Pc Game Piracy - Opinions.

[Chibibar]

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.

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.

 

[fade]

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.

 

[AshburnerX]

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.

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.)

 

[@Li3n]

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."

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.

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.

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.

"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!

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.

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.)

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.

 

[fade]

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.

 

[@Li3n]

Sure, but it is a good counter against "they pirated it so won't pay"...

 

[@Li3n]

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

 

[Bowielee]

Sure, but it is a good counter against "they pirated it so won't pay"...

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.

 

[Chibibar]

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.

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.

 

[Bowielee]

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.

 

[Chibibar]

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.

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)

 

[Bowielee]

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.

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.

 

[Chibibar]

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.

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)

 

[@Li3n]

.



BEST.LICENSE.EVER: http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/

Sure, but it is a good counter against \"they pirated it so won't pay\"...

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...