purchases now.

I won't. Partly because most of the current games won't on my laptop, partly because I don't really believe in pirating in general and partly because if I want a game badly enough, it's worth paying money for it.

That said, I DO download either abandonware (old adventure PC games, for example, that are no longer available) or games that are unavailble, such as NES and SNES emmulators. I still get the itch to play Final Fantasy IV, but I'm not going to buy a DS or something just for one game. If I want to play the original game, I'll download it.

As far as other forms of piracy, I draw the line with movies that I can't find (Time Bandits). I won't download it if it's something I can buy in a store. TV shows, though, are different. I feel downloading them is honestly no different than getting a friend to tape for you back in the day.

I have pirated a game or two, once upon a time. However, those games where games I owned copies of but could not find the disks. I would feel no issues with pirating windows XP since I own a copy but thanks to Dell I can't install it on anything but a Dell.

All in all, pirating it still stealing no matter how hard you justify it, with a few minor exceptions.

http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/ffi/ffi1.htm
Note: He does NOT condone piracy in this article.

Espy said:

I have pirated a game or two, once upon a time. However, those games where games I owned copies of but could not find the disks. I would feel no issues with pirating windows XP since I own a copy but thanks to Dell I can't install it on anything but a Dell.

Click to expand...

That'd sounds like an OEM (original equipment manufacturer) copy of windows. It's illegal to use one of those on any system except the one it was purchased for, because OEM copies are sold to the manufacturer at a reduced price, because they are meant ONLY for that machine.

If you went out and bought a box of windows, non-oem, you'd be able to move it to another PC so long as the copy on the previous machine has been removed.

Allen said:

if it's a niche title that won't be seeing a release in the American market

Click to expand...

sixpackshaker said:

The only games that I've pirated were ones that I could no longer buy in the store.

Click to expand...

These are the only two reasons I can honestly say are justifiable. If there is no reasonable access (I.E. If you can't buy it) then it's a squarely in the grey area. That being said, Direct Download options like the Virtual Console and Direct2Drive/Steam have been allowing more devs to release niche titles and older, out of print classics. The days when you could justify Piracy are coming to an end.

elph said:

I can return a board game if it didn't live up to my expectations, I should also be able to return software under the same conditions. However, this isn't the reality we live in. The reality we live in is that software companies can do what they want and cry victim when they release shit product. Software companies know they have you by the balls once you unwrap that box. Your money's spent and it's over and done.

Click to expand...

There's many other non-IP examples of this.

For example:

Food. Once you eat it, you can't return it.
Fireworks. Once you use them, you can't return them.
Gas. Once you use it, you can't return it.
Prostitutes don't let you get your money back (apparently?)

The onus here is on the consumer to inform themselves about their purchase before buying. Even the whole "try before you buy" thing is played out with the ready access to demos. Lord knows I've bought enough PC Gamer mags for their demo disks.

Adammon;283857][quote=elph said:

I can return a board game if it didn't live up to my expectations, I should also be able to return software under the same conditions. However, this isn't the reality we live in. The reality we live in is that software companies can do what they want and cry victim when they release shit product. Software companies know they have you by the balls once you unwrap that box. Your money's spent and it's over and done.

Click to expand...

There's many other non-IP examples of this.

For example:

Food. Once you eat it, you can't return it.
Fireworks. Once you use them, you can't return them.
Gas. Once you use it, you can't return it.
Prostitutes don't let you get your money back (apparently?)

The onus here is on the consumer to inform themselves about their purchase before buying. Even the whole "try before you buy" thing is played out with the ready access to demos. Lord knows I've bought enough PC Gamer mags for their demo disks.[/QUOTE]
Do you put any of the things you just listed in the same category as board games, video games, movies, music, etc?

Twitch;283858][quote=Adammon;283857][quote=elph said:

I can return a board game if it didn't live up to my expectations, I should also be able to return software under the same conditions. However, this isn't the reality we live in. The reality we live in is that software companies can do what they want and cry victim when they release shit product. Software companies know they have you by the balls once you unwrap that box. Your money's spent and it's over and done.

Click to expand...

There's many other non-IP examples of this.

For example:

Food. Once you eat it, you can't return it.
Fireworks. Once you use them, you can't return them.
Gas. Once you use it, you can't return it.
Prostitutes don't let you get your money back (apparently?)

The onus here is on the consumer to inform themselves about their purchase before buying. Even the whole "try before you buy" thing is played out with the ready access to demos. Lord knows I've bought enough PC Gamer mags for their demo disks.[/quote]
Do you put any of the things you just listed in the same category as board games, video games, movies, music, etc?[/QUOTE]

Fireworks and prostitution are both in the same category. Entertainment.

Adammon;283857][quote=elph said:

I can return a board game if it didn't live up to my expectations, I should also be able to return software under the same conditions. However, this isn't the reality we live in. The reality we live in is that software companies can do what they want and cry victim when they release shit product. Software companies know they have you by the balls once you unwrap that box. Your money's spent and it's over and done.

Click to expand...

There's many other non-IP examples of this.

For example:

Food. Once you eat it, you can't return it.
Fireworks. Once you use them, you can't return them.
Gas. Once you use it, you can't return it.
Prostitutes don't let you get your money back (apparently?)

The onus here is on the consumer to inform themselves about their purchase before buying. Even the whole "try before you buy" thing is played out with the ready access to demos. Lord knows I've bought enough PC Gamer mags for their demo disks.[/QUOTE]

Two things:

One: Food, and fireworks can be returned once used/bitten into, so long as you can prove there was something wrong with them. If you used/ate it all, obviously there's nothing wrong. I guarantee if you got a tank of gas that for some reason was faulty, you could get a refund. Prostitution is illegal, so is out of the question.

Two: Yes! Demos are a GREAT way to try a game....when they exist. What happens when they don't? I've been burned by many a game sounding great with no demo that turns out to be a shitfest. Not that I download a game to try it, it's hardly worth the X hour download wait, plus everyone's always bitchin' about crack glitches, so how's it a good test?

Adammon said:

Prostitutes don't let you get your money back

Click to expand...

Vice City taught me differently.

-banana

PC piracy has all but ruined PC gaming as we know it. Now, PC gamers are lucky to get a sub par port of a franchise 5 months after it's been released to consoles if at all. The I just wanted to try it first excuse is just that, an excuse. I'm guessing that 99/100 you never end up buying the game but that one time you do justifies the other 99 times you basically stole it in your eyes.

You can return food. I've gotten restaurant to refund my meal because the food wasn't up to par. You can return food at grocery stores if it's gone bad. To use food as an example, is a poor one, just as trying to compare everything as the same. I don't buy fireworks, but I know places you can return them (obviously not once they're used). Consumables are a terrible form of example in this kind of discussion. Entertainment media is meant to entertain. When someone downloads anything, it is not consumed as a meal, gas, or fireworks.

I can typically listen to samples of music before I buy a CD (without resorting to piracy), enough to know if it's worth my full purchase. I can see a movie before I purchase a DVD (either by theater or renting it for a cheap cost). I can watch TV shows on TV or through other legal free methods before deciding if I want to buy the full season of a show.

So sticking with forms of entertainment (movies, TV, music, games). I have cheap alternatives before purchase to decide on if it's worth my money. Also, the purchase isn't near the price of a game. Average CD cost is $15, average movie is the same $15, while the average cost of a PC game is $50. Most companies do not give free demos anymore that tell me if the software is going to run on my machine the way they claim, much less if it's going to be what they're advertising. For that, it's up to me to read tons of reviews (which if I were to 'charge' for my time to research their product is even more money I'm spending) to see if it's what they say it is.

The worries are also different. I've had many games not run as advertised (Age of Conan for example) when my system meet or beat the 'recommended' settings. That's $50 before I even got into playing the game gone. There were no demos to speak of. I've had this run in so often, that I really do not see a problem with it. If it's not to my liking, I do not keep it and I would not have bought it to begin with. If it is to my liking, I will purchase it legally when the price goes to a reasonable rate. With a CD, or DVD, I have no doubt that it will work on my machines.

I think this has been posted before, and gives a good idea about how serious the "try before you buy" pirates are about actually purchasing the game.

http://smellslikedonkey.com/wordpress/?page_id=274

Frankie said:

PC piracy has all but ruined PC gaming as we know it. Now, PC gamers are lucky to get a sub par port of a franchise 5 months after it's been released to consoles if at all. The I just wanted to try it first excuse is just that, an excuse. I'm guessing that 99/100 you never end up buying the game but that one time you do justifies the other 99 times you basically stole it in your eyes.

Click to expand...

Well I guess I'm one of the few that doesn't because I purchase maybe 80% of what I pirate and the other 20 are truly terrible. Like I said, it's worth it if I don't have to buy a SPORE again.

piracy is not the same as stealing.
If it was, it would carry the same criminal penalty.

Fact of the matter is, the law considers most cases of piracy (the kind we're talking about) to be civil matters and not criminal matters at all.

Why don't you just not buy the game?

Or wait until its on sale?

I don't pirate games. I was just pointing out an error in the "it's just like stealing" argument. It's not. That doesn't make it morally right, though.

I've personally bought a hell of a lot of games out of the $5.00-$9.99 sale bin. I don't have to have the latest and greatest. Then again, I'm not between the ages of 12 and 25 any more.

TeKeo said:

Why don't you just not buy the game?

Or wait until its on sale?

Click to expand...

I don't pirate games I don't look forward too. If I think a game will be good I want to find out so I don't find out it's shit too late. Unless it's a great sale I also wouldn't buy it, you ever live on a teachers salary?

Tinwhistler said:

piracy is not the same as stealing.
If it was, it would carry the same criminal penalty.

Fact of the matter is, the law considers most cases of piracy (the kind we're talking about) to be civil matters and not criminal matters at all.

Click to expand...

Isn't that just because civil matters can incur punitive damages?

TeKeo;283919][quote=Tinwhistler said:

piracy is not the same as stealing.
If it was, it would carry the same criminal penalty.

Fact of the matter is, the law considers most cases of piracy (the kind we're talking about) to be civil matters and not criminal matters at all.

Click to expand...

Isn't that just because civil matters can incur punitive damages?[/QUOTE]

Criminal matters can carry a fine, and a judge can order restitution as well. So no, it's not "just because."

Congress has deemed that some levels of copyright infringement are not criminal, and others are. Simple as that. Of course, their reasoning may be a bit out of date, since copyright infringement has gotten so much easier since the law was originally written.

Twitch;283918][quote=TeKeo said:

Why don't you just not buy the game?

Or wait until its on sale?

Click to expand...

I don't pirate games I don't look forward too. [/quote]

That's kind of the problem. It's the guys who made the game that you look forward to that you want to keep gainfully employed.

If I think a game will be good I want to find out so I don't find out it's shit too late. Unless it's a great sale I also wouldn't buy it, you ever live on a teachers salary?

Click to expand...

No offense, but I can't afford a BMW, but that wouldn't justify me grabbing one off a lot for a month without paying for it.

If you can't afford something, then you should just figure out how to live without it until you can.

---------- Post added at 08:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:34 PM ----------

Tinwhistler;283921][quote=TeKeo;283919][quote=Tinwhistler said:

piracy is not the same as stealing.
If it was, it would carry the same criminal penalty.

Fact of the matter is, the law considers most cases of piracy (the kind we're talking about) to be civil matters and not criminal matters at all.

Click to expand...

Isn't that just because civil matters can incur punitive damages?[/QUOTE]

Criminal matters can carry a fine, and a judge can order restitution as well. So no, it's not "just because."

Congress has deemed that some levels of copyright infringement are not criminal, and others are. Simple as that. Of course, their reasoning may be a bit out of date, since copyright infringement has gotten so much easier since the law was originally written.[/QUOTE]

No, I mean, don't the companies/people getting their copyright infringed upon prefer civil cases, because they can get more restitution more easily?

A criminal case doesn't prevent an individual or company from also filing a civil suit against the transgressor.

Example: OJ Simpson.

Example: Some punk steals your car and wrecks it. He's charged criminally with theft (and killing hookers, if GTA has taught me anything), but you can still sue him civilly for whatever damages his actions caused you.

For a long time I didn't see a point really, most games I play, I play multiplayer online. And if it was an MMO, well that was pointless. You had to jump through a ton of hoops to find a way to play online, and free servers for MMO's were scarcely populated compared to the official servers.

Now, my opinion is changing. More companies aren't offering ways to beta a game, or try it before you buy it. A lot of MMO companies aren't even offering an open beta (i.e. Fallen Earth or Champions Online, where you had to basically pay money in one form or another to get into the open beta.). I mean, I waited a long time for Left 4 Dead 1 to drop down in price, simply cause there was no demo. Sure, they had a demo at one point but it was only open X amount of time, thats it... They opened it I think, twice more over the course of the next year for a weekend here and there but if you didn't know about it, you missed out. And of course, people's response is "try it on the consoles, rent it". Sure, if you own a console thats an option but even if you did own a console, why would I want to rent the console version if I am interested in purchasing the PC version?

Honestly the game market is sucking right not cause its becoming harder and harder to try new games, especially MMO's. With Closed Betas becoming even tighter, and Open Betas being much much shorter (Champions Online was open for maybe 7 days? I remember WoW's open beta in 2004 was a full month, Neocron's was two months, etc) it's becoming harder and harder to justify the cost versus risk factor. I dropped $50 on Darkfall (which is awesome it just wont run well on my machine) because there's no open beta for it, no trial, nothing. Sure you get the 30 free days with purchase but thats a bitter pill to swallow at $50-60 for a game you might not want to play after the initial playing.

Would it really kill you folks to wait to read reviews on a game before buying it?

I'm always puzzled by morons who spend thousands of dollars on a PC and then pirate games. ??? Seriously, I've seen idiots on other forums asking what $400 video card they should buy, then complaining that games are overpriced so piracy is justified. Sheesh.

I'm not exactly rolling in dough, but betweeen Gametap and all the sales on Steam, D2D, etc. I've got more games than I've had time to play. (Oh my! I'm playing "old" games that didn't come this month! I'm totally out of touch and uncool because Braid had been out for like year before I bought it on sale!)

figmentPez said:

I'm always puzzled by morons who spend thousands of dollars on a PC and then pirate games. ??? Seriously, I've seen idiots on other forums asking what $400 video card they should buy, then complaining that games are overpriced so piracy is justified. Sheesh.

I'm not exactly rolling in dough, but betweeen Gametap and all the sales on Steam, D2D, etc. I've got more games than I've had time to play. (Oh my! I'm playing "old" games that didn't come this month! I'm totally out of touch and uncool because Braid had been out for like year before I bought it on sale!)

Click to expand...

LOL, I just got Braid, too

Bowielee said:

Would it really kill you folks to wait to read reviews on a game before buying it?

Click to expand...

Sorry I'm of the mind that any product thats something used over time, should be tried before buying. Would you basis your decision for a cell phone or a car just on reviews? Or would you try the phone out in a store or test drive that car first?

I know, a vast difference between games but reviews are bullshit. When big companies like IGN and Gamespot take money from developers to give games better ratings, we cant rely on them. PLUS, I'm not able to judge whether I like a game solely on reviews, screen shots and videos. i need to be able to play it myself, before coming to that conclusion.

If the game industry isn't able to cope with that, *shrug* fine with me, thats one less sale they will get from me. Double ditto for the companies that load up games with spyware like Securerom.

Mav;283953][quote=Bowielee said:

Would it really kill you folks to wait to read reviews on a game before buying it?

Click to expand...

Sorry I'm of the mind that any product thats something used over time, should be tried before buying. Would you basis your decision for a cell phone or a car just on reviews? Or would you try the phone out in a store or test drive that car first?[/quote]

When you pirate a game, you're not trying it out in the store.

When you test a car, they don't let you drive away with it with a verbal promise that you'll bring it back or buy it.

No one is saying that they shouldn't be providing trials. I work in advertising, proper trials are how you sell.

But if they can't close the deal, that's not an invitation to just go take it anyway.

If the game industry isn't able to cope with that, *shrug* fine with me, thats one less sale they will get from me.

Click to expand...

They would much rather that you not buy the game than pirate it.

Interesting. I can almost agree with the "Try it before you buy it philosophy" So long as people stick to it. Going by the smells like donkey article, it looks like they don't. I wouldn't pirate as a replacement for demos because I know myself well enough to know that once I have it, I would find it very easy to rationalize not buying it.
I also find that a review usually does the trick for me. I don't think gamespot fudges there reviews beyond a point or two and I'm usually willing to buy if its above six. and there's always yahtzee who's an incredibly harsh critic and penny arcade which thrives on honesty. I do wish there were still more demos for testing hardware. If I knew L4D whether or not worked on my computer I would have bought it by now.

Personally I'm just concerned about a diseased PC Gaming industry. I really hate playing first person shooters on consoles.

I've never tried a phone out before I bought it.

Mav;283953][quote=Bowielee said:

Would it really kill you folks to wait to read reviews on a game before buying it?

Click to expand...

Sorry I'm of the mind that any product thats something used over time, should be tried before buying. Would you basis your decision for a cell phone or a car just on reviews? Or would you try the phone out in a store or test drive that car first?

I know, a vast difference between games but reviews are bullshit. When big companies like IGN and Gamespot take money from developers to give games better ratings, we cant rely on them. PLUS, I'm not able to judge whether I like a game solely on reviews, screen shots and videos. i need to be able to play it myself, before coming to that conclusion.

If the game industry isn't able to cope with that, *shrug* fine with me, thats one less sale they will get from me. Double ditto for the companies that load up games with spyware like Securerom.[/QUOTE]

Gee, if only there were this thing where people could post their opinions on video games. People that exchange messages often who you know have the same taste in games that you do...

Golly, I wish someone would invent something like that. Maybe we'd call it halfsomething or other....

meh, It'd never take.

Reviews of games are always varied and we're talking about an industry where the big reviewers fire writers who write bad reviews.

As it stands, I have no pirated games of any sort. If I could bother myself to find one of Planescape Torment (for example) I'd probably grab it because I have a badly cracked disk from my purchase of the game.

Bowielee said:

Gee, if only there were this thing where people could post their opinions on video games. People that exchange messages often who you know have the same taste in games that you do...

Golly, I wish someone would invent something like that. Maybe we'd call it halfsomething or other....

Click to expand...

Subtle.

Still, I've played games fellow forumites have recommended, however I have tried either via demo or trial, that game before plunking down cash for it.

You can tell me Game X is the third coming of Jesus, if I can't play it before handing over money, then it's not worth it.

So then, what are your guys' views on abandonware?

I will admit that I have pirated abandonware simply because there's no other reasonable way to get it. I used to have a crapton of emulators until through the Wii and PSN i have gotten the ability to purchase these games again. Personally, I'd prefer a legal copy over any pirated copy.

Piracy is not the same as stealing, since nobody loses anything. My opinion is that if I pirate a game which I wasn't going to buy in the first place, it's a victimless crime. If I play it and I really like it, I will buy it. I also buy games which are made by developers whom I respect and want to give money to.

The problem being, I have an extremely hard time believing those of you who say that you actually purchase the game after "demoing" it.

If you weren't going to buy a game in the first place, why bother pirating it?

Mav said:

You can tell me Game X is the third coming of Jesus, if I can't play it before handing over money, then it's not worth it.

Click to expand...

And that's your right. The game company has to ultimately make the case to you.

But the point everyone is trying to make here is that you deciding it's not worth it does not automatically continue with you pirating it.

If a snazzy restaurant can't sell me on a florentine-style porterhouse because I've never had it before and they don't do free samples, that doesn't mean that I can walk into the kitchen and grab a raw one to take home.

TeKeo;283984][quote=Mav said:

You can tell me Game X is the third coming of Jesus, if I can't play it before handing over money, then it's not worth it.

Click to expand...

And that's your right. The game company has to ultimately make the case to you.

But the point everyone is trying to make here is that you deciding it's not worth it does not automatically continue with you pirating it.

If a snazzy restaurant can't sell me on a florentine-style porterhouse because I've never had it before and they don't do free samples, that doesn't mean that I can walk into the kitchen and grab a raw one to take home.[/QUOTE]

Again with the food example.

No, you don't have the right to go into the kitchen and take a raw steak home. However, you do have the right to not finish the full meal, complain that it wasn't to your liking, and either get a different meal, or a refund. So in effect, you can demo that meal.

elph said:

No, you don't have the right to go into the kitchen and take a raw steak home. However, you do have the right to not finish the full meal, complain that it wasn't to your liking, and either get a different meal, or a refund. So in effect, you can demo that meal.

Click to expand...

Are you guys just not paying attention?

I've said it over, and over, and over again, it is 100% within your right to want a demo before you hand over money, but them not providing you with one, does not automatically permit you to go just take it with a promise, it just gives you increased incentive to not buy it.

There are only 4 things that are, by law, nonreturnable. DVDs, CDs, software, and under garments. Everything else that you purchase, you have the right and ability to return and get a refund.

Out of those 4 categories that are nonreturnable, all but software has some form of prepurchase option. DVDs & CDs you can often see / hear before you buy to some degree. You can rent a movie or see it in a theater before you buy it. You can go into many record stores and listen to most/all of a CD before you buy it (you can then even leave said store and buy it at a different location that you know to be cheaper).

Undergarments/swim wear, you should not be allowed to return by law because it's a health hazard, but many stores will still accept it if you throw a big enough fit because they don't want the scene and they'll just mark it out of stock. Sure, there's no real try before you buy with underwear or bras, but there is with swim wear.

Software simply does not have a recognizable 'try before you buy' or 'acceptable refund' policy if there is no satisfaction with the purchase. You hope a company provides an realistic demo, but they typically do not any more.

Soliloquy said:

So then, what are your guys' views on abandonware?

Click to expand...

I'd say it's free game.

TeKeo;283991][quote=elph said:

No, you don't have the right to go into the kitchen and take a raw steak home. However, you do have the right to not finish the full meal, complain that it wasn't to your liking, and either get a different meal, or a refund. So in effect, you can demo that meal.

Click to expand...

Are you guys just not paying attention?

I've said it over, and over, and over again, it is 100% within your right to want a demo before you hand over money, but them not providing you with one, does not automatically permit you to go just take it with a promise, it just gives you increased incentive to not buy it.[/QUOTE]

I'm just simply pointing out the flaw in how people keep trying to compare eating / stealing food to software piracy. There's no delusion it's piracy (legally/technically), but it's still not a solid theft to 'try before you buy' this way.

There is theft if you eat 1/2 your meal and decide the price wasn't worth it and demand a refund, or a different meal, or if you run into the kitchen to steal that steak.

They are simply no where near in the same way comparable.

chakz said:

If I knew L4D whether or not worked on my computer I would have bought it by now.

Click to expand...

Why didn't you play it on one of the free weekends?

I don't mind some software protection as long as it doesnt fck up your pc.

That's why I got a PS3 and its a hard transition for so long being a computer gamer

figmentPez;283998][quote=chakz said:

If I knew L4D whether or not worked on my computer I would have bought it by now.

Click to expand...

Why didn't you play it on one of the free weekends?[/QUOTE]
Because I was busy during that time with other things. The one I even was aware of, anyway. I'm pretty sure chakz or someone else said something like that already.

SeraRelm said:

As it stands, I have no pirated games of any sort. If I could bother myself to find one of Planescape Torment (for example) I'd probably grab it because I have a badly cracked disk from my purchase of the game.

Click to expand...

The sad thing is that no one is sure who owns the rights to PS:T (or Baldur's Gate for that matter). That's why those games were taken down from Gametap, and that's why they're not available via Direct 2 Drive, Steam, etc.

HOLY CRAP! I was searching Twitter to find D2D's tweet on the matter, and found this:
Planescape: Torment, Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale reissues coming Oct. 30
DOH! there's no evidence of a North American release, only Europe so far.

I did find the D2D tweet on the matter:
"hah, would love to re-release Plancescape...if we could find someone who actually owns the rights! Sad."

I don't pirate really anymore, but to answer a question I don't pirate games I never intend to buy. Case in point, I highly doubt I'll ever buy L4D2, but I won't pirate it.

Games I am interested in purchasing but offer me no way to try before buying, I might pirate depending upon the game/situation.

Soliloquy said:

So then, what are your guys' views on abandonware?

Click to expand...

I think that people are far far to quick to label games abandonware. Back when I frequented Alt.Games.Lucas-Arts.Monkey-Island lots of people would post there saying that The Secret of Monkey Island was abandonware and tell people how to pirate it. However, the game was still being sold by LucasArts at that point! This was before LucasArts stopped selling their Archives collections, but the game is available again on Steam. It was never abandoned, the company that owned the rights never went out of business, and the ownership rights were always clear.

Also, look at a game like Planescape: Torment. Up until this year it was available on Gametap, but then a merger happened and the rights to a lot of games got fuzzy. However, that seems to be getting worked out, since there are rumors of a re-release. I wonder how many called it abandonware just because it was in limbo for a few months?

For me to consider a game "abandonware" it would have to actually be abandoned, and not just temporarily unavailable.

As far as left 4 dead is concerned, I wanted to try it out to see what it was like, so I sniffed out a copy of the demo they let loose for the people who pre-ordered. I felt like this was a fair comprimise.

elph said:

There are only 4 things that are, by law, nonreturnable. DVDs, CDs, software, and under garments. Everything else that you purchase, you have the right and ability to return and get a refund.

Click to expand...

Sorry, what? Did this topic suddenly shift into the "Make facts up" thread?

I spend probably a thousand bucks a year on video games, between console and PC. I've pirated a small handful of games - either due to lack of availability(planescape) or because I wanted to try a game where a demo wasn't available(Spore. Thank god I didn't waste money on that wad) or because I owned the CD but couldn't be buggered to find it(I actually managed to lose a civ 4 CD Although is it even actually pirating if you download the software and use the CD key you bought?).

I do agree with Tycho's assessment, though. Pirating hurts devs. I don't really see where this 'decline of PC gaming' thing I've heard from various blogs is coming from, though. Casual PC games are dominating, the MMO market is huge, and ultimately only a couple of serious PC developers have swapped to consoles, and although infinity ward makes quality phone-in generic ww2 games, they're still phone-in generic ww2 games. They'll be replaced.

If you want to see it succeed, support the devs. Always been my rule. If I borrow a book or comic from a friend and love it, I'll buy one for myself. On the other hand, I want the RIAA to die in a fire, so I never buy from them.

elph said:

it's still not a solid theft to 'try before you buy' this way.

Click to expand...

If there is data to back this up, even circumstantial data like we're supposedly seeing in the music industry, I'll accept this argument, but from what I hear, it seems unlikely.

I will happily pirate old games. Abandonware, older titles that are impossible to find, shit that isn't making anyone any money anymore. I have the entire back catalog of Infocom games from this manner (though many of them I did own at one point).

New games, however, I almost always buy. And let me clarify that almost. The only time I'll pirate a game is if there is no demo available, and I want to see what it's like. Spore fell under this heading, as the only demo they had was the character creator. It only took 30 minutes to figure out that the game wasn't for me, and it got deleted.

Most games I play are games I've highly anticipated, and will buy at launch, or pre-order. I actively want my money to go to those developers, in hopes that they will be able to continue being awesome.

-note- all of this applies purely to PC games. I'll pirate the shit out of SNES and Genesis games, though I suppose that falls under the old games definition.

The only time I will 'pirate' a game is for the same of playing it with a group at a LAN party, something I haven't done in quite awhile now.

As has been said, if the game gets more than a couple days of play time, I'll happily buy it.

The reasons for this being that I've bought so many shitty games that I only played for a few hours that I'm reluctant to shell out $40 for just what the back of the box says.

Why would someone pirate current gen console games? Go buy it preowned at a fucking Gamestop then return it within a week, no strings attached.

SeraRelm said:

Why would someone pirate current gen console games? Go buy it preowned at a fucking Gamestop then return it within a week, no strings attached.

Click to expand...

Or rent it.

Tinwhistler said:

I don't pirate games. I was just pointing out an error in the "it's just like stealing" argument. It's not. That doesn't make it morally right, though.

I've personally bought a hell of a lot of games out of the $5.00-$9.99 sale bin. I don't have to have the latest and greatest. Then again, I'm not between the ages of 12 and 25 any more.

Click to expand...

This. I'm not 15 years old anymore. I can afford to spend up to 50 bucks for a new game that I absolutely want to play (which is a rare thing anymore). The last game I bought was Ghostbusters for 30 bucks on Steam. It's a rare thing for me to buy a new release PC game. The only one that I can think of was WoW and the Expansions.

I actually prefer to buy my video games (box or download). It's much easier that way, without all the hassle of finding the pirated shit, figuring out how to install it, and praying it works. The last game I pirated was probably Ultimate TIE fighter back in 1996 or 97.

---------- Post added at 11:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:08 AM ----------

Ravenpoe said:

I will happily pirate old games. Abandonware, older titles that are impossible to find, shit that isn't making anyone any money anymore. I have the entire back catalog of Infocom games from this manner (though many of them I did own at one point).

New games, however, I almost always buy. And let me clarify that almost. The only time I'll pirate a game is if there is no demo available, and I want to see what it's like. Spore fell under this heading, as the only demo they had was the character creator. It only took 30 minutes to figure out that the game wasn't for me, and it got deleted.

Most games I play are games I've highly anticipated, and will buy at launch, or pre-order. I actively want my money to go to those developers, in hopes that they will be able to continue being awesome.

-note- all of this applies purely to PC games. I'll pirate the shit out of SNES and Genesis games, though I suppose that falls under the old games definition.

Click to expand...

Why pirate them when you can just buy them on Wii for like 5 bucks?

Plus games you buy don't have viruses or hidden trackers.

I play WoW, I don't play PC games or Console games anymore.

The exception being something phenomenal from years past that hit the $5-20 bin and I have some free time between sleep/work and raids. (Saints Row 2, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Bioshock etc) So I really don't feel the need to pirate anything.

As for the subject itself, if you want to play something. Buy it. Otherwise you're the same as a kid who steals the disc out of the box, in a corner of the store, hoping that the security cameras/attendant doesn't see you doing it.

Dave said:

Plus games you buy don't have viruses or hidden trackers.

Click to expand...

This too. Have you ever tried to download a legit working NES, SNES, N64 emulator? Cripes, I get virus alerts off my browser when I so much as think of visiting ROM sites.

For me the 5-20 bucks for old games is worth it over wasting an entire afternoon nuking my harddrive and reinstalling software after a virus attack.

Good video games are far and few between anyway.

---------- Post added at 11:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:26 AM ----------

Shegokigo said:

I play WoW, I don't play PC games or Console games anymore.

The exception being something phenomenal from years past that hit the $5-20 bin and I have some free time between sleep/work and raids. (Saints Row 2, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Bioshock etc) So I really don't feel the need to pirate anything.

As for the subject itself, if you want to play something. Buy it. Otherwise you're the same as a kid who steals the disc out of the box, in a corner of the store, hoping that the security cameras/attendant doesn't see you doing it.

Click to expand...

WoW is a PC game, hun. ;-)

It's not a game, Chaz... IT'S AN EXPERIENCE

Chazwozel said:

WoW is a PC game, hun. ;-)

Click to expand...

WoW is.... a game???

Shegokigo;284204][quote=Chazwozel said:

WoW is a PC game, hun. ;-)

Click to expand...

WoW is.... a game??? [/QUOTE]

I wonder...

If WoW had upgraded to a VR software technology that essentially let you live out your virtual life in Azeroth where you were fed intravenously, taste was simulated, etc...

How many people would plug into a "WoW Matrix"?

Not me. As much as I love playing WoW.... I like getting up to go to the bathroom, get a beer, take a shower, or molest my boyfriend (in the LEAST sexiest possible way, mind you) while waiting for readychecks to clear!

Chazwozel said:

I wonder...

If WoW had upgraded to a VR software technology that essentially let you live out your virtual life in Azeroth where you were fed intravenously, taste was simulated, etc...

How many people would plug into a "WoW Matrix"?

Click to expand...

*raises hand*

Total shock, I know.

Espy;284166][quote=SeraRelm said:

Why would someone pirate current gen console games? Go buy it preowned at a fucking Gamestop then return it within a week, no strings attached.

Click to expand...

Or rent it.[/quote]
It's the same thing, but it ends up costing you nothing, so the "Boo hoo, I can't afford it" excuse can go take a flying leap.


Chaz; If WoW were the only game doing so, I might return, otherwise hell no. I'm done with the game.

My views:

Piracy is not the same as stealing. It's still a crime, but should be a civil matter for victim companies to sue pirates for damages, not for harmless teenage nerds to have taxpayer dollars spent on them throwing them into jail.

The "try before you buy" argument is faulty, whether you really follow through with your promise or not. They company owns the rights to the software, and it's up to them to decide how they want to distribute it. You don't work for their marketing department; it's not up to you to decide for them how they offer their product. If you don't agree with their lack of demo, if you don't agree with their terms of use, ALL of their terms, then you simply don't play the game. At the end of the day, your quality of life is not significantly effected because you had to waste your free time on free flash games on Newgrounds rather then on the latest $50-$60 title. Arguing you're somehow entitled to get a demo for yourself that you weren't offered is childish.

Is it a victimless crime? Perhaps. I'm speaking from a strictly legal/moral standpoint.

Hell no it's not a victimless crime! By pirating a game you are taking money away from developers, distributors, etc.

Just because laws and enforcement haven't caught up with technology does not make it any less an actual crime.

But IS it a victimless crime? For major developers, possibly.

For smaller developers? It most definately is NOT a victimless crime. When more people are pirating your software than actually buying it, you aren't making enough money to recoup your development costs. This leads to fewer independant developers taking the risk of sinking time and money into a venture that doesn't yeild any return.

This, in turn, leads to more and more games ONLY being produced by major developers. This homogonizes the market and we end up with DREK.

David said:

My views:

Piracy is not the same as stealing. It's still a crime, but should be a civil matter for victim companies to sue pirates for damages, not for harmless teenage nerds to have taxpayer dollars spent on them throwing them into jail.

The "try before you buy" argument is faulty, whether you really follow through with your promise or not. They company owns the rights to the software, and it's up to them to decide how they want to distribute it. You don't work for their marketing department; it's not up to you to decide for them how they offer their product. If you don't agree with their lack of demo, if you don't agree with their terms of use, ALL of their terms, then you simply don't play the game. At the end of the day, your quality of life is not significantly effected because you had to waste your free time on free flash games on Newgrounds rather then on the latest $50-$60 title. Arguing you're somehow entitled to get a demo for yourself that you weren't offered is childish.

Is it a victimless crime? Perhaps. I'm speaking from a strictly legal/moral standpoint.

Click to expand...

.

Shegokigo said:

Buy it. Otherwise you're the same as a kid who steals the disc out of the box, in a corner of the store, hoping that the security cameras/attendant doesn't see you doing it.

Click to expand...

I'm wondering where some of you are downloading your 'really shitty' software from. I have never run into any virus (I don't even run an anti virus software), malware, or glitches from any of the software I have downloaded.

To me, it's much more dangerous (to my machine) to surf the internet then it is to download pirated software. I also think it's funny for people that say they 'don't', 'have never' or 'never will' download pirated software to go on about how it's riddled with such malicious code. With the current use of BitTorrent, it's even harder to have that kind of activity. It's a popularity contest, and malicious software isn't going to win the contest.

I'm amazed JCM hasn't weighed in yet.

I know he's lurking atm, but I thought going on screeds about piracy was a favorite of his.

We all know that the reason he pirates is to "Stick it to the assholes who make DRMs."

I think that's part of the point I was trying to make earlier, people need to stop pirating because "they disagree with the company doing x." That's what boycotting is for, not piracy. Rampant pirating sends the message "we're not giving you money for your product because we're cheap and we're able to get around having to." If NOBODY, not even pirates, plays the games, that sends a clearer message of "We're not going to give you money UNTIL you fix x."

Shegokigo said:

We all know that the reason he pirates is to "Stick it to the assholes who make DRMs."

Click to expand...

In before rants about Steam being horrible DRM made by 'the man'.

Dave said:

Hell no it's not a victimless crime! By pirating a game you are taking money away from developers, distributors, etc.

Just because laws and enforcement haven't caught up with technology does not make it any less an actual crime.

Click to expand...

...and what if you think that a game might be interesting, but not enough to warrant a purchase? If you would never have bought it, then the fact that you played it for free just to kill time or something has no effect whatsoever on anyone except yourself.

Unless of course the weight of that desire to try it out just dragged at you until you purchased it to do so at a reduced price at a later date.

figmentPez said:

I'm always puzzled by morons who spend thousands of dollars on a PC and then pirate games. ??? Seriously, I've seen idiots on other forums asking what $400 video card they should buy, then complaining that games are overpriced so piracy is justified. Sheesh.

I'm not exactly rolling in dough, but betweeen Gametap and all the sales on Steam, D2D, etc. I've got more games than I've had time to play. (Oh my! I'm playing "old" games that didn't come this month! I'm totally out of touch and uncool because Braid had been out for like year before I bought it on sale!)

Click to expand...

I just got Castle Crashers like, a month ago.

It's probably some of the best money spent on an XBox game to date.

Gill Kaiser;284340][quote=Dave said:

Hell no it's not a victimless crime! By pirating a game you are taking money away from developers, distributors, etc.

Just because laws and enforcement haven't caught up with technology does not make it any less an actual crime.

Click to expand...

...and what if you think that a game might be interesting, but not enough to warrant a purchase? If you would never have bought it, then the fact that you played it for free just to kill time or something has no effect whatsoever on anyone except yourself.[/QUOTE]


How much use do you consider "demoing" a game. Running it all the way through before deleting it? 10 min of gametime?

The truth is that most people who say they buy the game after "demo" it are lying through their teeth. I'd have to see statistical info to the contrary to convince me otherwise. It seems stupid to me to go through the trouble of downloading a pirated copy of a game only to turn around an purchase it. Why bother when you already have the full product?

I totally understand that people pirate all the time and that it's pretty commonplace now. I understand that attitudes towards the violation of copywrite laws are lax, especially in the Net community that has some sort of sense of entitlement when it comes to games.

However, it's when people try to wrap it in some sort of crusadery bullshit that it grates on me like ground glass to the eyes.

I have more respect for the unapologetic pirates than those who try to muddy the water with lame excuses and justifications.

Yes, it's stealing. There's no ambiguity here.

But you know what? It might happen less if so many games weren't worth paying for already. And don't give me the "piracy makes games be drek" thing... there was loads of crap shovelware before CD burners became affordable.

It's also worthy to note that piracy rates would be lower if we weren't still adhering to a price point strategy that was developed back when things like shelf space was a consideration. I can get a movie or an album for 10 bucks. I can get a book for even less. But a game costs me $50+? And I risk having no way to get my money back if it turns out to be another "Turning Point: Fall of Liberty" or "Necrovision?" These days, it almost seems like torrenting the game first is simply a sensible act of economic self-defense.

So, as much as piracy is illegal, it sure seems that developers certainly (if inadvertently) exacerbate it.

So wonder so many of my gaming purchases lately come from Gog.com.

For me it's a matter of principle. If I like a game enough, I will buy the game out of a desire to give the developers money, even if I've already completed it. If I 'acquire' a game and it turns out to be merely 'ok' to medicore, I pretty much count that as a demo/rental, and pay it no more mind.

Interestingly, when I completed the ripped version of Arkham Asylum during the two week delay of the PC release, it ran noticably better than the legit version which I subsequently purchased. I blame GFWL.

I don't own a single game that I don't love. Why? I did research before buying them. I looked up reviews and asked friends who played them. In some cases, I demoed them through the PSN or developer demos on the PC, but either way, I didn't just run up to the store and buy a game because it was shiney and new. You don't need to turn to piracy to find out if something is terrible before purchasing it.

Buying something without researching it is just plain stupid to begin with.

So...If I order a meal, eat it all and realize that it was okay but nothing special I can just refuse to buy it?

Thanks, Gill!

For the record, I think your argument is not quite loony but is definitely justification of bad behavior.

That analogy doesn't really apply, since a meal is a physical object, and by eating it you will have deprived anybody else from the luxury of eating it. Refusing to pay for it would be theft.

Gill Kaiser said:

That analogy doesn't really apply, since a meal is a physical object, and by eating it you will have deprived anybody else from the luxury of eating it. Refusing to pay for it would be theft.

Click to expand...

Sorry about that. I hit "edit" instead of quote.

Here's MY post.

What do you think about someone writing a book? Should you be able to just take it and read it without paying? If someone scans it in and puts it on the web is that victimless? Dude, it's the same thing! Someone wrote this game and you are stealing it. You played it and didn't like it? Tough crap! You see a movie you don't like you're stuck unless you can get the manager to refund your money.

Just because you have the ability to get it digitally doesn't make it less theft.

I may be completely self-deluded, and I know I'm reiterating somewhat, but to me it seems that if one knows one wouldn't have bought the product, but is able to acquire it digitally without depriving anybody else of said product, then it's a victimless crime. Nobody has lost anything, since the product was copied, not stolen. Nobody has lost revenue, since the purchase wouldn't have been made. The only difference is that the pirate gains a product of questionable value. Now, so long as the pirate proceeds to buy it if it turns out to be good enough that they realise that they would have bought it after all, then I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.

I'm always thinking 'what would have happened if...?'. That's how I justify it. Of course piracy will be frowned upon by the industry, but a pirated product definately does not always equate to lost revenue. I know there are pirates who simply never pay for games, no matter how good they are, but I suspect that they're not as common as many people think. I, at least, try to support the developers of quality products.

What do you do for a living, Gill?

Up until a few months ago I was an impoverished student, but now I'm just impoverished, since they kicked me out of university once I graduated.

Maybe once I begin to forge a career for myself and learn the true value of hard work and how the real world operates, my bubble will be burst and I'll renounce my evil ways? The thought has occured to me, but nobody can know how experiences will affect them before they occur.

Gill Kaiser said:

Up until a few months ago I was an impoverished student, but now I'm just impoverished, since they kicked me out of university once I graduated.

Maybe once I begin to forge a career for myself and learn the true value of hard work and how the real world operates, my bubble will be burst and I'll renounce my evil ways? The thought has occured to me, but nobody can know how experiences will affect them before they occur.

Click to expand...

Hurm. Okay. Well, writing something for sale and having it ripped off sucks. Whatever form it's in doesn't matter and it's still a viable product, regardless of the medium.

And I contend that if someone went through the time & effort to create a product then playing the game without paying for it does hurt the sales of the author and thus can not possibly be a victimless crime.

Gill Kaiser said:

I may be completely self-deluded, and I know I'm reiterating somewhat, but to me it seems that if one knows one wouldn't have bought the product, but is able to acquire it digitally without depriving anybody else of said product, then it's a victimless crime. Nobody has lost anything, since the product was copied, not stolen.

Click to expand...

I disagree, something has been lost. The value of the product is degraded when people don't see fit to pay for it. Unless the pirate is completely anonymous to the point of not even notching up a counter on a website, then they've had an impact on public perception. People who see other people cheating are more likely to cheat themselves (unless they view the cheater as an enemy or undesirable, but that's a side issue). The more people who pirate, the more likely it is that others will pirate as well.

Gill Kaiser said:

Nobody has lost revenue, since the purchase wouldn't have been made.

Click to expand...

This doesn't really work, though, because you clearly don't consider the game worthless. In the essence, you're denying the publisher the right to get that value back from you in the form of money.

If you were to buy a used game, on the other hand (which publishers also don't like since they don't make any money directly from that), not only has the publisher already made money off that copy of the game, but you've paid what you consider a fair value for the game to the previous owner, who will not possess the game anymore (in theory).

Dave said:

What do you think about someone writing a book? Should you be able to just take it and read it without paying? If someone scans it in and puts it on the web is that victimless? Dude, it's the same thing! Someone wrote this game and you are stealing it. You played it and didn't like it? Tough crap! You see a movie you don't like you're stuck unless you can get the manager to refund your money.

Just because you have the ability to get it digitally doesn't make it less theft.

Click to expand...

To which I counter: What about Libraries? They offer books to anyone who wants them for free. A few copies of a book are bought for the entire library system, but hundreds, if not thousands, of people are going to read it over it's lifetime. The people who wrote the book are only going to get paid for the initial purchase, not for each person who reads it. It's basically piracy, only there is a set limit of people who can read the book at an given time. Book Authors don't complain about people reading their books for free if it's from a Library, because they recognize that the public has a right to their material once they've published it, even if they themselves don't pay for it.

But then again, writing a book is a low-risk venture. If no one buys the authors book, he's out time, not money. Making a game costs cash and Developers need to recoup that cash or risk going under.

AshburnerX;284478][quote=Dave said:

What do you think about someone writing a book? Should you be able to just take it and read it without paying? If someone scans it in and puts it on the web is that victimless? Dude, it's the same thing! Someone wrote this game and you are stealing it. You played it and didn't like it? Tough crap! You see a movie you don't like you're stuck unless you can get the manager to refund your money.

Just because you have the ability to get it digitally doesn't make it less theft.

Click to expand...

To which I counter: What about Libraries? They offer books to anyone who wants them for free. A few copies of a book are bought for the entire library system, but hundreds, if not thousands, of people are going to read it over it's lifetime. The people who wrote the book are only going to get paid for the initial purchase, not for each person who reads it. It's basically piracy, only there is a set limit of people who can read the book at an given time. Book Authors don't complain about people reading their books for free if it's from a Library, because they recognize that the public has a right to their material once they've published it, even if they themselves don't pay for it.

But then again, writing a book is a low-risk venture. If no one buys the authors book, he's out time, not money. Making a game costs cash and Developers need to recoup that cash or risk going under.[/QUOTE]


/facepalm That's all I have to say.

Libraries obviously don't purchase books.

AshburnerX said:

A few copies of a book are bought for the entire library system, but hundreds, if not thousands, of people are going to read it over it's lifetime.

Click to expand...

.

AshburnerX;284478][quote=Dave said:

What do you think about someone writing a book? Should you be able to just take it and read it without paying? If someone scans it in and puts it on the web is that victimless? Dude, it's the same thing! Someone wrote this game and you are stealing it. You played it and didn't like it? Tough crap! You see a movie you don't like you're stuck unless you can get the manager to refund your money.

Just because you have the ability to get it digitally doesn't make it less theft.

Click to expand...

To which I counter: What about Libraries? They offer books to anyone who wants them for free. A few copies of a book are bought for the entire library system, but hundreds, if not thousands, of people are going to read it over it's lifetime. The people who wrote the book are only going to get paid for the initial purchase, not for each person who reads it. It's basically piracy, only there is a set limit of people who can read the book at an given time. Book Authors don't complain about people reading their books for free if it's from a Library, because they recognize that the public has a right to their material once they've published it, even if they themselves don't pay for it.

But then again, writing a book is a low-risk venture. If no one buys the authors book, he's out time, not money. Making a game costs cash and Developers need to recoup that cash or risk going under.[/QUOTE]


/facepalm That's all I have to say.

And being a writer is usually a part-time/hobby profession because it is a such ahigh-risk venture. If you're a full time writer and you can't publish, you're fucked.

AshburnerX;284478][quote=Dave said:

What do you think about someone writing a book? Should you be able to just take it and read it without paying? If someone scans it in and puts it on the web is that victimless? Dude, it's the same thing! Someone wrote this game and you are stealing it. You played it and didn't like it? Tough crap! You see a movie you don't like you're stuck unless you can get the manager to refund your money.

Just because you have the ability to get it digitally doesn't make it less theft.

Click to expand...

To which I counter: What about Libraries? They offer books to anyone who wants them for free. A few copies of a book are bought for the entire library system, but hundreds, if not thousands, of people are going to read it over it's lifetime. The people who wrote the book are only going to get paid for the initial purchase, not for each person who reads it. It's basically piracy, only there is a set limit of people who can read the book at an given time. Book Authors don't complain about people reading their books for free if it's from a Library, because they recognize that the public has a right to their material once they've published it, even if they themselves don't pay for it.

But then again, writing a book is a low-risk venture. If no one buys the authors book, he's out time, not money. Making a game costs cash and Developers need to recoup that cash or risk going under.[/QUOTE]

I'm trying real hard not to just quote Chaz here.

Time working = money. Every hour an author spends writing their novel is an hour they could have spent at another job. On the same subject why do you think Games cost so much money to make? I'll give you a hint, you know those long lists of credits you see now at the end of games? Those people need to get paid for their work.

Every game pirated is a potential sale that is lost. Believe it or not a potential sale has a value to it.

Bowielee said:

I don't own a single game that I don't love. Why? I did research before buying them. I looked up reviews and asked friends who played them. In some cases, I demoed them through the PSN or developer demos on the PC, but either way, I didn't just run up to the store and buy a game because it was shiney and new. You don't need to turn to piracy to find out if something is terrible before purchasing it.

Buying something without researching it is just plain stupid to begin with.

Click to expand...

This, so very much.

JONJONAUG;284502][quote=Bowielee said:

I don't own a single game that I don't love. Why? I did research before buying them. I looked up reviews and asked friends who played them. In some cases, I demoed them through the PSN or developer demos on the PC, but either way, I didn't just run up to the store and buy a game because it was shiney and new. You don't need to turn to piracy to find out if something is terrible before purchasing it.

Buying something without researching it is just plain stupid to begin with.

Click to expand...

This, so very much.[/QUOTE]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you banned from either the Image forums or Halfpixel for linking directly to a pirated movie?

elph;284506][quote=JONJONAUG;284502][quote=Bowielee said:

I don't own a single game that I don't love. Why? I did research before buying them. I looked up reviews and asked friends who played them. In some cases, I demoed them through the PSN or developer demos on the PC, but either way, I didn't just run up to the store and buy a game because it was shiney and new. You don't need to turn to piracy to find out if something is terrible before purchasing it.

Buying something without researching it is just plain stupid to begin with.

Click to expand...

This, so very much.[/QUOTE]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you banned from either the Image forums or Halfpixel for linking directly to a pirated movie?[/QUOTE]

I don't know if it was him, but it was for linking to a torrent on Halfpixel.

I remember that!

Chazwozel;284508][quote=elph;284506][quote=JONJONAUG;284502][quote=Bowielee said:

I don't own a single game that I don't love. Why? I did research before buying them. I looked up reviews and asked friends who played them. In some cases, I demoed them through the PSN or developer demos on the PC, but either way, I didn't just run up to the store and buy a game because it was shiney and new. You don't need to turn to piracy to find out if something is terrible before purchasing it.

Buying something without researching it is just plain stupid to begin with.

Click to expand...

This, so very much.[/QUOTE]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you banned from either the Image forums or Halfpixel for linking directly to a pirated movie?[/QUOTE]

I don't know if it was him, but it was for linking to a torrent on Halfpixel.[/QUOTE]

Was I?

...I don't know, maybe. I know I was banned once for something, but that it lasted for all of like four hours.

It feels more likely that I would've been banned for linking a torrent of a non-licensed anime or something of that nature though.

Gusto said:

I remember that!

Click to expand...

I don't, could you refresh my memory?

If one actually believes no harm is done financially for pirating software then I don't really think that there is a discussion to be had. You are honestly living in a reality so foreign to me I can't understand it.

Libraries buy in bulk, dude. They don't approach a publisher for 5 copies of Twilight or some shit, they approach a publisher for hundreds, sometimes thousands of books at a time.

The publisher figures out how much money they *might* lose, based on the library involved and their own sales patterns.

Then they quote the libraries a sales figure that will make up for lost potential. Since the overhead for publishers on books is pretty low, they make a ton in guaranteed sales, the library pays less per book, and the publisher still has every chance in the world to sell to those individuals anyway.

Same principle behind movie and game rentals.

If I recall, JONJON linked to a torrent of one of the Season 3 episodes of Venture Brothers in a discussion thread, and Kris banned him. After a thread discussing the banishment, e was quickly reinstated because I THINK the rules at the time as written did not expressly forbid that kinda stuff.

JONNY was brought back and the rules were amended.

TeKeo said:

Libraries buy in bulk, dude. They don't approach a publisher for 5 copies of Twilight or some shit, they approach a publisher for hundreds, sometimes thousands of books at a time.

The publisher figures out how much money they *might* lose, based on the library involved and their own sales patterns.

Then they quote the libraries a sales figure that will make up for lost potential. Since the overhead for publishers on books is pretty low, they make a ton in guaranteed sales, the library pays less per book, and the publisher still has every chance in the world to sell to those individuals anyway.

Same principle behind movie and game rentals.

Click to expand...

See, THIS is interesting information. I was not aware of intricacies of the process of ordering books for a library system, which does explain why libraries are allowed to operate in our sue happy society.

I no longer pirate software.

a) I'm not 15 anymore, I can afford to pay or have the maturity to wait until I can afford to pay.
b) Piracy can affect me personally. Gives a real perspective shift, when you realize it can be your work.

---------- Post added at 04:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:01 PM ----------

Espy said:

If one actually believes no harm is done financially for pirating software then I don't really think that there is a discussion to be had. You are honestly living in a reality so foreign to me I can't understand it.

Click to expand...

They're just trying to rationalize their actions, So they don't have to admit that what they're doing is wrong.

AshburnerX said:

See, THIS is interesting information. I was not aware of intricacies of the process of ordering books for a library system, which does explain why libraries are allowed to operate in our sue happy society.

Click to expand...

To be 100% fair, I am guessing based on what I know about bulk purchasing for resellers.

It's perfectly possible that there are different rules in play, but I kind of doubt it.

TeKeo;284531][quote=AshburnerX said:

See, THIS is interesting information. I was not aware of intricacies of the process of ordering books for a library system, which does explain why libraries are allowed to operate in our sue happy society.

Click to expand...

To be 100% fair, I am guessing based on what I know about bulk purchasing for resellers.

It's perfectly possible that there are different rules in play, but I kind of doubt it.[/QUOTE]

I think it's different for each library because each library is funded by the city they're in. Which doesn't lead to a lot in terms of bulk purchasing.

TeKeo;284531][quote=AshburnerX said:

See, THIS is interesting information. I was not aware of intricacies of the process of ordering books for a library system, which does explain why libraries are allowed to operate in our sue happy society.

Click to expand...

To be 100% fair, I am guessing based on what I know about bulk purchasing for resellers.

It's perfectly possible that there are different rules in play, but I kind of doubt it.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't account for privately donated books, but that's a very small percentage of books in library systems. But your account does sound entirely feasible... it does explain how libraries are able to acquire material while still being able to afford operational costs.

elph said:

I think it's different for each library because each library is funded by the city they're in. Which doesn't lead to a lot in terms of bulk purchasing.

Click to expand...

It could be a deal with publishers for a set number of books, and then they just pick which books they want up to a limit. That would explain why I've never seen more than 10 copies of a new release in my multi-county library system.

Man, I don't rationalize shit. I pirate stuff, and it's wrong for me to do it. But I do it anyways.

AshburnerX;284536][quote=TeKeo;284531][quote=AshburnerX said:

See, THIS is interesting information. I was not aware of intricacies of the process of ordering books for a library system, which does explain why libraries are allowed to operate in our sue happy society.

Click to expand...

To be 100% fair, I am guessing based on what I know about bulk purchasing for resellers.

It's perfectly possible that there are different rules in play, but I kind of doubt it.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't account for privately donated books, but that's a very small percentage of books in library systems. But your account does sound entirely feasible... it does explain how libraries are able to acquire material while still being able to afford operational costs.

elph said:

I think it's different for each library because each library is funded by the city they're in. Which doesn't lead to a lot in terms of bulk purchasing.

Click to expand...

It could be a deal with publishers for a set number of books, and then they just pick which books they want up to a limit. That would explain why I've never seen more than 10 copies of a new release in my multi-county library system.[/QUOTE]

I could be off. I'm reading a couple articles that are fairly conflicting on the surface.

They mainly say 'local government' which would seem more City then County, but it makes sense it would be county level as well. Like you said, you typically don't see more then X number of books in a single county system, and most systems do not cross county lines. Either way, 10 (or even 20 copies) of a book, isn't a lot in terms of a bulk sale.

Charlie Dont Surf said:

Man, I don't rationalize shit. I pirate stuff, and it's wrong for me to do it. But I do it anyways.

Click to expand...

Sure, everyone does that as well in one way or the other. How many of us speed, etc?
The difference is some cannot, for one reason or the other, see that it is harmful. You can. That does count for something. It doesn't make it right, but it lets me know you aren't insane.

Charlie Dont Surf said:

Man, I don't rationalize shit. I pirate stuff, and it's wrong for me to do it. But I do it anyways.

Click to expand...

A much more respectable position than "It's a victimless crime"

elph;284535][quote=TeKeo;284531][quote=AshburnerX said:

See, THIS is interesting information. I was not aware of intricacies of the process of ordering books for a library system, which does explain why libraries are allowed to operate in our sue happy society.

Click to expand...

To be 100% fair, I am guessing based on what I know about bulk purchasing for resellers.

It's perfectly possible that there are different rules in play, but I kind of doubt it.[/QUOTE]

I think it's different for each library because each library is funded by the city they're in. Which doesn't lead to a lot in terms of bulk purchasing.[/QUOTE]

Even a small library will buy a few hundred books at a time. Or they may work in an association of small libraries to share a larger collection.

A big library spends a huge amount of money on new materials. In 2008, NYPL spent $14.5 million on new materials.

---------- Post added at 04:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:25 PM ----------

elph said:

Either way, 10 (or even 20 copies) of a book, isn't a lot in terms of a bulk sale.

Click to expand...

But they're not buying 10 copies of a book, they're buying 5 copies each of 60 books.

TeKeo;284544][quote=elph;284535][quote=TeKeo;284531][quote=AshburnerX said:

See, THIS is interesting information. I was not aware of intricacies of the process of ordering books for a library system, which does explain why libraries are allowed to operate in our sue happy society.

Click to expand...

To be 100% fair, I am guessing based on what I know about bulk purchasing for resellers.

It's perfectly possible that there are different rules in play, but I kind of doubt it.[/QUOTE]

I think it's different for each library because each library is funded by the city they're in. Which doesn't lead to a lot in terms of bulk purchasing.[/QUOTE]

Even a small library will buy a few hundred books at a time. Or they may work in an association of small libraries to share a larger collection.

A big library spends a huge amount of money on new materials. In 2008, NYPL spent $14.5 million on new materials.

---------- Post added at 04:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:25 PM ----------

elph said:

Either way, 10 (or even 20 copies) of a book, isn't a lot in terms of a bulk sale.

Click to expand...

But they're not buying 10 copies of a book, they're buying 5 copies each of 60 books.[/QUOTE]

True, bulk is bulk from a publisher. A publisher doesn't really differentiate so much between JK Rowling or any of it's other authors when selling in bulk. It's still '300' units under X price tag.

elph;284548][quote=TeKeo;284544][quote=elph;284535][quote=TeKeo;284531][quote=AshburnerX said:

See, THIS is interesting information. I was not aware of intricacies of the process of ordering books for a library system, which does explain why libraries are allowed to operate in our sue happy society.

Click to expand...

To be 100% fair, I am guessing based on what I know about bulk purchasing for resellers.

It's perfectly possible that there are different rules in play, but I kind of doubt it.[/QUOTE]

I think it's different for each library because each library is funded by the city they're in. Which doesn't lead to a lot in terms of bulk purchasing.[/QUOTE]

Even a small library will buy a few hundred books at a time. Or they may work in an association of small libraries to share a larger collection.

A big library spends a huge amount of money on new materials. In 2008, NYPL spent $14.5 million on new materials.

---------- Post added at 04:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:25 PM ----------

elph said:

Either way, 10 (or even 20 copies) of a book, isn't a lot in terms of a bulk sale.

Click to expand...

But they're not buying 10 copies of a book, they're buying 5 copies each of 60 books.[/QUOTE]

True, bulk is bulk from a publisher. A publisher doesn't really differentiate so much between JK Rowling or any of it's other authors when selling in bulk. It's still '300' units under X price tag.[/QUOTE]

Yes, that's my point.

Charlie Dont Surf said:

Man, I don't rationalize shit. I pirate stuff, and it's wrong for me to do it. But I do it anyways.

Click to expand...

If I might ask, then, why do you do it anyways? Convenience?

Regardless of how the libraries get the books, it's something sanctioned by the publisher, so doesn't violate copywrite laws. Just to quash the analogy.

Might as well weigh in (for once, I'm gonna be part of a crowd! Woo!):

Piracy is theft. My Webster's (an older version, I admit) defines theft as "the act of stealing" and stealing as "to take without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force" or "to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance". Not a lot of question here.

Having said that, I don't pirate games and have never done so. Mostly because I don't want to, but also because I don't have the foggiest idea how.

Piotyr;284551][quote=Charlie Dont Surf said:

Man, I don't rationalize shit. I pirate stuff, and it's wrong for me to do it. But I do it anyways.

Click to expand...

If I might ask, then, why do you do it anyways? Convenience?[/QUOTE]

He can't afford to get them himself.

Simfers said:

Might as well weigh in (for once, I'm gonna be part of a crowd! Woo!):

Piracy is theft. My Webster's (an older version, I admit) defines theft as "the act of stealing" and stealing as "to take without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force" or "to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance". Not a lot of question here.

Having said that, I don't pirate games and have never done so. Mostly because I don't want to, but also because I don't have the foggiest idea how.

Click to expand...

Devil's advocate position:
Your analogy breaks down when you unilaterally equate piracy with theft.
Theft is a crime.
Copyright infringement is not defined as theft under the law.

If I copy a game, what have I physically taken from you?

these are the kinds of piracy <> theft arguments I've seen before.

Tinwhistler;284605][quote=Simfers said:

Might as well weigh in (for once, I'm gonna be part of a crowd! Woo!):

Piracy is theft. My Webster's (an older version, I admit) defines theft as "the act of stealing" and stealing as "to take without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force" or "to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance". Not a lot of question here.

Having said that, I don't pirate games and have never done so. Mostly because I don't want to, but also because I don't have the foggiest idea how.

Click to expand...

Devil's advocate position:
Your analogy breaks down when you unilaterally equate piracy with theft.
Theft is a crime.
Copyright infringement is not defined as theft under the law.

If I copy a game, what have I physically taken from you?

these are the kinds of piracy <> theft arguments I've seen before.[/QUOTE]

What it ends up being is an argument over semantics. Just because you're taking something digitally doesn't mean you aren't taking it. I have no doubt that in the future, copywrite laws will start moving into theft territory, especially with the advent of purely digital media that can't be defined by tangible objects.

yeah, but what I'm taking isn't the game.
The publisher is not deprived of it's use (which is where theft laws originated).

What I'm taking is potential profits, which is a purely civil matter.

A combination of saving money and convenience.

Tinwhistler said:

yeah, but what I'm taking isn't the game.
The publisher is not deprived of it's use (which is where theft laws originated).

What I'm taking is potential profits, which is a purely civil matter.

Click to expand...

Which is CURRENTLY a civil matter. I have a feeling that it won't stay that way forever.

Someone may have said it but you often have to put your own money down to publish a book. It is very VERY high risk.

Bowielee;284642][quote=Tinwhistler said:

yeah, but what I'm taking isn't the game.
The publisher is not deprived of it's use (which is where theft laws originated).

What I'm taking is potential profits, which is a purely civil matter.

Click to expand...

Which is CURRENTLY a civil matter. I have a feeling that it won't stay that way forever.[/quote]

Perhaps. But I doubt it.

What you describe has a very slippery slope. What if I hack World of Warcraft to dupe gold or dupe epic items for myself? I've essenitally made digital copies of something, and deprived the publisher of revenue. Should I be thrown in jail, the same as if I shoplifted from a store? That's the scenario we're looking at under your 'feeling'. It's no different than copying an mp3, a game, or any other 'intellectual property'. I looked at some bits that someone says that they own, copied them, and gave the copy to myself.

When I make a digital copy, I create a new thing, out of nothing. The orignal is neither harmed nor removed. If I steal an apple, that apple is gone. No one else can eat it. It is lost to the world forever. When I make a digital copy, I can provide as many eApples as I want to the world. I'm only harming the original creator of the eApple.

Tinwhistler said:

What if I hack World of Warcraft to dupe gold or dupe epic items for myself? I've essenitally made digital copies of something, and deprived the publisher of revenue.

Click to expand...

This is not a good example because Blizzard doesn't charge you to possess those things, just the access to them. You're not depriving them of revenue at all, you're just violating their EULA/ToS, because you still need to access them. They could kick your ass off the server, but it wouldn't even be a civil matter.

I'm only harming the original creator of the eApple.

Click to expand...

That's the whole point of IP law.

Tinwhistler;284654][quote=Bowielee;284642][quote=Tinwhistler said:

yeah, but what I'm taking isn't the game.
The publisher is not deprived of it's use (which is where theft laws originated).

What I'm taking is potential profits, which is a purely civil matter.

Click to expand...

Which is CURRENTLY a civil matter. I have a feeling that it won't stay that way forever.[/quote]

Perhaps. But I doubt it.

What you describe has a very slippery slope. What if I hack World of Warcraft to dupe gold or dupe epic items for myself? I've essenitally made digital copies of something, and deprived the publisher of revenue. Should I be thrown in jail, the same as if I shoplifted from a store? That's the scenario we're looking at under your 'feeling'. It's no different than copying an mp3, a game, or any other 'intellectual property'. I looked at some bits that someone says that they own, copied them, and gave the copy to myself.

When I make a digital copy, I create a new thing, out of nothing. The orignal is neither harmed nor removed. If I steal an apple, that apple is gone. No one else can eat it. It is lost to the world forever. When I make a digital copy, I can provide as many eApples as I want to the world. I'm only harming the original creator of the eApple.[/QUOTE]

The problem being, as we progress in technology, information (IE virtual things) is becoming more valuable than actual things. When this happens, and I'm not saying that it will be any time soon, the laws will change to reflect it. IMO it's only a matter of time.

Also, loss of a potential sale, in the economic sense, is still a loss.

It's a good example of an extreme slippery slope, because I am still copying bits, which is pretty much the essence of what we're talking about if you make copying bits a crime.

And yes, if you copy enough bits and it's worth it to Blizzard, they can sue you in civil court, with no change in existing law today.

Bowie: I know it's a loss...I have never argued that lost profits != loss.

However, the fact remains that the original was unharmed. Theft law originally was conceived on the notion that you deprived the original owner of the use of their own property. In digital copying, no one is denied the use of the use of the original.

What we have here is essentially the invention of the replicator, albeit only for the digital world: We can create new copies of old things, essentially for free, without changing or damaging the original. All of copyright law and theft law to this point has had the presumption that you still had a physical thing that had to change hands. Right of first sale, for instance, in copyright law, is based upon the theory that you have PHYSICAL object that embodies the copyrighted work. A book, a CD, a paper manuscript. You're allowed to sell that physical thing, but once it's sold, the new owner is allowed to sell it if they want, without regard to the original creator. Just go to any pawnshop or secondhand bookstore to see that in action.

In this new digital world, I can buy a CD, and give it away, without ever losing the original. I can create a perfect copy, for free. The old concept of right of first sale doesn't really work any more.

If someone were to create a replicator that duplicated physical objects, I'm sure the economy would collapse for a time, since wealth is pretty much defined by the scarcity of physical goods. What we are seeing here is that same theory attempting to hold back the floodgates of a world in which the only scarcity of digital goods is artificial. It's going to take a while for the world to catch up the idea of this new reality, though we are seeing shifts toward acceptance every year.

Arguing that piracy isn't stealing because theft has a specific legal definition that piracy doesn't meet is like arguing that slander isn't verbal attack because it doesn't meet the legal definition of assault. It doesn't matter if slander is a civil matter and not a criminal one, it's still an attack on someone's character or reputation, even if it isn't a physical one. Piracy is a form of theft, even if it is not a physical theft that is dealt with by criminal law.

actually, figment, slander doesn't bloody noses, break bones, or kill people. And there's the reason why it is not classified as assault, and why it carries different punishments.

Thanks for bolstering my point

TeKeo said:

Libraries buy in bulk, dude. They don't approach a publisher for 5 copies of Twilight or some shit, they approach a publisher for hundreds, sometimes thousands of books at a time.

The publisher figures out how much money they *might* lose, based on the library involved and their own sales patterns.

Then they quote the libraries a sales figure that will make up for lost potential. Since the overhead for publishers on books is pretty low, they make a ton in guaranteed sales, the library pays less per book, and the publisher still has every chance in the world to sell to those individuals anyway.

Same principle behind movie and game rentals.

Click to expand...

Thats not necessarly true. We can and have ordered individual books, with one book in an entire order. (especially if its a patron request). Libraries can do it because there's no law that forbids allow books to be loaned out. Now what we cant support is if someone takes that book and photocopies every page of it (though it has happened, and I don't care enough to stop someone). Publisheres give a slight discount, nothing great but otherwise dont care that they're selling to a library.

also, we can just buy a book straight from a bookstore if we need just one copy.

Tinwhistler said:

actually, figment, slander doesn't bloody noses, break bones, or kill people. And there's the reason why it is not classified as assault, and why it carries different punishments.

Thanks for bolstering my point

Click to expand...

What exactly is your point then?

Assault doesn't have to bloody noses, break bones or kill people. You don't even have to touch someone to assault them, depending on the definition of assault in any given area. It is possible to verbally assault someone and face criminal charges for it. (Slander just happens to be an attack of a different sort.) Is it a "slippery slope" for someone to be charged with assault for saying "I'm going to kill you" and making threatening motions? That seems to be what you're implying with your suggestions that something physical has to happen for it to be a criminal matter, which is certainly not the case.

As for "copying bits", much of banking is purely virtual these days. Would copying digital stock certificates be any different than forging paper copies of the same item? If the original owners still have their copies, is anything really stolen by making a copy? What about art forgery? Does it make a difference if it's a copy of an original one-of-a-kind oil painting, or a limited run lithograph, or a million copy comic book run? How is it that forgery is a criminal offense if the original owners still have their copies?

Dave said:

Plus games you buy don't have viruses or hidden trackers.

Click to expand...

SecureRom is a virus.

Sure it supposedly keeps content DRM'ed but it can cripple a PC, it performs virus like functions and has the ability to forever latch itself onto a PC requiring a format.

Oh and if we're covering all forms of media you can pirate, need I mention the Sony Rootkit fiasco? Yea, lets code a backdoor trojan into our music cd's and not tell the customers, awesomesauce!

Mav;284739][quote=Dave said:

Plus games you buy don't have viruses or hidden trackers.

Click to expand...

SecureRom is a virus.

Sure it supposedly keeps content DRM'ed but it can cripple a PC, it performs virus like functions and has the ability to forever latch itself onto a PC requiring a format.

Oh and if we're covering all forms of media you can pirate, need I mention the Sony Rootkit fiasco? Yea, lets code a backdoor trojan into our music cd's and not tell the customers, awesomesauce![/QUOTE]

This ^

And again I say, I have simply never downloaded any game that came with a virus or hidden tracker. I do scans every couple of weeks (but do not run any resident scanners) and come up with nothing malicious on my machine. I bet this can be said by Charlie and many of the other people that pirate.

I have even had software run better as a pirated copy then as a purchased copy and never had any purchased copy run better then a pirated (it's run at least as good though, at best).

figmentPez;284737][quote=Tinwhistler said:

actually, figment, slander doesn't bloody noses, break bones, or kill people. And there's the reason why it is not classified as assault, and why it carries different punishments.

Thanks for bolstering my point

Click to expand...

What exactly is your point then?

Assault doesn't have to bloody noses, break bones or kill people. You don't even have to touch someone to assault them, depending on the definition of assault in any given area. It is possible to verbally assault someone and face criminal charges for it. (Slander just happens to be an attack of a different sort.) Is it a "slippery slope" for someone to be charged with assault for saying "I'm going to kill you" and making threatening motions? That seems to be what you're implying with your suggestions that something physical has to happen for it to be a criminal matter, which is certainly not the case.

As for "copying bits", much of banking is purely virtual these days. Would copying digital stock certificates be any different than forging paper copies of the same item? If the original owners still have their copies, is anything really stolen by making a copy? What about art forgery? Does it make a difference if it's a copy of an original one-of-a-kind oil painting, or a limited run lithograph, or a million copy comic book run? How is it that forgery is a criminal offense if the original owners still have their copies?[/QUOTE]

People make copies of art all the time, trying to imitate the masters. Look on the web. It's only a crime (fraud) if they try to sell it. The crime isn't in the copying, it's in the fraudulent selling. Ie: Trying to pawn something off as a scarce commodity that isn't. Your analogy fails.

Let me point you to a website:
http://www.answers.com/topic/counterfeiting

Counterfeiting is a criminal offense when it involves an intent to defraud in passing off the counterfeit item.

Click to expand...

The mere act of copying (for artistic purposes, for instance) is not a crime. The crime is intent to defraud.

Likewise, slander is NOT assault, or it would carry the same penalties as assault.

Tinwhistler said:

Likewise, slander is NOT assault, or it would carry the same penalties as assault.

Click to expand...

You're right, slander is not assault, but your following statement does not necessarily follow. For instance, until recently it could be said that "cyber-stalking is not stalking, or it would carry the same penalties" or "cyber-bullying is not harassment, or it would carry the same penalties". However, recently states have begun to change the laws to reflect the reality of what can be done online. It should also be considered that two different things can have the same punishments.

Slander is not assault, because it does not involve a physical attack, or threat of physical attack. Slander does, however, have many things in common with assault, because it is an attack, it is illegal, and can still do a great deal of harm. Claiming that it is not an attack because it is not physical or not a criminal act is irrelevant. Slander is an attempt to harm someone else. Similarly, software piracy is stealing because it is an attempt to obtain what one does not have the legal rights to. It does not matter if it is depriving someone else, or if it can be subject to criminal prosecution, it is still stealing by the dictionary definition of the word.

Steal:
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force:
2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.

The crime is intent to defraud.

Click to expand...

Defraud: to deprive of a right, money, or property by fraud
Fraud: deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.

What part of piracy is not defrauding the copyright owners? They own their intellectual property, and they have the right to be compensated for their work. When an individual downloads something they should have paid for, they have practiced trickery in order to unfairly gain access to the works of another. They have the intent to take what is not rightfully theirs, so they have the intent to defraud.

Mav;284739][quote=Dave said:

Plus games you buy don't have viruses or hidden trackers.

Click to expand...

SecureRom is a virus.

Sure it supposedly keeps content DRM'ed but it can cripple a PC, it performs virus like functions and has the ability to forever latch itself onto a PC requiring a format.

Oh and if we're covering all forms of media you can pirate, need I mention the Sony Rootkit fiasco? Yea, lets code a backdoor trojan into our music cd's and not tell the customers, awesomesauce![/QUOTE]

SecuROM can reproduce itself onto other computers?

It isn't a virus, it's just needlessly obstructive and badly coded to the point where it can seriously screw up your system under certain conditions.

JONJONAUG;284852][quote=Mav;284739][quote=Dave said:

Plus games you buy don't have viruses or hidden trackers.

Click to expand...

SecureRom is a virus.

Sure it supposedly keeps content DRM'ed but it can cripple a PC, it performs virus like functions and has the ability to forever latch itself onto a PC requiring a format.

Oh and if we're covering all forms of media you can pirate, need I mention the Sony Rootkit fiasco? Yea, lets code a backdoor trojan into our music cd's and not tell the customers, awesomesauce![/QUOTE]

SecuROM can reproduce itself onto other computers?

It isn't a virus, it's just needlessly obstructive and badly coded to the point where it can seriously screw up your system under certain conditions.[/QUOTE]

Ok no it can't replicate itself and spread onto other PC's, but with more games using it and more services like Steam and Direct2Drive offering these games for sale, it's easy to get it stuck on multiple PC's you own/have owned quite simply.

It's behavior is that of a virus, it cant be removed most of the time without gutting the registry beyond repair, it often restricts access to the software it protects, for whatever reasons (usually false positives for piracy, i.e. "disk not in drive" b.s.). etc etc etc

But that's just one example of a company injecting something into a game, based on the above examples of legit games being "completely safe".

I passed up on Spore, cause it had SecueRom on it. This was before the reviews all came out saying it was average at best as a game, so the hype was still insanely high. Still passed on it because of that software.

When game companies stop treating their customers like criminals from the start, maybe things would be a little different. I haven't pirated a game in years, I can buy them as I want. But the days of shareware versions of games, or even your run of the mill DEMO of games are going the way of the Dodo.

if anything is killing PC gaming (which judging from 11 million WoW players i dont see happening), it's the companies themselves. They figure they might lose X amount of sales on PC but their console ports will still see high sales figures. This might be true, but its not from a lack of us purchasing the game, its a lack of either piss poor implementation of a pc port or no way to really try the game before buying it.

case in point, Champions Online. I was interested in this. It's Open Beta, keyword..open..., lasted about a week. A single week. Remember when Open Betas were a month or two months long? Anyway, there was two ways to get into the "open" beta, Pay Fileplanet/Steam/Direct2Drive for a subscription to download/pre order OR get in on one of the "contests" various sites had where they obtained X amount of beta keys to give away, which always ended up gone in a matter of minutes. So basically, you were left with an option to PAY to demo an OPEN beta. Week passes, beta closes, game goes gold. Of course after it goes gold, theres no trial, nothing. You plunk down your $50 and get your 30 free days. What if you dislike the game on day 1? Thats $50 wasted.

I remember, and this wasn't but 3 or 4 years ago, when a MMO (for examples sake), would release an open beta, that was truly open. You simply signed up on their website, downloaded a client, and played till it ended. No paying money, no restriction, just an open beta. And they usually lasted more than a single 5-7 day period.

So yea, I can see where pirates get pissed off.

Buying a video game should not be like studying for a college thesis paper, I shouldn't have to do field research, reading reviews, watching videos, testing theories and asking questions, I should be able to try a game, before I hand over legal tender to purchase it. You might not torrent a car, but you sure do test drive it before hand. No, you don't illegally drive off in it if a dealership refuses a test drive but you get the point, how is Company X going to get a sale from some of us if they refuse to let us try a game?

*shrug* let them do what they want, i simply move on if a game offers no demo or trial. it might be the most awesomest game of all time, if i have to offer up money before hand, its not worth it, in my opinion

figmentPez;284737][quote=Tinwhistler said:

actually, figment, slander doesn't bloody noses, break bones, or kill people. And there's the reason why it is not classified as assault, and why it carries different punishments.

Thanks for bolstering my point

Click to expand...

What exactly is your point then?

Assault doesn't have to bloody noses, break bones or kill people. You don't even have to touch someone to assault them, depending on the definition of assault in any given area. It is possible to verbally assault someone and face criminal charges for it. (Slander just happens to be an attack of a different sort.) Is it a "slippery slope" for someone to be charged with assault for saying "I'm going to kill you" and making threatening motions? That seems to be what you're implying with your suggestions that something physical has to happen for it to be a criminal matter, which is certainly not the case.

As for "copying bits", much of banking is purely virtual these days. Would copying digital stock certificates be any different than forging paper copies of the same item? If the original owners still have their copies, is anything really stolen by making a copy? What about art forgery? Does it make a difference if it's a copy of an original one-of-a-kind oil painting, or a limited run lithograph, or a million copy comic book run? How is it that forgery is a criminal offense if the original owners still have their copies?[/QUOTE]

His point is that there's a difference between slander and assault, just as there's a difference between piracy and theft. Nobody here is arguing that piracy isn't illegal, but those of you who are saying unequivocally that piracy is the same as theft are grossly oversimplifying.

Also, art forgery? It's not illegal to copy a unique piece of art, it's only a crime to sell the copy and claim it's the original, just as it's a crime to sell pirated software. Presumably, none of us are a street vendor from Singapore, so the analogy doesn't hold.

Gill Kaiser said:

His point is that there's a difference between slander and assault, just as there's a difference between piracy and theft. Nobody here is arguing that piracy isn't illegal, but those of you who are saying unequivocally that piracy is the same as theft are grossly oversimplifying.

Click to expand...

I've never said that there is no difference between piracy and the theft of physical items. However, piracy is still stealing by the dictionary definition of the word, even if it's not a criminally punishable theft.

You should also note I never said slander is assault. I said that slander is an attack, despite it not being assault. See the parallel?

Also, art forgery? It's not illegal to copy a unique piece of art, it's only a crime to sell the copy and claim it's the original, just as it's a crime to sell pirated software. Presumably, none of us are a street vendor from Singapore, so the analogy doesn't hold.

Click to expand...

Again, I didn't quote that to say that game piracy is exactly like art forgery, I was just debunking the idea that "if the owner still has a copy, it's a victimless crime". I'm showing the logic is flawed. In other posts I've already pointed out that harm is caused by piracy because public perception of the value of software is diminished when people take it for free, which encourages others to do the same.

Furthermore, software isn't like a famous painting. The value in software is it's utility and entertainment. The high value in a Picasso is primarily in it's rarity. The motivation behind the copying is different (not to mention a digital copy of software can be perfect beyond the greatest forgery). A person who paints a copy of a Picasso, and hangs it in his own home is doing nothing wrong, but if he tells visitors that it's an original, he's defrauded them, even if he doesn't sell them the painting. He'd never face prosecution as long as he never tries to sell the painting, but it is fraud none-the-less. It doesn't matter if it's criminal fraud, it is fraud. He has practiced deceit for the purposes of personal gain (even if that's just impressing a few visitors).

It's the same for software piracy. It is stealing, regardless of if it is criminally prosecutable theft. Legal statutes and criminal prosecution are not the sole benchmark for the application of words like steal, attack, theft, etc.

I pirate because I'm a college student and I kind of lack money. And no, just dropping one of my main non-destructive outlets because I can't pay $70 a week for new games wouldn't work out well.

Besides, if a game is good enough I'll find a way to pay for it. Last week, I bought Assassin's Creed. And if Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines is any good, I'll buy it through Steam.

Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines IS very good, but your going to need to patch the hell out of it. You'll need the official patch and then the fan patch, which puts bugged out content back into the game, like crossbows and torches.

figmentPez said:

It is stealing, regardless of if it is criminally prosecutable theft. Legal statutes and criminal prosecution are not the sole benchmark for the application of words like steal, attack, theft, etc.

Click to expand...

So when someone publishes a book that's in the public domain without paying the former copyright owned he's stealing it?! Because the legal status is the only difference there.

You should also note I never said slander is assault. I said that slander is an attack, despite it not being assault. See the parallel?

Click to expand...

Wow, talk about arguing over semantics... sheesh. Anyone have a time machine so i can go back and make sure the word attack doesn't have that connotation?

AshburnerX said:

Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines IS very good, but your going to need to patch the hell out of it. You'll need the official patch and then the fan patch, which puts bugged out content back into the game, like crossbows and torches.

Click to expand...

Bah, I made it through with no patches! I'm 100% sure that they couldn't make it worse, though

Whoever's arguing securom is a virus: Virus = Self Replicating, not malicious. Just because it's packed in an installer doesn't make it self replicating, either.

I haven't pirated a game in ages. Not because i think it's wrong or anything... It's not my problem.

It's just i want to keep companies i like in the black and therefore i do my part.

I agree games are stupidly expensive especially console games but i want devs to keep creating shit other than the sims and all that mmo crap

"figmentPez said:

Tinwhistler said:

Likewise, slander is NOT assault, or it would carry the same penalties as assault.

Click to expand...

You're right, slander is not assault, but your following statement does not necessarily follow. For instance, until recently it could be said that "cyber-stalking is not stalking, or it would carry the same penalties"

Click to expand...

I dunno about where you live, but here in Texas, cyberstalking carries the same penalties as stalking. They're the same crime.

figmentPez said:

Claiming that it is not an attack because it is not physical or not a criminal act is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

It's very relevant. The harms are different. And thusly, the two crimes carry different penalties. That's my entire freaking point. Stealing a physical object has very different harms than copying a game. One will put you in the slammer, and one will see you pay a civil monetary penalty. They're not even in the same ballpark in terms of harms. Your own examples that you keep bringing up time and time again point this out.

So what's YOUR point? That there is a loss in copying games? I conceded that when I first started posting...why are you belaboring the point? If you pay attention and quit getting hung up on the semantics, we can agree on this point, and move on from there.

So let's move back to the concept of the magical replicator: IF I were somehow able to replicate my car, for free, and sell the copy, I would be harming Chevrolet. I would be taking money from their pockets, because I'd be in direct competition with them with their own product. I can see where that would be unethical. It lines up nicely with the copyright law having harsher penalties for distribution.

Now lets say I didn't have a car. I saw my neighbor's car, and decided to replicate it. Is that a crime? According to you, it is, because I've taken money from Chevrolet. But, for some reason, in the real world and not the 'digital world', the concept that this should be a crime seems absurd. If I can create a thing out of thin air, I should go to jail because it happens to be a copy of someone else's thing? Ridiculous.

And yet, what if I could make as many cars as I wanted, magically? Hundreds...thousands. Millions? The car industry would collapse, because they wouldn't be able to keep up with my ability to make magical free cars. The only thing keeping the car industry in business is that making cars is hard, and costs money..so you're willing to pay large sums of money to have someone do it for you.

Now imagine if everyone had the power to replicate anything. You can understand the chaos that would ensue: Some people would keep paying for things, out of loyalty or principle or a sense of obligation. If you read about why some people don't pirate games, you'll hear similar reasoning. Some people would think anyone who paid for anything was a sucker, and replicate everything they wanted. You'll hear that argument in the piracy debate as well. Some people will do so because of convenience, or because they're poor. But whatever the reasoning for paying for free goods, the global economy would collapse because no one would HAVE to pay for anything, except by legislative fiat. But simply making it illegal to replicate things would only hold back the tide so long, and once people realized that everything was essentially free, they would stop paying for things. The world would have to find another way to create the concept of wealth, if it could.

That's the situation we find ourselves in, in the digital world. In the good old days, to get an album, you still needed something physical to copy it to, and media wasn't cheap. It'd take an hour to move from album to tape, and you had to buy tapes. This helped keep piracy in check, as the process was cumbersome, and not cheap, and duplicates were inferior to the original. But still, people passed 'mix tapes' and stuff around, or xeroxed documents, etc.

And that brings up the matter of distribution. If you made a copy of a mix tape, you had one tape. You could give it to a friend, and make another, but it was still a physical object, and distribution was limited. But nowadays, you can make unlimited copies, nearly instantly, for essentially free, and make them freely available, instantly, to anyone in the world. And those copies are essentially perfect, rather than inferior copies. The only thing holding back piracy now is law and ideology. The physical barriers have all been removed.

Now, you can say that piracy=theft, because it causes a "loss"...and I agree that companies lose money when games are pirated. But it's an artificial loss. The company hasn't lost the product. The product isn't gone. It's not like me stealing a car. When I steal a car, the owner doesn't have it any longer. But if I duplicate a car, the original owner has suffered no harm at all. The only harm is to the car manufacturer, because they can no longer make money by charging me for cars. It's simply a loss due to business model failure. The business model of "I have something that is scarce, so you must pay me if you want it" no longer works in today's world in digital media--because these things are no longer scarce! If i want Taylor Swift's newest single, or Activision's newest game, I can get them, for free, with less effort than my primitive ancestors used picking an apple from a tree.

So, should I be jailed because some company's business plan failed? Is a failed business plan theft? Of course not.

There are plenty of companies that make money giving their software away. They have found other ways to generate revenue from their work. Look at DDO for instance. They have doubled their profits since going 'free' than they were making previously. It costs me nothing to download their game, and costs me nothing to play. But somehow, DDO is now thriving on that model. Likewise, There are plenty of bands encouraging people to distribute their music. They are finding other avenues (such as t-shirt sales and touring) to make money.

That's the world we're moving toward in this new reality. And, rather than Bowielee's theory that soon you will be jailed for writing down a particular set of ones and zeroes, my theory is that decades from now, there will be almost no money in artificially making a digital product scarce, but rather, companies that survive will have found a different way to monetize their product.

(edit because I had to leave for work before i could finish my points here..)

Gill Kaiser said:

His point is that there's a difference between slander and assault, just as there's a difference between piracy and theft. Nobody here is arguing that piracy isn't illegal, but those of you who are saying unequivocally that piracy is the same as theft are grossly oversimplifying.

Also, art forgery? It's not illegal to copy a unique piece of art, it's only a crime to sell the copy and claim it's the original, just as it's a crime to sell pirated software. Presumably, none of us are a street vendor from Singapore, so the analogy doesn't hold.

Click to expand...

Exactly. I think i've made the point clearly enough. However, it's to his benefit and bolsters his point if he can make us agree on the point that "Piracy=Theft", when clearly it isn't.

Now imagine if everyone had the power to replicate anything. You can understand the chaos that would ensue: Some people would keep paying for things, out of loyalty or principle. Some people would think anyone who paid for anything was a sucker, and replicate everything they wanted. Eventually, the global economy would collapse because no one would HAVE to pay for anything, except by legislative fiat.

Click to expand...

The social implication alone would throw the world into chaos long before the world economy would be affected the way you're describing... post scarcity and all that.

@Li3n said:

Now imagine if everyone had the power to replicate anything. You can understand the chaos that would ensue: Some people would keep paying for things, out of loyalty or principle. Some people would think anyone who paid for anything was a sucker, and replicate everything they wanted. Eventually, the global economy would collapse because no one would HAVE to pay for anything, except by legislative fiat.

Click to expand...

The social implication alone would throw the world into chaos long before the world economy would be affected the way you're describing... post scarcity and all that.

Click to expand...

And yet, in the digital world, we have exactly this situation. By some estimation, 80%-90% piracy rates, because millions of people want something that they know they don't have to pay for.

How do you put the genie back in that bottle?

My long-winded post above theorizes that you don't have to. That you can't. Instead, you accept the new reality and learn a new way to make your business work. We are finally starting to see some real movement in that direction from companies, and I think those are the right moves.

Charlie Dont Surf said:

A combination of saving money and convenience.

Click to expand...

I respect that you have the nuts to just admit it. I've pirated shit myself. I'm not going to make excuses to justify it either. I'm naturally a person that jumps on a 'free lunch', so to speak. If I find 20 bucks on the ground, I'm going to keep it etc...

To this day I still download songs instead of buying CD's. Why? Because I can and it's more convenient and cheaper than buying CDs or downloading mp3's from Applestore. Who actually buys CD's anymore? I know that songs are like a buck each, but 100 songs = 100 bucks. I don't feel like spending that, nor does Apple "backup" my mp3 purchase. I would possibly consider buying music if I had a guarantee to redownload it, if I had to. I know it's wrong. I know I'm in the wrong for doing it. But in my eyes, I don't get the security that I need to purchase. (which is why I do the same for movies)

The single reason I no longer download pirated video games is because I prefer to have a box/cd/download available on deck in case my computer settings change/computer messes up such that I need to reinstall. Plus I like the security of full software support and updates. I figure that security and the rarity that I purchase games to begin with is enough to warrant a purchase rather than a download.

---------- Post added at 08:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:01 AM ----------

Tinwhistler;284915][quote=@Li3n said:

Now imagine if everyone had the power to replicate anything. You can understand the chaos that would ensue: Some people would keep paying for things, out of loyalty or principle. Some people would think anyone who paid for anything was a sucker, and replicate everything they wanted. Eventually, the global economy would collapse because no one would HAVE to pay for anything, except by legislative fiat.

Click to expand...

The social implication alone would throw the world into chaos long before the world economy would be affected the way you're describing... post scarcity and all that.

Click to expand...

We are finally starting to see some real movement in that direction from companies, and I think those are the right moves.[/QUOTE]

Things like Steam are a step in the right direction. You have to use Steam to verify the game purchase (some games are discounted), but Steam also allows the convenience of auto updates, support, community etc...

I theorize that if everyone had a replicator and would never need to buy anything, then there would be no *need* for economy. Creators would create just to get their creation out there, not for monetary gain or means of survival.

Need more steak? Zap it with the replicator.
Need more fuel? Zap it with the replicator.
Need another shirt because your current one is getting too grungy? Zap it with the replicator.
Need another replicator? Zap it with the replicator.

Because, in the digital world, the quality isn't any different from a copy of a copy of a copy (etc), there's no reason to think that this replicator would cause substandard products either.

Tin, if this was what you were suggesting in your long post, I didn't read it all through yet, so I apologize if I'm repeating things for you. If not, well, I'll read it in a little bit.

Pretty much, Elph.

In the digital world, that's the world we live in...You can replicate anything for free, so is it any surprise that a business model built on monetizing the scarcity of goods is failing?

Tinwhistler said:

Pretty much, Elph.

In the digital world, that's the world we live in...You can replicate anything for free, so is it any surprise that a business model built on monetizing the scarcity of goods is failing?

Click to expand...

So if you clone yourself and the clone gives you a blowjob, would it be considered gay?

Mav said:

When game companies stop treating their customers like criminals from the start, maybe things would be a little different. I haven't pirated a game in years, I can buy them as I want. But the days of shareware versions of games, or even your run of the mill DEMO of games are going the way of the Dodo.

Click to expand...

This argument is flawed. Copy protection exists because people pirate games, it's not the other way around. Hard to fault game companies for overreacting when they watch previous games fail due to rampant piracy.

Chazwozel said:

So if you clone yourself and the clone gives you a blowjob, would it be considered gay?

Click to expand...

Would anyone care???

*goes back to laboratory to perfect her cloning device*

Covar said:

Mav said:

When game companies stop treating their customers like criminals from the start, maybe things would be a little different. I haven't pirated a game in years, I can buy them as I want. But the days of shareware versions of games, or even your run of the mill DEMO of games are going the way of the Dodo.

Click to expand...

This argument is flawed. Copy protection exists because people pirate games, it's not the other way around. Hard to fault game companies for overreacting when they watch previous games fail due to rampant piracy.

Click to expand...

bb, copy protection has been around for as long as piracy, and it mainly just pisses off the costumer and makes him pirate the products to not have to deal with it. Now, to read the rest of this post, open your user manual and go to page 64, third paragraph, fourth word. Then use the word decoder.

Denbrought;284941][quote=Covar said:

Mav said:

When game companies stop treating their customers like criminals from the start, maybe things would be a little different. I haven't pirated a game in years, I can buy them as I want. But the days of shareware versions of games, or even your run of the mill DEMO of games are going the way of the Dodo.

Click to expand...

This argument is flawed. Copy protection exists because people pirate games, it's not the other way around. Hard to fault game companies for overreacting when they watch previous games fail due to rampant piracy.

Click to expand...

bb, copy protection has been around for as long as piracy, and it mainly just pisses off the costumer and makes him pirate the products to not have to deal with it. Now, to read the rest of this post, open your user manual and go to page 64, third paragraph, fourth word. Then use the word decoder.[/QUOTE]

/eyeroll This hearkens back to my days of pirating games. I believe XWing and Tie Fighter both used this as well as other LucasArts games. You do realize that prior, there was absolutely nothing stopping someone from copying the floppy and distributing (or even selling the game). Within a month of the release of a game there would be BB sites with lists of the correct keycodes from the manuals.

"Stick it to the man"

Chazwozel;284942][quote=Denbrought;284941][quote=Covar said:

Mav said:

When game companies stop treating their customers like criminals from the start, maybe things would be a little different. I haven't pirated a game in years, I can buy them as I want. But the days of shareware versions of games, or even your run of the mill DEMO of games are going the way of the Dodo.

Click to expand...

This argument is flawed. Copy protection exists because people pirate games, it's not the other way around. Hard to fault game companies for overreacting when they watch previous games fail due to rampant piracy.

Click to expand...

bb, copy protection has been around for as long as piracy, and it mainly just pisses off the costumer and makes him pirate the products to not have to deal with it. Now, to read the rest of this post, open your user manual and go to page 64, third paragraph, fourth word. Then use the word decoder.[/quote]

/eyeroll This hearkens back to my days of pirating games. I believe XWing and Tie Fighter both used this as well as other LucasArts games. You do realize that prior, there was absolutely nothing stopping someone from copying the floppy and distributing (or even selling the game). Within a month of the release of a game there would be BB sites with lists of the correct keycodes from the manuals.

"Stick it to the man"[/QUOTE]

"Don't copy that floppy"

Tinwhistler said:

Pretty much, Elph.

In the digital world, that's the world we live in...You can replicate anything for free, so is it any surprise that a business model built on monetizing the scarcity of goods is failing?

Click to expand...

Yeah, just read yours over. Pretty much.

I just had to get the boy to school and this whole 'magical replicator' thing was getting annoying that the obvious ramifications would be missed so I had to post my 2¥.

Chazwozel;284938][quote=Tinwhistler said:

Pretty much, Elph.

In the digital world, that's the world we live in...You can replicate anything for free, so is it any surprise that a business model built on monetizing the scarcity of goods is failing?

Click to expand...

So if you clone yourself and the clone gives you a blowjob, would it be considered gay?[/QUOTE]

If by gay, you mean awesome, then yes.

---------- Post added at 08:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:42 AM ----------

Chazwozel said:

/eyeroll This hearkens back to my days of pirating games. I believe XWing and Tie Fighter both used this as well as other LucasArts games. You do realize that prior, there was absolutely nothing stopping someone from copying the floppy and distributing (or even selling the game). Within a month of the release of a game there would be BB sites with lists of the correct keycodes from the manuals.

\"Stick it to the man\"

Click to expand...

Actually, other forms of copy protection existed prior to this. Back on the old apple 2+, they had this technique where they could write 'half track'..programmers would bounce the floppy drive read head to read on half-tracks instead of normal tracks, which would make copying very problematic.

you could use this theory to write on half tracks and then normal tracks and then half tracks, creating another scheme called "Spiral tracking"

a good website detailing early copy protection schemes is here:
http://rittwage.com/c64pp/dp.php?pg=protection

I spent a lot of time in my youth decompiling boot sectors into the assembler. Heh.

Piracy is piracy no matter how you slice it. I believe if the developers make a good software a limited demo version is a good way to get it out there and people to try it out.

The C64 had some awesome copy protection, too.

EDIT: Never mind, I see that that's what your link goes to!

fade said:

The C64 had some awesome copy protection, too.

EDIT: Never mind, I see that that's what your link goes to!

Click to expand...

Yeah, a lot of C64 and Apple 2+ copy protections were very similar...I looked for "half track" on google, and hit the c64 page. Since it detailed most of the Apple 2+ schemes I was familiar with, I went no further.

re Chibi's "piracy=piracy"
This isn't an argument. Change the word piracy with "copying". You get "Copying=copying." well, yeah, it is.
The argument is whether copying is immoral and should be illegal. One one hand is the argument that you're costing developers money. On the other hand is the argument that copying is a natural economic progression.

People should read up on 'Commodification'. An mp3 file is a commodity. It doesn't matter who you get it from: Limewire, iTunes, RIAA, playlist.com whoever. When you get that song, it's the same song. And because of the way commodities work, the price margins on them are typically razor thin. You can't jack the price up on notebook paper, because someone else is happy to sell it at a price that barely makes them a profit. So, with commodity goods, the price typically crashes down to something barely above the cost to produce.

And how much does it cost to produce a copy of an mp3 file? Nothing. Naturally, many people are going to acquire those mp3 files as cheaply as they can, which means for free. Other people will have no problem providing those files as cheaply as they can, which also means for free, since the cost of duplicating an mp3 file is near-zero. This, naturally, chaps the ass of people who want to make money selling mp3s.

If you strip away the moral outrage, piracy is a very easily understood economic model. When a product becomes free to produce, and there are essentially unlimited units of that product creating zero scarcity, very few people are going to pay for that product in the long term.

Crud, you reminded me that I do pirate pretty heavily Chaz. Music. I can't remember the last time I bought a CD or MP3.

Hell, I "bought" Do You Want To Date My Avatar, yet I just downloaded it on Limewire last night to put on my mp3 today.

I like what Crone said about Limewire: it's like AIDS for your computer.

Charlie Dont Surf said:

Man, I don't rationalize shit. I pirate stuff, and it's wrong for me to do it. But I do it anyways.

Click to expand...

CDS++.

The most ironic thing about the more aggressive forms of DRM like SecuROM is that the pirates simply bypass it, whereas the owners of legit copies are stuck with it forever more. OK, some might say that the aim of the DRM is to slow down the process of cracking the game for the pirate release in order to maximise sales in the first few days/weeks, but that seems like a weak excuse to me. These types of DRM treat every consumer as a potential pirate by default, yet end up only punishing the innocent.

For example, if you look at a game like Mass Effect PC, the SecuROM and download limits are unavoidable unless you pirate it. As a Bioware fan, I own a legit copy of Mass Effect, but I actually keep the pirated release installed instead because it's simply less hassle.

Thankfully EA seem to have realised that their DRM policies were flawed after the massive backlash that the version of SecuROM in Mass Effect and Spore caused in the community. If you look at The Sims 3 and the upcoming Dragon Age, both use/will use simple disc check DRM, while also providing incentive for purchasing a legit copy (The Sims 3 has the free additional neighbourhood for download with a legit serial key, and Dragon Age has Shale and Blood Dragon Armour 'DLC' codes provided with the game bought new), instead of punishing the purchaser. I like that EA are using the carrot rather than the stick, it seems to mark a fundamental shift in their perceptions of their consumers, their relationship with piracy, and their entire business model.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8328820.stm

looks like the UK is going to do something about illegal downloads (I figure it is fitting with piracy talk)

fade said:

I like what Crone said about Limewire: it's like AIDS for your computer.

Click to expand...

I do all my downloads on my "internet condom" computer. Scan everything as it comes in, scan it when it hits the HD, then scan it when I transfer it to my main system.

So far, so good. :noidea:

Gill Kaiser said:

The most ironic thing about the more aggressive forms of DRM like SecuROM is that the pirates simply bypass it, whereas the owners of legit copies are stuck with it forever more. OK, some might say that the aim of the DRM is to slow down the process of cracking the game for the pirate release in order to maximise sales in the first few days/weeks, but that seems like a weak excuse to me. These types of DRM treat every consumer as a potential pirate by default, yet end up only punishing the innocent.

For example, if you look at a game like Mass Effect PC, the SecuROM and download limits are unavoidable unless you pirate it. As a Bioware fan, I own a legit copy of Mass Effect, but I actually keep the pirated release installed instead because it's simply less hassle.

Thankfully EA seem to have realised that their DRM policies were flawed after the massive backlash that the version of SecuROM in Mass Effect and Spore caused in the community. If you look at The Sims 3 and the upcoming Dragon Age, both use/will use simple disc check DRM, while also providing incentive for purchasing a legit copy (The Sims 3 has the free additional neighbourhood for download with a legit serial key, and Dragon Age has Shale and Blood Dragon Armour 'DLC' codes provided with the game bought new), instead of punishing the purchaser. I like that EA are using the carrot rather than the stick, it seems to mark a fundamental shift in their perceptions of their consumers, their relationship with piracy, and their entire business model.

Click to expand...

The 'funny' part with Sims 3, is that the consumer is still punished. They cripple their software with lack of items so they can drain customers through the store's micro transactions. While the pirate still got the new town, still gets all the store content. The only aspect in which the pirate is unable to participate through the Sims 3, is through the exchange. Which doesn't matter because there are quite a number of sites to download player created content.

It's been proven time and again, that copy protection does nothing against pirates.

Chibibar said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8328820.stm

looks like the UK is going to do something about illegal downloads (I figure it is fitting with piracy talk)

Click to expand...

Man, the thing I hate about this is that while it seems to be conceived with the best intentions, it also seems to have been written up by people who don't really understand what they're talking about. I can't really see how this policy will be sustainable in practice. It's like an extension of the RIAA's policies towards music piracy (namely, bullying and intimidation through example), and we all know how effective that's been. I'd much prefer it if companies falling victim to piracy found ways to alter their business model in order to make piracy less appealing in comparison, rather than just seeking to enact punishments.

Also, is it just me, or are we in the UK losing civil rights by the bucketload recently?

---------- Post added at 03:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:04 PM ----------

elph;285050][quote=Gill Kaiser said:

The most ironic thing about the more aggressive forms of DRM like SecuROM is that the pirates simply bypass it, whereas the owners of legit copies are stuck with it forever more. OK, some might say that the aim of the DRM is to slow down the process of cracking the game for the pirate release in order to maximise sales in the first few days/weeks, but that seems like a weak excuse to me. These types of DRM treat every consumer as a potential pirate by default, yet end up only punishing the innocent.

For example, if you look at a game like Mass Effect PC, the SecuROM and download limits are unavoidable unless you pirate it. As a Bioware fan, I own a legit copy of Mass Effect, but I actually keep the pirated release installed instead because it's simply less hassle.

Thankfully EA seem to have realised that their DRM policies were flawed after the massive backlash that the version of SecuROM in Mass Effect and Spore caused in the community. If you look at The Sims 3 and the upcoming Dragon Age, both use/will use simple disc check DRM, while also providing incentive for purchasing a legit copy (The Sims 3 has the free additional neighbourhood for download with a legit serial key, and Dragon Age has Shale and Blood Dragon Armour 'DLC' codes provided with the game bought new), instead of punishing the purchaser. I like that EA are using the carrot rather than the stick, it seems to mark a fundamental shift in their perceptions of their consumers, their relationship with piracy, and their entire business model.

Click to expand...

The 'funny' part with Sims 3, is that the consumer is still punished. They cripple their software with lack of items so they can drain customers through the store's micro transactions. While the pirate still got the new town, still gets all the store content. The only aspect in which the pirate is unable to participate through the Sims 3, is through the exchange. Which doesn't matter because there are quite a number of sites to download player created content.[/QUOTE]

Ah well, that's just plain old greed. The Sims 3 is EA's main cash cow franchise, after all. The lack of items out of the box isn't really anything to do with piracy, EA just want to milk their customers. I agree, the prices for official extra items in the Sims 3 Store are, frankly, ludicrous.

Gill Kaiser;285052][quote=Chibibar said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8328820.stm

looks like the UK is going to do something about illegal downloads (I figure it is fitting with piracy talk)

Click to expand...

Man, the thing I hate about this is that while it seems to be conceived with the best intentions, it also seems to have been written up by people who don't really understand what they're talking about. I can't really see how this policy will be sustainable in practice. It's like an extension of the RIAA's policies towards music piracy (namely, bullying and intimidation through example), and we all know how effective that's been. I'd much prefer it if companies falling victim to piracy found ways to alter their business model in order to make piracy less appealing in comparison, rather than just seeking to enact punishments.

Also, is it just me, or are we in the UK losing civil rights by the bucketload recently?
[/QUOTE]

Yea. I have to agree. People pirate for various reasons but I bet one of them is "it is not work X dollars" mentality. Look at iTunes, they are selling music in boatload via 99 cent songs. If you make stuff affordable, people will buy it. If you make a program worthwhile, people will buy it.

Oh, we're not talking strictly about video games now?

Shit, my iPod is so full of movies I didn't pay for it's not even funny.

The only real difference I see between games and other forms of piratable media is that you pay to see movies at a theater, you pay to hear music at a concert, the only revenue most video games are going to generate comes from selling a copy.

That's a very big difference! Many musicians earn most of their money from concerts instead of sales, for instance.

Chibibar;285073][quote=Gill Kaiser;285052][quote=Chibibar said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8328820.stm

looks like the UK is going to do something about illegal downloads (I figure it is fitting with piracy talk)

Click to expand...

Man, the thing I hate about this is that while it seems to be conceived with the best intentions, it also seems to have been written up by people who don't really understand what they're talking about. I can't really see how this policy will be sustainable in practice. It's like an extension of the RIAA's policies towards music piracy (namely, bullying and intimidation through example), and we all know how effective that's been. I'd much prefer it if companies falling victim to piracy found ways to alter their business model in order to make piracy less appealing in comparison, rather than just seeking to enact punishments.

Also, is it just me, or are we in the UK losing civil rights by the bucketload recently?
[/QUOTE]

Yea. I have to agree. People pirate for various reasons but I bet one of them is "it is not work X dollars" mentality. Look at iTunes, they are selling music in boatload via 99 cent songs. If you make stuff affordable, people will buy it. If you make a program worthwhile, people will buy it.[/QUOTE]

iTunes is still a ripoff. I expect to be able to download shit I pay for as many times as my little heart desires.

Covar said:

Mav said:

When game companies stop treating their customers like criminals from the start, maybe things would be a little different. I haven't pirated a game in years, I can buy them as I want. But the days of shareware versions of games, or even your run of the mill DEMO of games are going the way of the Dodo.

Click to expand...

This argument is flawed. Copy protection exists because people pirate games, it's not the other way around. Hard to fault game companies for overreacting when they watch previous games fail due to rampant piracy.

Click to expand...

Dude, some of the best selling games where pirated like crazy...

Whatever happened to offering a good MP service... you know how many people i know that bought Diablo 2 and/or Starcraft to play on b.net once the price went down enough... and over here you get look at funny if you actually go buying games... (not that the stores make it easy, every new game is the equivalent of 50 Euros ever since we got in the EU, while the medium income only went up to 300 euros from 200$ - dollar went down etc.).

I'm willing to bet that those measures stop a great deal of casual pirating, which is probably what their accountants and lawyers calculated for, given that they have a lot more knowledge of industry internals than ranters on the web do. Barring your windows keeps casual thieves out, but it certainly won't stop anyone dedicated to getting into your house. Doesn't make window bars ineffective. The main difference is that a) the number of dedicated thieves is larger, and b) the fenced product can be duplicated indefinitely. I'm not saying (before someone takes the internet arguing tactic of "you didn't say it so you must support it") that it's a good system, but I doubt it's totally useless.

Having cd that can't just be copied stops a great deal of casual pirating... otherwise all it takes is some guys with an internet conection selling them at street corners... i know people that can barely operate a computer that have gotten pirated games... and then asked me to help them install the game, and not because of the crack, but the normal install process (no room on C, had no idea how to change it to D).

Which reminds me, stop buying pirated games at street corners...

On DRM of all sorts: If I know the product has DRM on it and yet I still want it, I will actually buy it, toss it somewhere and then download it because I want to have control over what I bought.

Music piracy is so rampant, only things like iTunes have managed to actually get people to buy it. Do they offer lossless formats by now though? That's the one thing that was always missing for me at least. You'd buy an mp3 with an inferior quality then a pirated one.

Tinwhistler said:

There are plenty of companies that make money giving their software away. They have found other ways to generate revenue from their work. Look at DDO for instance. They have doubled their profits since going 'free' than they were making previously. It costs me nothing to download their game, and costs me nothing to play. But somehow, DDO is now thriving on that model.

Click to expand...

DDO is not an especially good example for either side of the piracy argument, because their decision to go "free2play, pay for schtuff" had more to do with having priced themselves out of the market. They were simply unable to compete on a value-level with games like WoW, and were not able to live up to the strength of their brand.

MMO piracy is relatively difficult because you need verified copies of the game to get access. Unlike regular PC games with SecureROM DRM, MMO pirate servers are one area where piracy usually does not provide any useability benefits, just cost.

People were simply not buying or playing DDO on the subscription model, because they didn't think the game was worth it. So they re-designed the game fairly severely to reduce grind and improve player experience, and used the new model as a kind of permanent demo to rope players in, after which they've been upselling everything from more features and classes to fully-featured paid subscription accounts.

In fact, their subscription model exploded when they re-released the game.

And it had nothing to do with piracy or anti-piracy, it was all re-building the value of the product. The increased "protection" from piracy by making the core game free in the first place is just a smart bonus.

---------- Post added at 06:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:17 PM ----------

Seraphyn said:

Do they offer lossless formats by now though? That's the one thing that was always missing for me at least. You'd buy an mp3 with an inferior quality then a pirated one.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. I think they just make the (bullshit) claim that it sounds as good, but I'm not up on my iTunes news.

@Li3n;284891][quote=figmentPez said:

It is stealing, regardless of if it is criminally prosecutable theft. Legal statutes and criminal prosecution are not the sole benchmark for the application of words like steal, attack, theft, etc.

Click to expand...

So when someone publishes a book that's in the public domain without paying the former copyright owned he's stealing it?! Because the legal status is the only difference there. [/quote]

So, is it your opinion that copyright laws sprang into existence out of nothing? That's the only conclusion I can draw from your statement that the law is the only difference. I whole heartedly disagree. Copyrights, and patents, trademarks, etc. exist because of the moral and ethical notions that a worker is entitled to profit from what he has created, even if that creation is non-material. The idea of pulbic domain is based around the idea that it is wrong to keep certain types of these non-material works from the public indefinitely. However, with copyright, the period of time where the creator, or his estate, has exclusive rights to his work generally extends for his entire life, plus an additional period.

That is the difference. A work under copyright gives the author the right to restict copies of their work. This right expires after a given period, after which the rights to copy the work is given over to the public. Arguments can be made that this is not a perfect system, and if one were to take the view that copyright should be held in perpetuity by the estate of the creator, then it would be stealing to infringe on that copyright, even if the law says it is acceptable. However, no video game has an expired copyright yet. The majority of games have one or all of their creators/copyright holders still alive. Is anyone going to argue that they don't hold a legal, moral and ethical right to control their creations?

You should also note I never said slander is assault. I said that slander is an attack, despite it not being assault. See the parallel?

Click to expand...

Wow, talk about arguing over semantics... sheesh. Anyone have a time machine so i can go back and make sure the word attack doesn't have that connotation?

Click to expand...

Yes, we are arguing about semantics. We are arguing about the meaning of words. Let me introduce a new word to the discussion: Larceny “the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods of another from his or her possession with intent to convert them to the taker's own use.” Piracy is not larceny because it is not theft of goods. However, theft of services is not larceny either, yet it is still theft. So we see that theft does not apply solely to the criminal charge of larceny. Furthermore, the language of such laws as “Artist's Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2005” and the “No Electronic Theft (NET) Act of 1997” clearly show that copyright infringment can and is legally considered theft, and can hold criminal charges.

---------- Post added at 06:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:07 PM ----------

tegid said:

That's a very big difference! Many musicians earn most of their money from concerts instead of sales, for instance.

Click to expand...

That's interesting. I've heard the exact opposite from my musician friends. They say that smaller bands barely brake even concert tickets, and rely on the CD and merchandise sales generated by the concert to make money.

"Tinwhistler;284900][quote=figmentPez said:

Tinwhistler said:

Likewise, slander is NOT assault, or it would carry the same penalties as assault.

Click to expand...

You're right, slander is not assault, but your following statement does not necessarily follow. For instance, until recently it could be said that "cyber-stalking is not stalking, or it would carry the same penalties"

Click to expand...

I dunno about where you live, but here in Texas, cyberstalking carries the same penalties as stalking. They're the same crime. [/quote]

Only since 2001 when Texas passed the Stalking by Electronic Communications Act. Before that, and similar laws, were passed, there were many forms of electronic stalking that weren't considered crimes, were very difficult to prosecute, or weren't' treated with the same severity as other forms of stalking. The laws has to be updated to reflect new technology, because the crimes did not carry the same penalty, despite being very similar.

Take another example, upskirt photos. Before laws were passed in many states making it, and similar practices, illegal, it wasn't a crime at all. Photos taken in public spaces were all treated the same, regardless of the angle. Taking a picture up a woman's skirt wasn't treated the same way as getting a photo of her panties when she was in a changing room. However, that changed when laws were updated to reflect that, even in a public space, a woman has a reasonable expectation of privacy in regards to what she attempts to cover with a skirt or dress.

figmentPez said:

And thusly, the two crimes carry different penalties.

Click to expand...

Does that mean you're finally admitting that copyright infringement is a crime? Because your denial that it is stealing seems to be an attempt to rationalize it as being acceptable behavior not worthy of being illegal.

So what's YOUR point?

Click to expand...

My point is that piracy is stealing because it is taking what one does not have the right to. It doesn't matter if it doesn't deserve the same punishment. It doesn't even matter how much or how little harm was done. It is stealing by the definition of the word.

Now lets say I didn't have a car. I saw my neighbor's car, and decided to replicate it. Is that a crime? According to you, it is, because I've taken money from Chevrolet.

Click to expand...

No, it's a crime according to me because you're taking the design worked on for hundreds, probably thousands of man-hours by Chevrolet employees, and using it without the right to, legally or ethically.

The only thing keeping the car industry in business is that making cars is hard, and costs money..so you're willing to pay large sums of money to have someone do it for you.

Click to expand...

What about designing cars? Crash testing them? Those things take money as well. If it were perfectly acceptable to stick with the designs we have now and never make any innovations, then it wouldn't cost any money to produce cars were manufacturing taken out of the equation. However, if we want to improve on what we have, make something new and better, then it takes time and effort that can't be replicated by a magical duplicating machine. The question is, how will we as a society value that creative work. Will we declare it worthless and afford it no protection? Or will we give it the value it deserves, and provide legal protection for the creator?

The world would have to find another way to create the concept of wealth, if it could.

Click to expand...

You mean by putting value in services rather than goods? Or by protecting the rights that artists, designers, engineers and inventors have had over their creative works, as patents, trademarks, copyright and more have afforded for centuries? You don't seem to know much about economics, or at least not be connecting the dots very well. I'm a total amateur and I'm seeing things from angles you're either missing or intentionally omitting.

Even if material goods were all cheap-as-free in any configuration, the design of those goods would still be of great value. It is up to us as society to decide if we value the works of artists, musicians, engineers, inventors and other creators enough to give them the control that they deserve.

The only thing holding back piracy now is law and ideology. The physical barriers have all been removed.

Click to expand...

Well, it's a non-trvial thing to transmit multi-gigabyte movies and games, but we'll assume the infastrcutre and software necessary to do so is incidental to the issue. That said, law and ideology are all that are holding back any number of things. They're what makes the patent system work, and have been making it work since long before it was possible to copy someone else's work for gain. It's what makes the Berne convention work. Law and ideology have been protecting the work of artists for far longer than digital copying has been an issue. Just because it's cheaper than ever to make copies does not mean it's never been possible to see gain by copying someone else's work before.

Patent law has been protecting even 5 cent doodads for hundreds of years. The change in the issue is that now it's becoming as easy for individuals to infringe on copyright, and soon patents, with no investment, and no need to sell the result in order to see profit. But make no mistake, an individual who is infringing on a copyright or patent is profiting from their infringement, even if it's not a monetary profit. The future will see the best course of action, and what laws will be made to reflect this ease of individual copyright/patent violation, but it's a bigger issue than simply "the cat is out of the bag". Copyright and patent law have long stood the purpose of putting the cat back in the bag, as much as possible.

Now, you can say that piracy=theft, because it causes a "loss"..

Click to expand...

No, I'll repeat myself again. Piracy is stealing because it is taking without permission or right. Period. Loss dosn't matter. Appropriate punishment doesn't matter. Piracy is stealing because it fits the definition of the word stealing.

Let's take a look at your magical car duplicator. For the sake of simplicity, let's assume that it only duplicates consumer cars. Not farm equipment, not buses, not planes.

First let's consider if the duplicator itself is expensive, but the duplicates are cheap-as-free. Say a major corporation duplicates cars from another company and sells them. Clearly illegal and likely worthy of criminal prosecution. Does that change if they de-brand the cars? Certainly not, just because they're not making counterfeit cars does not mean they're not committing other crimes.

Okay, what if the business that copies the de-branded cars doesn't sell them, but gives them as employee bonus. Nope, still patent infringement.

Next, what if the duplicator is cheap, but requires great skill to use? Can a duplicator savant make copies, or de-branded copies himself and sell them? No, still illegal patent infringement. Even if he makes the copies for personal use, it is still patent infringment, and he can be prosecuted for doing so.

So, why does it suddenly become acceptable to do so if the technology is cheap enough for everyone to do it? Why should we ignore the protections of patent law simply because violation is easy?

The business model of "I have something that is scarce, so you must pay me if you want it" no longer works in today's world in digital media--because these things are no longer scarce!

Click to expand...

Yes, those things are still scarce. You may be able to make unlimited copies of music for cheap-as-free, but the creation of the original work is still a rare thing. Be it an artist or an engineer, the creative works made by them are scarce, no matter how easily they can be copied. That is the important thing to remember. Just because something can be copied cheaply does not mean we have to treat it as worthless.

There are plenty of companies that make money giving their software away. They have found other ways to generate revenue from their work. Look at DDO for instance. They have doubled their profits since going 'free' than they were making previously. It costs me nothing to download their game, and costs me nothing to play. But somehow, DDO is now thriving on that model.

Click to expand...

Would they still be making money if other people could run servers freely? What if whatever advertising they use could be bypassed? What if the paid extras could be distributed for free? Just because you can play it for free doesn't mean that unlimited copying of their intellectual property would be a good thing for DDO.

---------- Post added at 06:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:35 PM ----------

Tinwhistler said:

Exactly. I think i've made the point clearly enough. However, it's to his benefit and bolsters his point if he can make us agree on the point that "Piracy=Theft", when clearly it isn't.

Click to expand...

Piracy is stealing.

Stealing: 1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force
2.to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.

To take without right is stealing. Those who pirate are taking what they do not have the right to have.

figmentPez said:

tegid said:

That's a very big difference! Many musicians earn most of their money from concerts instead of sales, for instance.

Click to expand...

That's interesting. I've heard the exact opposite from my musician friends. They say that smaller bands barely brake even concert tickets, and rely on the CD and merchandise sales generated by the concert to make money.

Click to expand...

I don't know, that's what I hear around here. Maybe the scene is different in the States. Also, I don't know if 'concerts' includes all profit, direct or indirect (i.e. CD's recorded and sold by them, shirts, whatever). I DO know that in most cases anything will be more than the laughable amount they get from published CD's if they have any.

elph said:

I theorize that if everyone had a replicator and would never need to buy anything, then there would be no *need* for economy. Creators would create just to get their creation out there, not for monetary gain or means of survival.

Click to expand...

And, yet, we still live in a world where electronic information can be copied infinitely, but we still do have a need for economy. Creators cannot just create, without any thought for survival. In a world where an individual's work still needs to go towards support of their own life, how do we value the creative works of artists, musicians, engineers, inventors and more? Do we declare their works worthless? Or to have intrinsic value worthy of protection and monetary value?

---------- Post added at 06:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:42 PM ----------

tegid said:

I don't know, that's what I hear around here. Maybe the scene is different in the States. Also, I don't know if 'concerts' includes all profit, direct or indirect (i.e. CD's recorded and sold by them, shirts, whatever). I DO know that in most cases anything will be more than the laughable amount they get from published CD's if they have any.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I've heard the same complaints about record deals.

Anyway, another issue. Why should concerts be the only way for a band to make money off of their music? What if a musician makes wonderful music, but isn't able to do a concert tour due to health reasons? Should we say that they have no right to make money off of their work simply because it's easy to copy their work without permission? Is that really an ethical thing to do? "I'm sorry, I'd have paid money to see you in person, but since you're to sick for the rigors of touring, I'm just going to download your music for free and say 'screw you'"

---------- Post added at 06:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:45 PM ----------

Tinwhistler said:

People should read up on 'Commodification'. An mp3 file is a commodity. It doesn't matter who you get it from: Limewire, iTunes, RIAA, playlist.com whoever.

Click to expand...

A copy of a specific MP3 is equivalent to any other exacty copy of that same MP3, but not all MP3s are the same. An MP3 of an air raid siren going off is not the same as the latest top-40 hit, is not the same as the latest indie rock single. If we the devalue creative work of an artist by saying it is not worthy of being protected by copyright, that is a sad thing. It shouldn't matter how easy it is to copy the work, what should matter is that creative works are valued enough to be given as much protection as possible and allow the artist to control the distribution.

As to your "loosing money to piracy is just a failed business model". How is that different from "loosing money to a rival factory practicing patent infringment is just a failed business model"? Why should it matter if it's a whole lot of individuals breaking copyright, or a large corporation doing the same thing? Does a creative work have worth, or does it not? That is the question. If we are going to protect creative works from being exploited for commercial gain, then there should be reasonable protections about them being exploited for personal gain as well.

Pez,

So, using the car example, your contention is that designers and the like will no longer get paid, and therefore no longer create cars?

We're talking about content creators here, now...so, we're no longer talking about manufacturers/publishers. That's fine.

Lets go back in time a bit..to the Enlightenment era. During this time, there were no copy protections like we know today, and musicians didn't get rich selling CDs. And yet, that same era was responsible for such musicians as Bach, Mozart, and Handel, some of the greatest names of classical music. Content creators found other ways to make a living than selling cd's.

Even today, content is created for free. Check out the whole open source and free software movements, as only one example.

The modern method of revenue generation for 'intellectual property' is a new phenomenon. The business model is failing, and will continue to fail. I submit that the business model itself is flawed in today's digital reality. Businesses will have to tweak those models to meet the new reality, and many are doing so.

Tinwhistler said:

Pez,

So, using the car example, your contention is that designers and the like will no longer get paid, and therefore no longer create cars?

Click to expand...

No, my contention is that the car designers have a legal right to their patented work, and that copying that work without right is illegal.

Lets go back in time a bit..to the Enlightenment era. During this time, there were no copy protections like we know today, and musicians didn't get rich selling CDs. And yet, that same era was responsible for such musicians as Bach, Mozart, and Handel, some of the greatest names of classical music. Content creators found other ways to make a living than selling cd's.

Click to expand...

Yes, they had wealthy patrons who paid for their exclusive services, were paid for the performances, or they worked for free. I imagine many more besides were starving artists who had to make money doing things other than creative work. Just because this happened in the past does not mean it's desirable to happen in the future.

Even today, content is created for free. Check out the whole open source and free software movements, as only one example.

Click to expand...

Yes, open source software is great, but it is a choice. No programmer should be forced to make their work open source.

EDIT: Also, aren't most open source models making money off of service and support for businesses? Would that model work for game design? Is it ethically right to force musicians, programmers and other creators to forfeit their copyright simply because it works for some to provide content for free?

The modern method of revenue generation for 'intellectual property' is a new phenomenon. The business model is failing, and will continue to fail. I submit that the business model itself is flawed in today's digital reality. Businesses will have to tweak those models to meet the new reality, and many are doing so.

Click to expand...

I disagree that intellectual property is a failed business model. Your example of DDO online shows that intellectual property must be protected for businesses to work. If there were no protection, then other companies or individuals would be free to run their own DDO servers. Individuals would be free to cut out ads or hack the game as they please. If we afforded DDO online absolutely zero copyright and patent protection, they would be in a difficult spot indeed in trying to make money.

holy shit, look at all these words about stealing

figmentPez;285508][quote=@Li3n;284891][quote=figmentPez said:

It is stealing, regardless of if it is criminally prosecutable theft. Legal statutes and criminal prosecution are not the sole benchmark for the application of words like steal, attack, theft, etc.

Click to expand...

So when someone publishes a book that's in the public domain without paying the former copyright owned he's stealing it?! Because the legal status is the only difference there. [/quote]

So, is it your opinion that copyright laws sprang into existence out of nothing? That's the only conclusion I can draw from your statement that the law is the only difference. I whole heartedly disagree. Copyrights, and patents, trademarks, etc. exist because of the moral and ethical notions that a worker is entitled to profit from what he has created, even if that creation is non-material. The idea of pulbic domain is based around the idea that it is wrong to keep certain types of these non-material works from the public indefinitely. However, with copyright, the period of time where the creator, or his estate, has exclusive rights to his work generally extends for his entire life, plus an additional period.

That is the difference. A work under copyright gives the author the right to restict copies of their work. This right expires after a given period, after which the rights to copy the work is given over to the public. Arguments can be made that this is not a perfect system, and if one were to take the view that copyright should be held in perpetuity by the estate of the creator, then it would be stealing to infringe on that copyright, even if the law says it is acceptable. However, no video game has an expired copyright yet. The majority of games have one or all of their creators/copyright holders still alive.[/quote]

Cute dodge, but the point was that yes, the legal status is what makes the difference, because if you get into the other stuff you could also argue that overpricing is theft, or that it's not theft coz they deserve it (hello Robin Hood) etc. and we'd get nowhere.

You should also note I never said slander is assault. I said that slander is an attack, despite it not being assault. See the parallel?

Click to expand...

Wow, talk about arguing over semantics... sheesh. Anyone have a time machine so i can go back and make sure the word attack doesn't have that connotation?

Click to expand...

Yes, we are arguing about semantics. We are arguing about the meaning of words. Let me introduce a new word to the discussion: Larceny “the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods of another from his or her possession with intent to convert them to the taker's own use.” Piracy is not larceny because it is not theft of goods. However, theft of services is not larceny either, yet it is still theft. So we see that theft does not apply solely to the criminal charge of larceny. Furthermore, the language of such laws as “Artist's Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2005” and the “No Electronic Theft (NET) Act of 1997” clearly show that copyright infringment can and is legally considered theft, and can hold criminal charges.

Click to expand...

Look, more word masturbation... copyright infringement is still not covered under theft laws, thats' why they made new laws for it like those two. Just ask the supreme court: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985)

The severity of the punishment isn't really relevant though, so i'll give you that.

Is anyone going to argue that they don't hold a legal, moral and ethical right to control their creations?

Click to expand...

Why yes i am... they have no moral or ethical right to sell stuff and then take it back when they feel like it coz you where only "renting" it, or not allow you to sell it (or the right to use that certain work) to someone else or other crap like that.

figment seems to be forgetting what the original purpose of patent and copyright protection were: To encourage sharing. Not "To give inventors total control over their works."

By giving a limited short-term period of exclusivity, the government hoped that an author or creator could get fair compensation for their work. And then, it was expected that the work would go to into the public domain, free to use by all.

Patents are still limited in time (14-20 years, depending on type). Copyrights used to be around 15 years when the concept orginated, though now, congress extends copyright terms every time it appears that Disney is about to lose Mickey to the pubilc domain.

The copyright clause of the US Constitution says:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

(emphasis mine).

This implies a social contract: We'll let an author/inventor have exclusive use of their idea if they'll give it to society after they've made some money on it. This is to encourage people to register genuinely unique works and make them public, rather than keeping them trade secret, and away from prying eyes ("To promote the Progress..").

Many people today are clamoring to get patent protections considerably shortened, because today's reality is not the same as the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries. I know that my own patents were woefully out of date in only a couple of years. If patent protection needs another look (as many feel it does) why not copyright protection?

It seems like currently copyright protections have skewed the social contract away from the public good, and solely to act as a protection and benefit for large publishing houses. This was not their intent.

I think figment is also forgetting that I'm not one of "them"..those evil pirates. I'm a musician, with published CD's to my name (here's one). I'm an inventor, with 3 patents. I'm an author: I have published a book of irish sheet music which is available for purchase in several music stores. I've also written poetry which has been published (which I wish I had a link for, but I don't). I'm a computer programmer, and often do contract work where copyright is an issue. And yes, as a intellectual property creator I believe that copyrights and patents need another look.

These are a lot of words to basically say:

1. I created it, therefore I deserve to be compensated.

OR

2. You should be forced to share what you created, therefore I'm taking it for free.

Hmm. Gotta go with number 1. I really don't care if you don't like my business model. If you think it's wrong that I only sell you the temporary rights to view my movie or play my game, just don't pay. Resist the temptation to support it. I have to say I find the argument that basically goes "It's not stealing because it should be shared anyway" argument a little shaky.

Actually, Fade, if you read my latest post, you will see that I support some kind of middle ground between 1 and 2.

But when you have only #1 (no sharing at all) don't be surprised when people go #2 all over your plans

Charlie Dont Surf said:

holy shit, look at all these words about stealing

Click to expand...

What I'm wondering is why some people are backtracking to stupid analogies and various bullshit to justify why they do what they do.

It's wrong; you people know it's wrong. Just end it there. No one is passing judgment on you. We've all pirated shit. You don't need to rationalize anything. I understand perfectly well that it's hard to come by a real 'free lunch' in this world, and I too consider those that don't take advantage of opportunities such a pirating shit for free, instead of paying for it to be fools. It's not really a 'stick it to the man' philosophy, more so than a moral judgment call. Again, if I find briefcase with 1000 bucks in it, I'm keeping it. No turning it in. That's just how I roll.

My stance on video games is such only because I buy them few and far between and I can afford them. If I bought 10 new games on a monthly basis, I'd be right there pirating with the rest of you.

Maybe some of us just like to talk about these things, Chaz.

I don't even make a habit of pirating games for myself. Notice that my first post said I was taking a "devil's advocate" position

Tinwhistler said:

figment seems to be forgetting what the original purpose of patent and copyright protection were: To encourage sharing. Not \"To give inventors total control over their works.\"

Click to expand...

If it seems that I've been promoting unlimited and draconic control of creators over their work, it's simply because there has been little discussion of how much control creators do/should have. Since this discussion started about game piracy, and much of the discussion has been centered around recent games, the length of copyright/patent shouldn't even be much of an issue. While I have stated that most countries that have copyright laws extend that copyright for the life of the creator, nothing has been brought up about the appropriateness of copyright length.

Copyrights used to be around 15 years when the concept orginated, though now, congress extends copyright terms every time it appears that Disney is about to lose Mickey to the pubilc domain.

Click to expand...

Yes, the perpetual extension of copyright is a troubling issue. However, the extension of copyright to the life of the creator does not seem outlandish. Many authors create works with the same characters and concepts throughout their lives. Terry Pratchett first published a Discworld novel in 1983, and had published 17 books by 1994 (15 years ago). Many of the characters he introduced are still being written about, by him. The most recent novel, "Unseen Academicals", features Rincewind, a character introduced in the very first novel.

If the Disney company deserves the same protection because they're still producing Mickey Mouse stories is an interesting debate (especially since the mouse ears are trademarked, and trademarks don't expire), but ultimately has little bearing on if it is legally, ethically, morally correct to pirate a game that has just been released in the past year or decade.

@Li3n said:

Cute dodge, but the point was that yes, the legal status is what makes the difference, because if you get into the other stuff you could also argue that overpricing is theft, or that it's not theft coz they deserve it (hello Robin Hood) etc. and we'd get nowhere.

Click to expand...

That wasn't a dodge at all. It is of utmost importance to realize that laws do not spring up out of nothing. Laws are made with a purpose and intent. Even when the motivation is ignoble, or the execution if flawed, laws do not exist in a vacuum. "The legal stuff" is not what makes the difference. What is legal is not always what is desirable, and what is praiseworthy is not always legal.

Overpricing cannot be theft unless a person is forced to pay that price. No one is forced to buy games. They are not an essential component of life. The pricing of games is not done by force, nor is it done in secret.

As for a "robin hood" argument, isn't that what those arguing that piracy is acceptable are saying? Common to the definition of theft and stealing is taking without right. If you claim that individuals can freely download media with no caveats, you are saying that they have the right to do so, and thus are not stealing. The crux of this debate has been if individuals do have that right, in spite of the law.

Look, more word masturbation... copyright infringement is still not covered under theft laws, thats' why they made new laws for it like those two. Just ask the supreme court: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985)

Click to expand...

I'm just going by the dictionary definition of the words theft and steal. Let me draw a parallel. To the insurance industry the word "flood" has a specific meaning. It applies to the rising of lakes, rivers, ponds, etc. A broken pipe that completely fills a basement with water is not a flood as defined by insurance policies. However, in common usage a flood is "a great flowing or overflowing of water". If you call a plumber and tell him a pipe burst and flooded your basement, he's not going to argue that there hasn't been any rain for weeks. The legal definition of words is not always the same as common usage. Which is why I have tried and tried and tried to switch from the word theft to the word steal. However, every time I have said "steal" those who disagree with me have gone back to arguing about "theft". It's total BULLSHIT!

That said, shall we examine what the ruling in Dowling v. United States actually said (emphasis mine):
"interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud.
....
"infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud. As a result, it fits but awkwardly with the language Congress chose - "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" - to describe the sorts of goods whose interstate shipment 2314 makes criminal."

This is a ruling that a law about interstate trafficking of stolen goods does not apply to copyright infringement because the law was written specifically about goods. This does not say that copyright infringement is not theft at all, but that it is not the specific type of theft that 18 U.S.C. 2314 was written about. It is a conservative ruling, that is declining to extend the coverage of a law beyond it's intended purpose. This does not preclude all laws from defining copyright infringement as theft, nor does it change the common usage of the word.

Furthermore, you obviously have not read the whole of the ruling yourself as this quote is relevant to the issue at hand:
"in United States v. Turley, 352 U.S. 407 (1957), this Court held that the term "stolen" included all felonious takings with intent to deprive the owner of the rights and benefits of ownership, regardless of whether the theft would constitute larceny at common law."

The Supreme Court agrees with me. Copyright infringement is stealing because it is done "with intent to deprive the owner of the rights and benefits of ownership", even though it doesn't constitute larceny. (As to felonious, bear in mind that a non-felony offense, if I'm not mistaken, would be outside the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court).

So, even if we throw out the word theft from this argument, stealing is still most definitely appropriate applied to copyright infringement.

Why yes i am... they have no moral or ethical right to sell stuff and then take it back when they feel like it coz you where only \"renting\" it, or not allow you to sell it (or the right to use that certain work) to someone else or other crap like that.

Click to expand...

Ah yes, them damn women property owners. A small portion of them have been abusing the system and using their property to exploit people. Just goes to show that women shouldn't have the right to own property at all!

Sorry, you can ignore that if you want. My point is this, I have not argued for unlimited control by authors. The copyright system provides protections for both the creator of the work and the consumer. (the "first-sale doctrine" would be a good example, though there are others). If these protections for the consumer are inadequate for digital mediums, that only increases the need for updating copyright law.

The righs of creators need protection, and definition, in the law, as do the rights of consumers. When I have said that creators have a right to control their work, I have been saying that with the assumption that it is understood that the rights given to a creator are limited, by law and by reason. However, it is understandable that you're confused on the matter, since your comments indicate that you think that laws spring out of nothing, for no reason, are unchangeable, and exist only to be exploited. (I base this on your refusal to talk about the rational underpinnings behind laws, and your claims that laws are the only deciding factor between what is and isn't acceptable behavior.)

Tinwhistler said:

Many people today are clamoring to get patent protections considerably shortened, because today's reality is not the same as the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries. I know that my own patents were woefully out of date in only a couple of years. If patent protection needs another look (as many feel it does) why not copyright protection?

Click to expand...

Copyright protection does another look. However, that doesn't mean it should be abolished completely and all distribution rights taken away from creators.

There is a large difference between the life of a patented work and that of a copyrighted work. The difference between a mechanical doodad, and a character named Doodad. If a patent expires and others are free to use doodads and derivatives of doodads, that doesn't materially change the value of the original inventors refinements to the same concept (as far as I can figure). However, if Doodad passes out of copyright, and other people are free to write their own stories about the character, that can drastically change the value of future Doodad works from the original creator (for better and for worse).

I think figment is also forgetting that I'm not one of \"them\"..those evil pirates. I'm a musician, with published CD's to my name (here's one). I'm an inventor, with 3 patents. I'm an author: I have published a book of irish sheet music which is available for purchase in several music stores. I've also written poetry which has been published (which I wish I had a link for, but I don't). I'm a computer programmer, and often do contract work where copyright is an issue. And yes, as a intellectual property creator I believe that copyrights and patents need another look.

Click to expand...

Frankly I don't care what your motivations are. Your arguments have been flawed, and that's all I've been arguing against. Yes, copyright and patent law needs refinement in light of the abilities that computers and the internet have given us. However, it does not follow that simply because copying has become easy that it has become a right. It is similarly illogical to claim that if copyrights have been extended too long, then it is acceptable to ignore copyright completely regardless of how long since the material was created.

I just need to point out here that there is a significant difference between "getting copyright and IP law caught up to the digital age of distribution and piracy" and "new online revenue models for the future".

The latter includes (and is honestly much more caught up in) the difficulty in establishing a value-proposition in an environment with low-to-no barriers to entry that is conducive to rapid saturation.

DDO's decision to go freemium had very little to do with piracy, and much, much more with to do with them trying to compete in a high-end game space where they need millions of dollars in sales to succeed but the market is dominated by one player (WoW).

Independent bands may be tackling piracy head on when they release tracks for free, but it's just as much about generating exposure, creating fans, and selling merchandise and keepsakes.

It's why Scott releases PvP for free.

"Intellectual Property" is not a "business model". There are no explicit methodologies of revenue generation built into it, because it is simply a legally-recognized framework detailing the exclusive rights of a creator to profit off their work as they see fit.

The examples you've been giving, Tin, are not rejections of "intellectual property", but of the traditional one-time transactional sales model.

I never claimed that they were rejections of "intellectual property."

In fact, I don't reject the concept of intellectual property.

I claimed that the one-time-transactional sales model that you mention is no longer working if people can easily get that same product somewhere else for free.

Why would I pay $19.95 for a CD with 9 songs on it when I can get the same music for $9.00 on iTunes?

Why would I pay $9.00 on iTunes if I can get the same music for free on bitTorrent? Especially if I have a limited discretionary income?

The same can be said for games. Free is a hell of a lot cheaper than $40 or $50. If people can figure out a way to give things out for free, and still make money, they will tend to be more successful at it. Thus, my DDO tie-in. I never made the claim that DDO went free due to piracy. My claim was that "free" is a hard business model to beat. If you want to be successful in today's digital reality, you need to understand that and account for it. Simply trying to legislate the problem away won't work.

Tinwhistler said:

Why would I pay $19.95 for a CD with 9 songs on it when I can get the same music for $9.00 on iTunes?

Why would I pay $9.00 on iTunes if I can get the same music for free on bitTorrent? Especially if I have a limited discretionary income?

Click to expand...

This is a really flawed argument.

Why would I pay 12.00 for a CD at a store when I can just take it and not pay for it.

Why? Because it's illegal, as is piracy.

Bowielee;286855][quote=Tinwhistler said:

Why would I pay $19.95 for a CD with 9 songs on it when I can get the same music for $9.00 on iTunes?

Why would I pay $9.00 on iTunes if I can get the same music for free on bitTorrent? Especially if I have a limited discretionary income?

Click to expand...

This is a really flawed argument.

Why would I pay 12.00 for a CD at a store when I can just take it and not pay for it.

Why? Because it's illegal, as is piracy.[/quote]

You missed that part about getting it somewhere else easily.

Shoplifting carries a jail sentence, and is much easier to catch than a bitTorrent download. Sharing files only seems to carry really big fines if they catch you distributing, rather than downloading. The odds of getting in trouble for torrenting is much smaller than the odds getting caught shoplifting.

You can minimize shoplifting by putting cops in stores, and with cameras, security tags, and other physical measures. Ultimately, you have a physical good under your control, and you can do a great many things to ensure it doesn't leave your control. How do you do that with bits that you don't even lose if someone else copies them?

To shoplift, you have to overcome a fair number of obstacles, not the least of which is your own nervousness. On the other hand, torrenting is easy.

So, is it any wonder that younger people (who are more prone to risk-taking) are pirating at a rate that is orders of magnitude larger than they are shoplifting (which is another risky undertaking many youth engage in)?

I'm not talking about piracy like it's a good moral choice. I'm talking about the reality of the world we find ourselves in. And that reality is that some games and music report as high as a 90% piracy rate. I don't think making another law cracking down on piracy is going to fix that. Hell, look at Chaz and CDS. They admit that they think pirating is wrong. But they do it anyway. Looking down your nose at them or passing a law making copying bits a jailable offense isn't going to get you paid for your creative works.

Tinwhistler;286859][quote=Bowielee;286855][quote=Tinwhistler said:

Why would I pay $19.95 for a CD with 9 songs on it when I can get the same music for $9.00 on iTunes?

Why would I pay $9.00 on iTunes if I can get the same music for free on bitTorrent? Especially if I have a limited discretionary income?

Click to expand...

This is a really flawed argument.

Why would I pay 12.00 for a CD at a store when I can just take it and not pay for it.

Why? Because it's illegal, as is piracy.[/quote]

You missed that part about getting it somewhere else easily.

Shoplifting carries a jail sentence, and is much easier to catch than a bitTorrent download. Sharing files only seems to carry really big fines if they catch you distributing, rather than downloading. The odds of getting in trouble for torrenting is much smaller than the odds getting caught shoplifting.

You can minimize shoplifting by putting cops in stores, and with cameras, security tags, and other physical measures. Ultimately, you have a physical good under your control, and you can do a great many things to ensure it doesn't leave your control. How do you do that with bits that you don't even lose if someone else copies them?

To shoplift, you have to overcome a fair number of obstacles, not the least of which is your own nervousness. On the other hand, torrenting is easy.

So, is it any wonder that younger people (who are more prone to risk-taking) are pirating at a rate that is orders of magnitude larger than they are shoplifting (which is another risky undertaking many youth engage in)?

I'm not talking about piracy like it's a good moral choice. I'm talking about the reality of the world we find ourselves in. And that reality is that some games and music report as high as a 90% piracy rate. I don't think making another law cracking down on piracy is going to fix that. Hell, look at Chaz and CDS. They admit that they think pirating is wrong. But they do it anyway. Looking down your nose at them or passing a law making copying bits a jailable offense isn't going to get you paid for your creative works.[/QUOTE]

I don't recall looking down my nose at them at all. It doesn't change the fact that piracy is illegal, and enforcement of that law as the digital arena gets bigger isn't going to go away, it's going to get tougher.

I also don't recall bringing morality into this, I brought law into it.

law and morality are two sides of the same coin. Law doesn't just exist as a force of nature. Law is something humans invented to codify and punish behavior we consider wrong.

Morality: "a doctrine or system of moral conduct "
moral:"of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior"
and, as luck would have it: crime: "a grave offense especially against morality"
(all definitions from dictionary.com)

We criminalize those things which we feel are wrong. If everyone thought that piracy was just hunky-dory, it wouldn't impose civil penalties, would it? Or are you trying to say that you don't feel copyright infringement is wrong?

You keep saying it's a 'crime'. And afaik&ianal: Copyright in the sense we're talking about (downloading a game) has no criminal penalty. There are no fines. No jail time. If you suffer any 'penalty' at all, it will be a civil judgment against you, payable to the copyright holder (as opposed to the state, as in a fine). This puts copyright infringement of the sort we are referring to on the same playing field as having a creditor sue you in court for a very late credit card payment. Unless you think of that sort of thing as a 'crime' as well. Hell, speeding in Texas is a bona-fide crime: a class C misdemeanor. That makes it more of a 'crime' than copyright infringement.

Question: If feel your roommate owes you money, and you disagree and take him to court, is he a criminal? If you believe your neighbor raised a fence 6 inches past the property line onto your property, is your neighbor a criminal? If you do not water your lawn 3 times a week in accordance with your homeowners association agreement, are you a criminal? Of course not. These are civil cases, and there's a reason that there is a distinction between civil and criminal cases. Copying games like we're talking about (again afaik&ianal) falls into this category, and is not a crime in the sense that the word is typically used.

As for your assertion that it's going to get tougher: I think you're probably right. At least for a time. Here in the US, we have a history of misguided fights, such as prohibition, the war on drugs, etc. But I don't think passing those kinds of laws is going to alleviate the problem one iota. I think that regardless of any new legislation, those companies that thrive will be those that figure out a way to extract money out of a culture of 'free'.

I think the digital age changes many rules and moral of people. Things that has physical properties and not readily duplicate (until a replicator machine is made) like a car, CD, clothings, food and other stuff are easier to control and manage.

Digital stuff can be copy with the right software and knowledge. I know that record company are trying to catch and fine people who distribute them digitally. The record company is trying to recoup their sales but the original artist get more of their money from concerts and merchandise.

Games doesn't have "alternative" avenue like musicians unless they adopt system like "micro transaction" like DDO. If we copy a game like starcraft, Blizzard doesn't get a single cent anywhere from a possible sales (or alternative) of that product.

So I guess the main thing is that the industry needs to figure out ways to get money by other means or impose bigger fines and penalties. OR.... make better games

This is an interesting discussion. In the end I will let one of the developers at Stardock explain what I think about when it comes to Piracy and DRM.

http://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/post.aspx?postid=303512

When you blame piracy for disappointing sales, you tend to tar the entire market with a broad brush. Piracy isn't evenly distributed in the PC gaming market. And there are far more effective ways of getting people who might buy your product to buy it without inconveniencing them.

Blaming piracy is easy. But it hides other underlying causes. When Sins popped up as the #1 best selling game at retail a couple weeks ago, a game that has no copy protect whatsoever, that should tell you that piracy is not the primary issue.

In the end, the pirates hurt themselves. PC game developers will either slowly migrate to making games that cater to the people who buy PC games or they'll move to platforms where people are more inclined to buy games.

In the meantime, if you want to make profitable PC games, I'd recommend focusing more effort on satisfying the people willing to spend money on your product and less effort on making what others perceive as hot. But then again, I don't romanticize PC game development. I just want to play cool games and make a profit on games that I work on.

Click to expand...

Piracy grow for various reasons, the fact games are "free" is one of those reasons, but others are due to convenience, ease-of-use, and sometimes the messed up idea of "revenge" versus "the man".

In the end though, companies are doing very little to actually stop this, and instead promote it. They add dozens of checks and balances and limiters that by the end of the day, the "pirate" will never deal with because it only takes one dedicated cracker to remove all that and get it to work anyways. The victim is the consumer, who is right now in the war between pirate and developer.

Developers need to create incentives not to pirate, they need to treat people like customers, not possible criminals, because if you go out with the assumption everyone is going to steal from you, sooner or later, they probably will. Pirates on the other hand, need to stop making excuses to justify what they are doing, and instead help reach out to the developers about WHY they do it, so that we can reach a middle ground.

Tinwhistler said:

law and morality are two sides of the same coin. Law doesn't just exist as a force of nature. Law is something humans invented to codify and punish behavior we consider wrong.

Morality: "a doctrine or system of moral conduct "
moral:"of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior"
and, as luck would have it: crime: "a grave offense especially against morality"
(all definitions from dictionary.com)

We criminalize those things which we feel are wrong. If everyone thought that piracy was just hunky-dory, it wouldn't impose civil penalties, would it? Or are you trying to say that you don't feel copyright infringement is wrong?

You keep saying it's a 'crime'. And afaik&ianal: Copyright in the sense we're talking about (downloading a game) has no criminal penalty. There are no fines. No jail time. If you suffer any 'penalty' at all, it will be a civil judgment against you, payable to the copyright holder (as opposed to the state, as in a fine). This puts copyright infringement of the sort we are referring to on the same playing field as having a creditor sue you in court for a very late credit card payment. Unless you think of that sort of thing as a 'crime' as well. Hell, speeding in Texas is a bona-fide crime: a class C misdemeanor. That makes it more of a 'crime' than copyright infringement.

Question: If feel your roommate owes you money, and you disagree and take him to court, is he a criminal? If you believe your neighbor raised a fence 6 inches past the property line onto your property, is your neighbor a criminal? If you do not water your lawn 3 times a week in accordance with your homeowners association agreement, are you a criminal? Of course not. These are civil cases, and there's a reason that there is a distinction between civil and criminal cases. Copying games like we're talking about (again afaik&ianal) falls into this category, and is not a crime in the sense that the word is typically used.

As for your assertion that it's going to get tougher: I think you're probably right. At least for a time. Here in the US, we have a history of misguided fights, such as prohibition, the war on drugs, etc. But I don't think passing those kinds of laws is going to alleviate the problem one iota. I think that regardless of any new legislation, those companies that thrive will be those that figure out a way to extract money out of a culture of 'free'.

Click to expand...

I have never once used the word crime. You have. I think you're seriously tilting at windmills with me and just arguing to be contrary. I'm arguing that it is against the law to pirate something.

I'm also saying that with the growth of the digital industry, it won't be long till we start seeing piracy being viewed as theft.

Quit trying to argue points I never made, please.

Tinwhistler said:

is not a crime in the sense that the word is typically used.

Click to expand...

I think you mean "in the sense that the word is used by the legal system". The common usage of crime is "an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited" as recorded by the Random House Dictionary. Copyright violation is legally prohibited, and thus is a crime. So why is moving a fence 6 inches not usually termed a crime?

Well, let's look at some of the other definitions.
- "An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction." No, that doesn't help. Being convicted of copyright violation brings punishment, as can conviction of moving a fence.
- "A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality." Ah, this one helps, a crime is a serious offense. Let's look at some definitions from a legal dictionary.
- "an offense against public law usually excluding a petty violation" Again, we see that violations of law must pass a certain threshold to be considered crimes.
- "conduct that is prohibited and has a specific punishment (as incarceration or fine) prescribed by public law" Hmm, do civil cases not have a "specific punishment"? I know that criminal charges have set ranges for fines and imprisonment, but I'm not sure if any civil charges do.

So, we know that any violation of law can be correctly termed a crime, though not if we're speaking legalese. We also know that minor infractions are not usually considered crimes, but where do we draw the line? Moving a fence six inches is fairly petty (unless it has a specific malicious motive beyond simply taking land), but what about moving a fence 6 feet? 60'? 600'? 6 miles? Certainly at some point it becomes a crime.

We also know that copyright violation becomes a crime at some point as well. An individual copying is, so far, considered petty. But if someone is involved in large scale copying, even if it's not commercial, they can still face felony charges if there are enough works involved at a certain amount of money.

So, stealing a 5¢ piece of candy is currently considered a crime (as I can find no lower limit mentioned for theft charges. Though it's unlikely to be tried in criminal court, if at all, it still could be), but downloading an entire Best Buy worth of movies, music and games is not considered a crime (as long as you're an individual working alone for your own use). Certainly the downloader has not deprived anyone of physical property, but the idea that the violation is of less severity than 5¢ is absurd. I find it extremely unlikely that the law will never change to reflect this. If there are felony charges for copyright violation, there will likely be misdemeanor charges as well, at some point.

If copyright violation were as easy to detect and prosecute as speeding, then it would probably carry similar fines and punishments. In fact, it's possible that the entire structure of online interaction will be legally codified to define differences between public and private spaces (which are very blurry now) providing greater protection for certain communications (like email), but at the same time making it clear what types of network traffic should be considered as public as driving down the road. With a recent court case saying that 4th amendment notices don't have to be served to individuals before accessing their email account, and only to the email provider, it's becoming clear that's it's going to be in the interest of the public to start making laws that define what type of rights and responsibilities go along with cyberspace, rather than relying on legal precedents being shoe horned to fit with inaccurate metaphors.

I'm not just discussing things with you, Bowie...there are other people in this conversation as well. If you read the whole thread, you'll see that some people have used those words. I'm painting my words with a broad brush to reach as many points in this thread as I've seen. Don't take it so personally.

Tinwhistler said:

I'm not just discussing things with you, Bowie...there are other people in this conversation as well. If you read the whole thread, you'll see that some people have used those words. I'm painting my words with a broad brush to reach as many points in this thread as I've seen. Don't take it so personally.

Click to expand...

I have read the whole thread, and you specifically said "you" when responding to my post. How else should I have interpreted it?

pigment: I don't have much to say to what you just wrote. You're agreeing with points many of us have made: There are different punishments for different infractions, and theft and copyright infringement don't share the same punishments because they're not the same.

Also, you're saying that more egregious behavior should be more sternly dealt with, and I agree.

I've also conceded that the legislature might crack down more stringently sometime in the future.

Where I disagree is whether or not this will solve the problem.

Bowielee: You: "The pronoun of the second person singular or plural, used of the person or persons being addressed, in the nominative or objective case". I just told you I was referring to many people and posts when I posted. Are you seriously going to argue that I don't know who I'm talking to, just to be contrary? Seriously? If I argue a point that you didn't make, I just told you that I wasn't specifically talking to you in that case. Let's try to move past it, shall we?

Tinwhistler said:

I've also conceded that the legislature might crack down more stringently sometime in the future.

Where I disagree is whether or not this will solve the problem.

Click to expand...

Actually, I don't recall saying if I thought it would solve the problem. Speeding fines don't stop people from speeding. Same for drunk driving, jaywalking, illegally posting signs, and dozens of other infractions, minor and major.

Take jaywalking, it's really easy to do. There aren't cameras set up to catch jaywalkers, and unless you cause a traffic problem doing so, you're unlikely to get noticed, let alone charged with it. However, it's important that the law define it as illegal behavior because that makes it easier to prosecute when it is causing traffic problems. The law doesn't stop people from walking intentionally across traffic when the crossing light is red, no law is going to stop people from being stupid or selfish, but it does help to define who is at fault should an accident or disruption occur.

Yes, copyright infringement is already illegal, but you've noted yourself that the ability to violate copyright has changed. If the situation has changed, the laws should be changed to reflect that. How they should be changed is not a simple matter, but the laws should reflect the value we place on the work, and what is unacceptable behavior in light of that, regardless of how easy it is to commit that behavior.

Piracy is going to happen, but it is wrong to say that because it is easy and unavoidable, therefore it is unimportant or inconsequential. Copyright infringement is stealing, and as long as we're going to provide for copyright protection against commercial violation, we need to follow the logical conclusion and provide some form of protection for non-commercial violation as well. (In fact, we need to provide explicit protection for "fair use" as well, to define the difference between legal and illegal non-commercial use, providing protection for the consumer as well as the creator.)

Business models will change, because the businesses that take best advantage of the changing situation will be those that flourish. The digital age provide opportunities for businesses as well as pirates. Fail or succeed, though, creators still deserve certain rights in regards to their works. It's hard to come up with an appropriate comparison. Creators aren't competing with cheaper alternatives, they're competing with cheap-as-free copies. In the past accurate copies cost money to make, and that meant commercial infringement. So, laws were written to protect against commercial infringement. That didn't stop it, though. Businesses and artists still had to succeed in spite of patent violations, plagarism, knock-off products, bootlegs and more.

Eli Whitney's cotton gin business nearly failed in the face of patent violations, forcing him to charge less for the use of his machines, and eventually try and sell the patent. This was despite being legally in the right. Was this a failure of business model or a failure of the law? Should we fault a brilliant inventor for attempting to charge more than his customers were willing to pay, or should we fault the legal system for not putting a stop to infringement? Does it have to be one or the other? A business is foolish to overcharge, but illegally copying someone else's work is not an acceptable alternative to paying that price.

Perhaps Whitney would have fared better with a different business strategy, or perhaps plantation owners were just too used to exploiting the work of others and would have sought alternatives no matter what the cost. I don't think it matters. Copyright and patent holders deserve legal protection against commercial copyright infringement, even if that protection isn't perfect. I think it's fairly clear that such protections are in the best interest of society. Now that non-commercial infringement constitues a significant portion of copyright violations, creators deserve whatever protections can be reasonably given.

Thought this might be relevant here
http://abovethecrowd.com/2009/10/29/google-redefines-disruption-the-“less-than-free”-business-model/

I like to think of myself as an aficionado of business disruption. After all, as a venture capitalist it is imperative to understand ways in which a smaller private company can gain the upper hand on a large incumbent. One of the most successful ways to do this is to change the rules of the game in such a way that the incumbent would need to abandon or destroy its core business in order to lay chase to your strategy. This thinking, which was eloquently chronicled in Clay Christiansen’s The Innovator’s Delimma, is the key premise behind recently successful business movements like SAAS (Software as a Service), open source software, and the much-discussed Freemium Internet model.

Click to expand...

It's an interesting read..discusses quite a number of the concepts I've mentioned in this thread.

Tinwhistler said:

Thought this might be relevant here
http://abovethecrowd.com/2009/10/29/google-redefines-disruption-the-“less-than-free”-business-model/

I like to think of myself as an aficionado of business disruption. After all, as a venture capitalist it is imperative to understand ways in which a smaller private company can gain the upper hand on a large incumbent. One of the most successful ways to do this is to change the rules of the game in such a way that the incumbent would need to abandon or destroy its core business in order to lay chase to your strategy. This thinking, which was eloquently chronicled in Clay Christiansen’s The Innovator’s Delimma, is the key premise behind recently successful business movements like SAAS (Software as a Service), open source software, and the much-discussed Freemium Internet model.

Click to expand...

It's an interesting read..discusses quite a number of the concepts I've mentioned in this thread.

Click to expand...

Whoa. That is one great read, Tin. Regardless of the topic, these moves by Google smell vastly monopolistic to me. The problem seriously highlights the vast and growing gulf between virtual methodologies and the laws which govern commerce. The laws we have in place are sorely lacking in even the merest hint of what can be done using technology. By the time they wrap their heads around current abilities the tech has moved to the next (or even the third or fourth) generation.

I think that this almost needs to have its own thread so we don't totally derail this one (like we'd ever do anything like that) but I see how what is happening there is related to this conversation.

Here's another related article, more in tune with the discussion as it relates to piracy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8330633.stm

We all know what the alleged future of music will look like. The record industry will be reduced to a smouldering ruin, the album replaced by endless individual songs and music rendered pretty much worthless by the fact that it's universally free.

Empty record shops will be overrun with weeds and old CDs will be used as coasters. Your Madonnas, U2s and Coldplays will prosper, but for anyone further down the hierarchy, the idea of making much of a living will be a non-starter.

Click to expand...

*Singing as Bender*

Now THAT is a straw man.

Well, I think we all agree that people will pirate as long there is a way to do it. With current technology and know how, there will be a group of people who will refuse and continue to pirate regardless (some might think of it as a challenge) so what do the rest of the world can do about it?

They can either impose harsh laws and treat them as criminals like other crimes

or

create better products and means of distribution so people WILL buy them.

Tinwhistler said:

Here's another related article, more in tune with the discussion as it relates to piracy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8330633.stm

Click to expand...

That writer has a fundamentally different relationship with music than I do. I have never listened to an album simply because I felt I had to get my moneys worth. I've bought music I didn't like, and I didn't listen to it. I listen to my music over and over because I love it, and some of my favorite songs are considered "filler" by other people. In fact, I don't want to experience music the way he describes, constantly listening to new stuff. I want to re-experience music, and listen for subtleties I haven't heard before. Music that sounds great on the first listen isn't necessarily the best music, and I think it will be sad if such complex works die out simply because it's become easy to always get something new.


On another note, I think the link I mentioned in the Farmville thread is relevant to this discussion: Scamville: The Social Gaming Ecosystem Of Hell. No doubt that Zynga has managed to make a lot of money off of letting people play their game for "free" but it's at the cost of alienating many legitimate advertisers, treating consumers like marks, violating Facebook's explicit policies, and generally trying to take advantage of people. It's not that the trick-subscription scam is new or especially horrible (Get music for 1 cent when you join our record club for $20 a month), it's that they drove off legitimate advertisers first, and are operating their business contrary to what they're explicitly telling the public. Hidden in the fine print is one thing but acting contrary to explicitly stated codes of conduct is very bad business practice. If this becomes a prevailing way of making money off of "free" content, then I think we can expect the whole movement to crash and burn under the weight of it's own greed.

---------- Post added at 02:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:34 PM ----------

Chibibar said:

Well, I think we all agree that people will pirate as long there is a way to do it. With current technology and know how, there will be a group of people who will refuse and continue to pirate regardless (some might think of it as a challenge) so what do the rest of the world can do about it?

They can either impose harsh laws and treat them as criminals like other crimes

or

create better products and means of distribution so people WILL buy them.

Click to expand...

Why is it an either/or proposition? Make it more appealing to purchsse for those inclined to do so (lower prices, better service, tangible and intangible bonuses, etc.), and punish the most grievous offenders who either infringe on a large scale, or who are instrumental in the proliferation of others infringing.

figmentPez said:

Why is it an either/or proposition? Make it more appealing to purchsse for those inclined to do so (lower prices, better service, tangible and intangible bonuses, etc.), and punish the most grievous offenders who either infringe on a large scale, or who are instrumental in the proliferation of others infringing.

Click to expand...

Why is it either or? cause we already trying to put heavy fines, scare tactics, and means to get people to stop, and well.... it doesn't work. Unless of course we use the method, you pirate, we kill you.

Also company have to invest anti-piracy which cause the game to be less "complete" when you are talking about a limited budget. So when a company doesn't have to invest in anti-piracy software or have a whole division (if done in house) of their anti-pirate code, all those resources can be use to make a cooler/better games.

Chazwozel;285309][quote=Chibibar;285073][quote=Gill Kaiser;285052][quote=Chibibar said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8328820.stm

looks like the UK is going to do something about illegal downloads (I figure it is fitting with piracy talk)

Click to expand...

Man, the thing I hate about this is that while it seems to be conceived with the best intentions, it also seems to have been written up by people who don't really understand what they're talking about. I can't really see how this policy will be sustainable in practice. It's like an extension of the RIAA's policies towards music piracy (namely, bullying and intimidation through example), and we all know how effective that's been. I'd much prefer it if companies falling victim to piracy found ways to alter their business model in order to make piracy less appealing in comparison, rather than just seeking to enact punishments.

Also, is it just me, or are we in the UK losing civil rights by the bucketload recently?
[/QUOTE]

Yea. I have to agree. People pirate for various reasons but I bet one of them is "it is not work X dollars" mentality. Look at iTunes, they are selling music in boatload via 99 cent songs. If you make stuff affordable, people will buy it. If you make a program worthwhile, people will buy it.[/QUOTE]

iTunes is still a ripoff. I expect to be able to download shit I pay for as many times as my little heart desires.[/QUOTE]

Your $0.99 doesn't make them your indentured servants to give you the bandwidth to download your song infinity times. If you buy a music CD, is it the music stores responsibility to keep track of who you are and what you purchased to replace the CD if you ever lose or break it?

Sure, they COULD give you unlimited downloads for life the way that Steam does. They have the structure already in place. But since you wouldn't get this service anyway even if you did pay more money for a physical CD from the store, I don't see where the rip-off is. It's simply an extra frivolous feature that they don't offer.

Chibibar said:

Why is it either or? cause we already trying to put heavy fines, scare tactics, and means to get people to stop, and well.... it doesn't work. Unless of course we use the method, you pirate, we kill you.

Click to expand...

See, you're assuming that piracy has to be reduced to zero, or even significantly, for the laws to be of any importance. You're also assuming that future legal tactics would be the same as the present, which is already changing. As I've said before, making speeding a crime has not stopped speeding, but it does make it easier to prosecute speeders. Government income from tickets aside, imagine if every time someone was speeding and caused an accident that it would have to be proven that their speed was definitely considered "reckless endangerment" for that specific stretch of road, rather than just having to prove that they were significantly over the posted limit. That's how more specific laws about piracy would change things. Rather than having to prove, at great time and effort, in each court case how the act of piracy relates to existing general laws, it could just be shown that piracy as defined by the media piracy laws had taken place.

It doesn't mean that every case would be prosecuted. It doesn't mean that it would stop all piracy. But it would make for a better (cheaper, more efficient, better defined, etc.) course of action for when legal action is desired.

Also company have to invest anti-piracy which cause the game to be less "complete" when you are talking about a limited budget. So when a company doesn't have to invest in anti-piracy software or have a whole division (if done in house) of their anti-pirate code, all those resources can be use to make a cooler/better games.

Click to expand...

Who said that companies have to invest in anti-piracy? If companies want to pursue civil lawsuits, yes they have to invest in lawyers or in cooperative groups that will hire lawyers. Just because there are laws does not mean that every software company has to spend money pursuing court cases.

Nor does the legal status of piracy have anything to do with DRM. No company is forced to put copy restricting code in their game, regardless of their stance on how to deal with piracy. A company that puts no DRM on their products is just as free to sue for copyright infringement as a company that does.

Furthermore, if more forms of copyright infringement become criminal, that would mean that the government would then become responsible for the investigation and prosecution of the cases, wouldn't it?

figmentPez;287852][quote=Chibibar said:

Why is it either or? cause we already trying to put heavy fines, scare tactics, and means to get people to stop, and well.... it doesn't work. Unless of course we use the method, you pirate, we kill you.

Click to expand...

See, you're assuming that piracy has to be reduced to zero, or even significantly, for the laws to be of any importance. You're also assuming that future legal tactics would be the same as the present, which is already changing. As I've said before, making speeding a crime has not stopped speeding, but it does make it easier to prosecute speeders. Government income from tickets aside, imagine if every time someone was speeding and caused an accident that it would have to be proven that their speed was definitely considered "reckless endangerment" for that specific stretch of road, rather than just having to prove that they were significantly over the posted limit. That's how more specific laws about piracy would change things. Rather than having to prove, at great time and effort, in each court case how the act of piracy relates to existing general laws, it could just be shown that piracy as defined by the media piracy laws had taken place.

It doesn't mean that every case would be prosecuted. It doesn't mean that it would stop all piracy. But it would make for a better (cheaper, more efficient, better defined, etc.) course of action for when legal action is desired.

Also company have to invest anti-piracy which cause the game to be less "complete" when you are talking about a limited budget. So when a company doesn't have to invest in anti-piracy software or have a whole division (if done in house) of their anti-pirate code, all those resources can be use to make a cooler/better games.

Click to expand...

Who said that companies have to invest in anti-piracy? If companies want to pursue civil lawsuits, yes they have to invest in lawyers or in cooperative groups that will hire lawyers. Just because there are laws does not mean that every software company has to spend money pursuing court cases.

Nor does the legal status of piracy have anything to do with DRM. No company is forced to put copy restricting code in their game, regardless of their stance on how to deal with piracy. A company that puts no DRM on their products is just as free to sue for copyright infringement as a company that does.

Furthermore, if more forms of copyright infringement become criminal, that would mean that the government would then become responsible for the investigation and prosecution of the cases, wouldn't it?[/QUOTE]

That is true, but here is my thing. You have to invest in something to prevent something. that means companies would have to keep up/pressure government to pass laws, this ties up the government from doing other stuff (for it seems that our government can't do too many things at once when it comes to big stuff) which delays all other stuff.

Before tax payers money are spend, some research needs to be done (have so in the past) etc etc

Companies would still have to invest in anti-piracy cause the government doesn't work that fast. If it takes 2-3 years to pass a law (some longer with all the in fighting), that game would be obsolete by now. Company have to invest in anti-piracy NOW since current method is not working.

It is all about investment in time. All company has their lawyers, but a group can only do so many things at a time. If they are too busy "chasing down" pirates then that means need more lawyers. Even sending out scare tactics cost money (lawyer's time) I learn that our HOA (small compare to corporate) for the lawyer to SEND out a SINGLE letter (form letter no doubt) cost our HOA 45$) Our HoA is on the rise cause of all the lawyer fees (50% of our budget) after the last meeting I wonder if HoA is really worth it.

Now imagine that compound with millions of pirates....... it adds up REAL quick. Heck 45$ per letter with 100,000 pirate copies = 4.5 million dollars (yes the lawyer charges PER letter at least for HoA so I don't know how much they charge company) can you imagine how much development can you do with 4.5 millions?

while you are correct that companies do NOT require to put DRM, but since the CURRENT laws are not working as it should and it will take a long while to change (I mean the piracy has been around for over 10 years now) how else will they curb piracy. DRM does slow down and might even stop "local pirates" but it takes only a single crack to get around it and all that investment goes to waste.

To chase down pirates also takes money and time. How do you know if your programs is being pirated? how many copies? who to go after? that requires IT time and money (hiring and resources)

It is a big thing really. No matter what people do, piracy will be there, but I say if people make a quality program, piracy will lower (but never go away) so companies and people can invest their time doing something better.

Chibibar said:

It is a big thing really. No matter what people do, piracy will be there, but I say if people make a quality program, piracy will lower (but never go away) so companies and people can invest their time doing something better.

Click to expand...

Okay, I'm with you right up until the end. It takes time and effort to fight piracy, and there is certainly a level of diminishing returns. Changing laws takes money, sending letters takes money, hounding ISPs takes money, etc. What I don't follow is how how making a better program stops people from pirating. I understand how making a better service makes for less piracy (like Valve is trying to do with Steam, Steam Cloud, etc.). I understand how better extras make for less piracy (like Telltale is doing with a strong connection between developers and customers, offering physical game discs with commentary for the price of shipping if you've bought the digital version, etc.). I understand how piracy can be made the less appealing choice if there are extra incentives involved with a legal copy.

I can't understand how piracy would somehow lower if the game itself is better, but piracy can get all that for free. Especially if piracy continues to be viewed as a socially acceptable, victimless non-crime. Certainly some of the more intelligent pirates will realize that companies need money to put out good games, but more will just wonder why the company can't make money without having to charge them for the game, and pirate the game because they view charging for software to be an antiquated business model. (and when companies start putting ads in games, pirates will strip out those ads, and wonder why game companies can't make money without advertisements).

figmentPez;287883][quote=Chibibar said:

It is a big thing really. No matter what people do, piracy will be there, but I say if people make a quality program, piracy will lower (but never go away) so companies and people can invest their time doing something better.

Click to expand...

Okay, I'm with you right up until the end. It takes time and effort to fight piracy, and there is certainly a level of diminishing returns. Changing laws takes money, sending letters takes money, hounding ISPs takes money, etc. What I don't follow is how how making a better program stops people from pirating. I understand how making a better service makes for less piracy (like Valve is trying to do with Steam, Steam Cloud, etc.). I understand how better extras make for less piracy (like Telltale is doing with a strong connection between developers and customers, offering physical game discs with commentary for the price of shipping if you've bought the digital version, etc.). I understand how piracy can be made the less appealing choice if there are extra incentives involved with a legal copy.

I can't understand how piracy would somehow lower if the game itself is better, but piracy can get all that for free. Especially if piracy continues to be viewed as a socially acceptable, victimless non-crime. Certainly some of the more intelligent pirates will realize that companies need money to put out good games, but more will just wonder why the company can't make money without having to charge them for the game, and pirate the game because they view charging for software to be an antiquated business model. (and when companies start putting ads in games, pirates will strip out those ads, and wonder why game companies can't make money without advertisements).[/QUOTE]

There are different group of pirates.

I will never buy a game - these people you can't do much about other than hoping to catch them and punish them hard.

I will buy it when it is cheaper - these people pirate cause they don't want to pay the super high price for a new game.

This game is not worth buying but I'll pirate it instead - this is where my quality argument comes into play.

There is a lot of cookie cutter type games out there and people don't know much about it. Also new games cost a bundle, starting price for most games are like what? 60$ right? That is a lot. Granted the cost tied into new gen development (arts, graphics, voices, programming and such are much more complex now)

of course my argument is probably flawed since it is my personal opinion, but If we don't have "trash stuff" then quality game might take several years to make (like Blizzard doing) and not many company can afford 2-3 years development time.

Yeah, but your opinion on the price is basically meaningless. It's the seller's right to charge what he/she wants. It's your right to buy or not buy, but not to take as a protest.

fade said:

Yeah, but your opinion on the price is basically meaningless. It's the seller's right to charge what he/she wants. It's your right to buy or not buy, but not to take as a protest.

Click to expand...

Unless your an American in a Revolution... then it's perfectly fine to ruin someone's products to make a point! Maybe we should take shipments of games and throw them into Boston Harbor!

(NOTE: I am not seriously comparing the Boston Tea Party to Piracy.)

Talking about BBC articles: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8337887.stm

In Short:

"People who download music illegally also spend an average of £77 a year buying it legitimately, a survey has found.
Those who claimed not to use peer-to-peer filesharing sites such as The Pirate Bay spent a yearly average of just £44."

figmentPez said:

That wasn't a dodge at all. It is of utmost importance to realize that laws do not spring up out of nothing. Laws are made with a purpose and intent. Even when the motivation is ignoble, or the execution if flawed, laws do not exist in a vacuum. \"The legal stuff\" is not what makes the difference. What is legal is not always what is desirable, and what is praiseworthy is not always legal.

Click to expand...

Sure they don't but there are places where sharing copyrighted work isn't illegal, or where copyright expires early etc. and the moral stuff is debatable enough that those differences came into being. So unless you're arguing that everyone is a thief whether or not copyright expired where they are the law is what makes the difference between having the right to it or not without getting into way to complex of a philosophical discussion...

Overpricing cannot be theft unless a person is forced to pay that price. No one is forced to buy games. They are not an essential component of life. The pricing of games is not done by force, nor is it done in secret.

Click to expand...

Weird, i don't recall that being a requirement in any dictionary definition of the term... so by your own logic this argument is wrong.

And not done in secret?! Pls do tell me where exactly i can find the actual amounts of money invested for each copy etc.

I'm just going by the dictionary definition of the words theft and steal. Let me draw a parallel. To the insurance industry the word \"flood\" has a specific meaning. It applies to the rising of lakes, rivers, ponds, etc. A broken pipe that completely fills a basement with water is not a flood as defined by insurance policies. However, in common usage a flood is \"a great flowing or overflowing of water\". If you call a plumber and tell him a pipe burst and flooded your basement, he's not going to argue that there hasn't been any rain for weeks. The legal definition of words is not always the same as common usage. Which is why I have tried and tried and tried to switch from the word theft to the word steal. However, every time I have said \"steal\" those who disagree with me have gone back to arguing about \"theft\". It's total BULLSHIT!

That said, shall we examine what the ruling in Dowling v. United States actually said (emphasis mine):
\"interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud.
....
\"infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud. As a result, it fits but awkwardly with the language Congress chose - \"stolen, converted or taken by fraud\" - to describe the sorts of goods whose interstate shipment 2314 makes criminal.\"

This is a ruling that a law about interstate trafficking of stolen goods does not apply to copyright infringement because the law was written specifically about goods. This does not say that copyright infringement is not theft at all, but that it is not the specific type of theft that 18 U.S.C. 2314 was written about. It is a conservative ruling, that is declining to extend the coverage of a law beyond it's intended purpose. This does not preclude all laws from defining copyright infringement as theft, nor does it change the common usage of the word.

Furthermore, you obviously have not read the whole of the ruling yourself as this quote is relevant to the issue at hand:
\"in United States v. Turley, 352 U.S. 407 (1957), this Court held that the term \"stolen\" included all felonious takings with intent to deprive the owner of the rights and benefits of ownership, regardless of whether the theft would constitute larceny at common law.\"

The Supreme Court agrees with me. Copyright infringement is stealing because it is done \"with intent to deprive the owner of the rights and benefits of ownership\", even though it doesn't constitute larceny. (As to felonious, bear in mind that a non-felony offense, if I'm not mistaken, would be outside the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court).

So, even if we throw out the word theft from this argument, stealing is still most definitely appropriate applied to copyright infringement.

Click to expand...

"it's not regular stealing, but it still stealing etc."... the idea was that when you say "stealing" it's an attempt to equate it with larceny or whatever...

Gah, this is what i wanted to avoid, arguing about words...

Ah yes, them damn women property owners. A small portion of them have been abusing the system and using their property to exploit people. Just goes to show that women shouldn't have the right to own property at all!

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's not like you could have rules that insure the system is abused less or anything without actually taking away the rights altogether...

Sorry, you can ignore that if you want. My point is this, I have not argued for unlimited control by authors. The copyright system provides protections for both the creator of the work and the consumer. (the \"first-sale doctrine\" would be a good example, though there are others). If these protections for the consumer are inadequate for digital mediums, that only increases the need for updating copyright law.

The rights of creators need protection, and definition, in the law, as do the rights of consumers. When I have said that creators have a right to control their work, I have been saying that with the assumption that it is understood that the rights given to a creator are limited, by law and by reason.

Click to expand...

Yeah, because the issue is so clear cut everyone must be aware of the implications of your broad statement.

Control is not the same as compensation... if get to pick on using the definitions in the dictionary arbitrarily then so do i.

However, it is understandable that you're confused on the matter, since your comments indicate that you think that laws spring out of nothing, for no reason, are unchangeable, and exist only to be exploited. (I base this on your refusal to talk about the rational underpinnings behind laws, and your claims that laws are the only deciding factor between what is and isn't acceptable behaviour.)

Click to expand...

See, that's exactly what i have against your arguments... acceptable behaviour can be shaking hands at the wrong time or something... and it can even be down to individual preference...

Yeah, there are some which can be objectively justified, but they usually are very basic (like the fact that creators should get compensated somehow so they don't starve to death), but as they get into more complex territory (should they be allowed to not give someone their product just because they don't want to, even if the person can buy it) it get's more subjective. And i'm not interested in discussing the moral value of laws because we would get nowhere fast.

DISCLAIMER: The above might be very confusing, i just can't put it any better.

I saw that article. Looks like a classic case of spurious correlation to me. I mean, the people who went out of their way to pirate music probably also simply have a greater interest in acquiring music, illegally or legally.

Sure, but it is a good counter against "they pirated it so won't pay"...

Oh, and some stuff i had bookmarked at home:

The Escapist : Pirates of the Frozen Wastes

P2P Not to Blame for Content Industry Failures Says EU

BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Musicians hit out at piracy plans

The Escapist : Experienced Points: Online Activation Is a Ripoff

@Li3n said:

Sure, but it is a good counter against "they pirated it so won't pay"...

Click to expand...

Yes, but I don't think it ties into video games very well. Video games are a far bigger investment than music, seeing as you can just download specific songs that you want. You can't buy most games ala carte. The exception, of course being "freemium" games. Which is actually a model that is working pretty well for some games. This would be an example of what Tin was talking about as far as changing the rules of the game on the distribution side to sidestep the issue of piracy.

fade said:

Yeah, but your opinion on the price is basically meaningless. It's the seller's right to charge what he/she wants. It's your right to buy or not buy, but not to take as a protest.

Click to expand...

That is true. that is one way of looking at it.

A lot of the gamers are on a fixed income. The developers want part of the "gaming pie" (billion dollars+ industry right?) but it is still fixed income for many.

If a household can only afford 1 game a month (or 1 game every 2 month) then choices of buying is VERY limited (or none at all) luckily we don't have children yet and I can afford to buy at least 1 game (around 40-60$) a month give or take (or subscribe to 4 mmorpg type games) If the game is made cheaper, people are likely to buy it or have a chance to sell it.

I'm in the camp of "micro transaction" if done correctly. I do like DDO style. I don't need to pay if I play enough and unlock content (even buy packages via playing) of course depend how dependent I am.

Due to recent price drop for DDO turbine point (or was it a special) 5000 points for like 39$ or something I can buy all the major adventure packs and have 4 character slots that is awesome.

I hate the term "Fixed income". Who ISN'T on a fixed income?

Sorry that was my bill collector coming out. It's the lamest excuse people use to avoid paying their bills.

Bowielee said:

I hate the term "Fixed income". Who ISN'T on a fixed income?

Sorry that was my bill collector coming out. It's the lamest excuse people use to avoid paying their bills.

Click to expand...

well... commission sales, servers (like waiter and waitress) day traders, self employed, restaurant owner.

to me, fix income is salary base income where it doesn't change no matter what you do (especially government work like me. getting a raise is like pulling teeth, heck ,it is easier to get teeth pull that to get a raise. We don't have promotion base system, you want a promotion? you apply for a higher paying job)

Chibibar;288863][quote=Bowielee said:

I hate the term "Fixed income". Who ISN'T on a fixed income?

Sorry that was my bill collector coming out. It's the lamest excuse people use to avoid paying their bills.

Click to expand...

well... commission sales, servers (like waiter and waitress) day traders, self employed, restaurant owner.

to me, fix income is salary base income where it doesn't change no matter what you do (especially government work like me. getting a raise is like pulling teeth, heck ,it is easier to get teeth pull that to get a raise. We don't have promotion base system, you want a promotion? you apply for a higher paying job)[/QUOTE]

The funny thing about that is that people use being on a fixed income as an excuse for NOT paying your bills. In the examples you give of people who aren't they are the ones who would probably have the hardest time budgeting their money.

Bowielee;288888][quote=Chibibar;288863][quote=Bowielee said:

I hate the term "Fixed income". Who ISN'T on a fixed income?

Sorry that was my bill collector coming out. It's the lamest excuse people use to avoid paying their bills.

Click to expand...

well... commission sales, servers (like waiter and waitress) day traders, self employed, restaurant owner.

to me, fix income is salary base income where it doesn't change no matter what you do (especially government work like me. getting a raise is like pulling teeth, heck ,it is easier to get teeth pull that to get a raise. We don't have promotion base system, you want a promotion? you apply for a higher paying job)[/QUOTE]

The funny thing about that is that people use being on a fixed income as an excuse for NOT paying your bills. In the examples you give of people who aren't they are the ones who would probably have the hardest time budgeting their money.[/QUOTE]

I can attest to THAT.

I remember when I use to work at Denny's (yup I was a server) my income fluctuate. I save a for my bills (pay those first like rent, utilities and such or break it up to different due dates) and kinda blow the rest on dates, food, and entertainment. Of course I actually "plan" on how much I should make at least before leaving and try to get extra shift if I don't hit that mark.

edit: now that my wife and I earn a paycheck once a month (talk about uber fixed income) we plan everything ahead and make sure we don't go "starving" by the end of the month. All bills are paid at the beginning of the month (we get paid 2 days at the end of the month)

.



BEST.LICENSE.EVER: http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/

Bowielee;288586][quote=@Li3n said:

Sure, but it is a good counter against \"they pirated it so won't pay\"...

Click to expand...

Yes, but I don't think it ties into video games very well. Video games are a far bigger investment than music, seeing as you can just download specific songs that you want. You can't buy most games ala carte.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, games are overpriced...