Lawyer Destroys Arguments for Game Piracy

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 21 NEXT
 

Lawyer Destroys Arguments for Game Piracy

image

A self-described game lawyer explains why arguments in favor of piracy are bunk.

Whenever the prosecution of game piracy is mentioned, the pirates (or, at least, apologists) come out of the woodwork to defend the crime. There's no sure-fire way to go after IP addresses that have downloaded games illegally, they say, because the hackers can just mask their IP address. Or just because a game was downloaded doesn't mean that the computer's owner was the pirate. Worse, pirates say that any prosecution is just a way to scare people or that most of the time pirates become real customers of the game. Jas Purewal is a lawyer based in London and he pointed out today that most of those arguments don't hold up to any real logical scrutiny.

Purewal says there is really no evidence that most pirates have the desire or technical chops to effectively mask their IP address, and even if some did, that's hardly a reason to stop going after pirates. "There's no empirical evidence so far to support how often IP spoofing is done," he said. "In reality, I suspect fairly few pirates actually go to the trouble of disguising themselves. Besides which, just because the method is not perfect, doesn't mean we should throw our hands up in the air and do nothing, does it?"

The notion that piracy does not equate to lost sales is just as erroneous. "Piracy might result in an eventual purchase of a game, but in the meantime it means a financial loss for the developer," Purewal said. "Sadly developers are not gamer banks, willing to effectively loan gamers money until we decide we like them enough to pay them."

Even though Purewal is a lawyer and should therefor be on board for litigation solving all problems, he's also a gamer. The solution to piracy should come from publishers offering better ways for customers to enjoy their games, not suing willy-nilly. "If we can reduce piracy through the means of technology and via the market, then that's got to be better than getting lawyers involved," he said. He applauds platforms like Steam that are a form of DRM which don't slap paying customers in the face.

The arguments for game piracy seem a bit flimsy in response to stories like CD Projekt's DRM-less Witcher 2 being pirated more than it was purchased or this abominable list of pirated games from TorrentFreak. The games industry can't just ignore these thefts, and no amount of backwards logic can argue the impact of piracy away.

Source: NextGen

Permalink

Greg Tito:
The arguments for game piracy seem a bit flimsy in response to stories like CD Projekt's DRM-less Witcher 2 being pirated more than it was purchased or this abominable list of pirated games from TorrentFreak. The games industry can't just ignore these thefts, and no amount of backwards logic can argue the impact of piracy away.

And now we are treated to the sounds of:

"It's not a lost sale, because they were never going to buy it anyway." (unverifiable ex-post-facto justification)

"Stop calling it theft. The publisher is not denied access or deprived of any property." (a "no true Scotsman" regarding the definition of "theft")

"Well the publishers need to stop being greedy, and maybe people will support them." (a deflection and complete change of topic. could be called "the Robin Hood defense.")

"If they made better games, maybe people wouldn't pirate." (logically inside-out, since any improvement to the game itself would equally improve the pirated copy. No disincentive is established.)

"People only pirate because of DRM." (reversal of the actual state of cause-effect, since DRM measures were created as a reaction to piracy, and DRM-less games are still frequently pirated)

So, now that we've got that out of the way, good article and I'm glad to hear lawyers weighing in on it.

Never mind his argument, it's a lawyer who doesn't seem to hate games!
/fanfare

but in the meantime it means a financial loss for the developer

NO, it does not. That logic is incredibly erroneous.

No matter what one thinks of piracy, the notion that the notion that piracy does not equate to lost sales is erroneous is erroneous. I might download hundreds of games, none of which I would ever play (let alone buy). Yet they argue that these hundreds of downloads would equal hundreds of lost sales. Almost certainly there are some sales lost due to piracy, but how many has not been investigated, and there are positive effects of piracy as well. I doubt they're big enough to compensate for sales lost but there is no way anyone can be sure of that without doing proper research. Both sides should stop pretending to know for certainwhat the effects of piracy are.

So this is just another case of some person taking a grey issue and treating like a black-and-white one? Good to know.

Greg Tito:

The arguments for game piracy seem a bit flimsy in response to stories like CD Projekt's DRM-less Witcher 2 being pirated more than it was purchased or this abominable list of pirated games from TorrentFreak. The games industry can't just ignore these thefts, and no amount of backwards logic can argue the impact of piracy away.

And yet there is nothing they can do to stop it. They will never stop piracy, or hurt it in any meaningful way, and all companies like Ubisoft and EA are doing is kneecapping paying customers.

Piracy continues to be a viable way for potential customers to try out their very expensive product and see if it suits them before dropping their hard earned money. I noticed that of the games on the top pirated list, only FIFA and Crysis, and Forza had demos.

edit: Also, it's not theft and it's simply incorrect to call it such.

Dastardly:

Greg Tito:
The arguments for game piracy seem a bit flimsy in response to stories like CD Projekt's DRM-less Witcher 2 being pirated more than it was purchased or this abominable list of pirated games from TorrentFreak. The games industry can't just ignore these thefts, and no amount of backwards logic can argue the impact of piracy away.

And now we are treated to the sounds of:

"It's not a lost sale, because they were never going to buy it anyway." (unverifiable ex-post-facto justification)

"Stop calling it theft. The publisher is not denied access or deprived of any property." (a "no true Scotsman" regarding the definition of "theft")

"Well the publishers need to stop being greedy, and maybe people will support them." (a deflection and complete change of topic. could be called "the Robin Hood defense.")

"If they made better games, maybe people wouldn't pirate." (logically inside-out, since any improvement to the game itself would only make the pirated copy equally better)

So, now that we've got that out of the way, good article and I'm glad to hear lawyers weighing in on it.

I only really take issue with dismissing "not a lost sale" and "If they made better games". I'm not going to say that fixing these will bring an end to piracy, but all this I keep hearing about the absurd overpricing some escapist member have to deal with. This coupled with the fact that there ARE a lot of games that, while fun, are NOT worth $60 ("wait until the price drops, then give it a try") certainly contribute. That coupled with postponed regional release dates and outright limited releasing. I had some friends in my last college who pirated and shared a game simply because there was no way to get in America, it was only released in Japan and one of them had a connection.

LilithSlave:

but in the meantime it means a financial loss for the developer

NO, it does not. That logic is incredibly erroneous.

Yes it does. They worked hard on something, and what would be a paying customer got it without paying for it, depriving the developer or their profit.

He didn't seem to touch the harder arguments that people make about things that are not available/not in production that are being pirated.

To curb a large amount of piracy just do 3 things:

1) Make a damn demo.

2) Allow for digital distribution.

3) Use reasonable DRM.

Extra credit: Either release the code for or sell the rights to old games that you no longer support so people can still play/buy them.

EDIT2: Upon re-reading the title of the article, what the hell is he supposed to be destroying? He picked out the 2 most flimsy arguments and basically said "No evidence" and "NO U" to both of them without any evidence of his own, which is about the least bit of destroying you can do to an argument.

Mcoffey:
So this is just another case of some person taking a grey issue and treating like a black-and-white one? Good to know.

Greg Tito:

The arguments for game piracy seem a bit flimsy in response to stories like CD Projekt's DRM-less Witcher 2 being pirated more than it was purchased or this abominable list of pirated games from TorrentFreak. The games industry can't just ignore these thefts, and no amount of backwards logic can argue the impact of piracy away.

And yet there is nothing they can do to stop it. They will never stop piracy, or hurt it in any meaningful way, and all companies like Ubisoft and EA are doing is kneecapping paying customers.

The witcher developers are able to pick out pirates and get money from them efficiently, but they are only doing it so they can make the money that they deserve, not to stop piracy. More companies should be doing this instead of DRM, because it only hurts pirates, not paying customers.

Oh curse you, Dastardly. You totally ninja'd my reply. :)

But in all seriousness, I think I support the Robin Hood defense. While games are a luxury, the social pressure to buy them propagated by the gaming culture via the internet (peer pressure?) in conjunction with the little Skinner Box to make gaming compulsive makes resisting games very, very difficult. And if these games are costing an arm and a leg at retail, people start to consider piracy.

The whole thing is a complete paradox, a real chicken and egg scenario. Personally, I don't think you'll ever get rid of the pirates no matter what the publishers or developers do. Oppressive DRM and treating all gamers like crap isn't the right way to go about it, but that leaves the question what IS the right way to go about keeping piracy to a minimum.

I'd say there isn't any right way to do it - so I would suggest inaction on the publisher's part. Perhaps an honour system should be used as an experiment?

Sources:
http://www.cracked.com/article_18461_5-creepy-ways-video-games-are-trying-to-get-you-addicted.html
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/show/extra-credits (Episodes 4 and 5)

Greg Tito:

Purewal says there is really no evidence that most pirates have the desire or technical chops to effectively mask their IP address, and even if some did, that's hardly a reason to stop going after pirates. "There's no empirical evidence so far to support how often IP spoofing is done," he said. "In reality, I suspect fairly few pirates actually go to the trouble of disguising themselves. Besides which, just because the method is not perfect, doesn't mean we should throw our hands up in the air and do nothing, does it?"

No, but it does mean that companies need more evidence than just an IP address to take people to court.

Greg Tito:

The notion that piracy does not equate to lost sales is just as erroneous.

No, it's not. Someone who pirates a game was not definitely going to buy it if they could not pirate it. So if you stop all piracy, it does not mean that all those pirated copies would turn into sales on a 1:1 ratio. This is hardly rocket science, but some people try very hard to ignore common sense.

How is this article titled 'Lawyer Destroys Arguments for Game Piracy', when he does not even discuss any pro piracy arguments. The only things he is talks about are evidential short comings of enforcement and the industries wrong assumptions about how much piracy is costing them.

Greg Tito:

The arguments for game piracy seem a bit flimsy in response to stories like CD Projekt's DRM-less Witcher 2 being pirated more than it was purchased or this abominable list of pirated games from TorrentFreak. The games industry can't just ignore these thefts, and no amount of backwards logic can argue the impact of piracy away.

And as I predicted in my comment to the top pirated games article, the figures now are being reported as fact even though they are ESTIMATES based on bad data collection methodology. And the two ESTIMATES don't even tally as if the Witcher 2 Piracy ESTIMATE was right, then the game would have appeared in the top 10 Torrentfreak article.

I don't like games being pirated and buy all of mine, but the reporting / journalism here on this issue, leaves a lot to be desired. All these badly sourced ESTIMATES do is convince developers to add more intrusive DRM schemes which only affect legitimate buyers, like myself.

brainslurper:

LilithSlave:

but in the meantime it means a financial loss for the developer

NO, it does not. That logic is incredibly erroneous.

Yes it does. They worked hard on something, and what would be a paying customer got it without paying for it, depriving the developer or their profit.

The problem is you assume they WOULD be a paying customer. With or without piracy existing,there is no money that would go to the developer.

It is wrong to call it a lost sale. The sale doesn't exists, would not exist if piracy wasn't a thing.

brainslurper:

Mcoffey:
So this is just another case of some person taking a grey issue and treating like a black-and-white one? Good to know.

Greg Tito:

The arguments for game piracy seem a bit flimsy in response to stories like CD Projekt's DRM-less Witcher 2 being pirated more than it was purchased or this abominable list of pirated games from TorrentFreak. The games industry can't just ignore these thefts, and no amount of backwards logic can argue the impact of piracy away.

And yet there is nothing they can do to stop it. They will never stop piracy, or hurt it in any meaningful way, and all companies like Ubisoft and EA are doing is kneecapping paying customers.

The witcher developers are able to pick out pirates and get money from them efficiently, but they are only doing it so they can make the money that they deserve, not to stop piracy. More companies should be doing this instead of DRM, because it only hurts pirates, not paying customers.

Yeah, I don't have as much of a problem with what CDPR are doing. I don't really think it will work, but it's a much better option than that constantly online bullshit Ubisoft likes to pull.

LilithSlave:

but in the meantime it means a financial loss for the developer

NO, it does not. That logic is incredibly erroneous.

As I see it, the two polar notions that piracy is always a lost sale and that piracy is never effectively a financial loss are what is truly lacking logic. The truth is in fact somewhere in the middle.

bombadilillo:

brainslurper:

LilithSlave:

NO, it does not. That logic is incredibly erroneous.

Yes it does. They worked hard on something, and what would be a paying customer got it without paying for it, depriving the developer or their profit.

The problem is you assume they WOULD be a paying customer. With or without piracy existing,there is no money that would go to the developer.

It is wrong to call it a lost sale. The sale doesn't exists, would not exist if piracy wasn't a thing.

It is ignorant to say that all pirates would never pay for games in the first place. Sure, some wouldn't, but there is always going to be lost sales to piracy (just not every pirated download is a lost sale).

Mcoffey:

brainslurper:

Mcoffey:
So this is just another case of some person taking a grey issue and treating like a black-and-white one? Good to know.

And yet there is nothing they can do to stop it. They will never stop piracy, or hurt it in any meaningful way, and all companies like Ubisoft and EA are doing is kneecapping paying customers.

The witcher developers are able to pick out pirates and get money from them efficiently, but they are only doing it so they can make the money that they deserve, not to stop piracy. More companies should be doing this instead of DRM, because it only hurts pirates, not paying customers.

Yeah, I don't have as much of a problem with what CDPR are doing. I don't really think it will work, but it's a much better option than that constantly online bullshit Ubisoft likes to pull.

Depends how you define "work". If it means to stop people from pirating their games, then no, it wont do that. But if it is to make money off of their hard work, then I think it already is working.

"Piracy might result in an eventual purchase of a game, but in the meantime it means a financial loss for the developer,"

How is this "destroying" the arguments? It's the same retort used by freaking EVERYONE. I don't support piracy, but was actually interested in a new argument. I intensely dislike articles that have sensationalist titles without even the slightest content chops to back it up.

Sure, the guy spouts the same tired thing that there are no studies to indicate that pirates eventually buy the games, but there aren't any studies that prove that pirates would have bought the game, are there?

I get it, you need readers. I'm reading you guys, aren't I? But... I don't know. I just want some respect?

Bah, forget about me. I'm in a bad mood because I just finished Dragon Age 2, it which continuously disappointed me with its nonsensical story and then the ending came and I threw up.

I can understand the complaints regarding piracy. It absolutely sucks that developers and publishers lose out on sales and all, but I have a couple qualms with this, mostly because he isn't looking through a consumer perspective of things. There are a couple reasons why piracy is prevalent:

1. We don't want to put up with bullshit. We have absolutely no patience for DRM and less so for publishers who have a narrow and close-minded view of PC gaming as a whole. Denying them of a sale seems like a reasonable thing to do when said publisher implements a mechanism that sets out to punish people who purchased the game and inadvertently REWARDS those who pirate the game. It all comes down to the message said publisher conveys, and if the publisher is saying "Fuck you, we don't want your money.", they shouldn't bitch when they're refused a sale in favor of a better functioning pirated copy.

Same applies to those who force a spyware client to run a game (Battlefield 3) and the same applies to those that frequently and traditionally screw consumers over because they live in different territories of the globe (Nintendo and Xenoblade Chronicles). Publisher refuses our money? Okay! Don't come crying and blithely whining "HURF A DURF, PIRACY ARE BAD BECAUSE WE IS LOSING LEGITAMITE SALES. HURRRR DURRRRR"

2. Piracy is a good testing mechanism for PC gamers. We pirate the game, if it runs, HEY GREAT! We can buy the game and enjoy a legitimate copy to enjoy. I mean come on, Battlefield 3 and Crysis 2 are on that list, those are, if anything, heavy duty games that require a really good computer.

3. Piracy helps to justify a purchase. Yes, I know there is a thing called demos, but not a lot of games have them. I'll be the first to admit that I pirated Minecraft, but after playing the pirated copy, I set out to purchase it, knowing that the purchase I made was worth it having played it before and knowing what I was getting myself into. Plus, games are 50+ dollars these days. How do I know whether or not the game I'll be getting is either A: Good, B: Shit, or C: A console/PC port depending on the platform of choice?

So essentially the same old arguments and counter-arguments are rehashed again, but now by one who holds a legal degree?

Colour me unimpressed. And do come back when there is substantial and conclusive evidence of economic impact - apart from raw numbers proving not much more than the mere fact that it is a very widespread activity.

brainslurper:

Mcoffey:

brainslurper:
The witcher developers are able to pick out pirates and get money from them efficiently, but they are only doing it so they can make the money that they deserve, not to stop piracy. More companies should be doing this instead of DRM, because it only hurts pirates, not paying customers.

Yeah, I don't have as much of a problem with what CDPR are doing. I don't really think it will work, but it's a much better option than that constantly online bullshit Ubisoft likes to pull.

Depends how you define "work". If it means to stop people from pirating their games, then no, it wont do that. But if it is to make money off of their hard work, then I think it already is working.

I read in a Rock Paper Shotgun article a while back, that said they hadn't made much back from it, and I gotta wonder how much sending out all those letters cost. Then you get into people contesting the notice, or outright ignoring, and I cant imagine that the endeavor will be all that fruitful.

Still gotta give em credit for trying this over the "Guilty until proven innocent, and even then watch your step!" approach the rest of the industry seems to enjoy taking.

Slycne:

LilithSlave:

but in the meantime it means a financial loss for the developer

NO, it does not. That logic is incredibly erroneous.

As I see it, the two polar notions that piracy is always a lost sale and that piracy is never effectively a financial loss are what is truly lacking logic. The truth is in fact somewhere in the middle.

Schrodinger's game sale? :P

Yeah I see what your saying, and it makes me really wish both sides would choose other arguments with more footing to focus on.

Fairly sure this is meant to be a news article, which should state the news. News should give you info about an important event or such. Not then fill it out with conjecture and opinion.

You can't mock Fox for being biased and then the next minute include your own opinions in articles. Opinion pieces are fine, but as a seperate piece, not mixed in with the news.

I don't see how anyone with a brain can seriously hold the belief that a pirated game leads to a sale later. The whole point of pirating a game is to obtain it without paying. Once you have obtained it, why pay money for something you already own? Some may decide to buy the game out of respect for the developer and their work, but how often does that seriously happen? I bet it's far more common that it does not. And after you work out that you can easily get games without paying for them, that becomes a very hard habit to break. There's no undeniable reason why someone would not at least be tempted to commit piracy again and again after they see they can do it easily and without immediate negative consequence.

brainslurper:
depriving the developer or their profit.

No, it does not, partaking in a media without having bought it is not depriving a developer of profit.

Furthermore, the majority of media in the world, without "piracy" is used without being individually paid for.

Losing profit is something that happens when someone refuses to buy something. This is independent of piracy. Piracy is not the refusal to buy.

Saying something like "Yahztee said Skyward Sword is the worst Zelda game ever! Therefor I'm never buying it!" is depriving the developer of profit. Downloading an .iso off the internet is not.

I'm in the "what argument did he destroy" camp..
Agreed pirating is morally wrong.

Everything else is up for debate until a proper study (10k+ minimum participants, more like the whole community to get proper results..) that is either sponsored by both sides or someone completely impartial. And also by entirely unbiased researchers... Anything else might just be truth for a part of the pirates and gamers.

For example if you use only American "specimens" it's only really sure to be true for Americans...
What he puts up is just same old arguments we all heard before. (Unless your new to the Internet, then welcome to terrifying world of Internet where most people lie.)

But this study will never happen, both sides have valid arguments, neither side is entirely right.

Good to know that Escapist doesnt show any bias in their news.

Sometimes escapist is even worse then Fox news with headlines and "information" in article.

Greg Tito:
Lawyer Destroys Arguments for Game Piracy

image

A self-described game lawyer explains why arguments in favor of piracy are bunk.

Whenever the prosecution of game piracy is mentioned, the pirates (or, at least, apologists) come out of the woodwork to defend the crime. There's no sure-fire way to go after IP addresses that have downloaded games illegally, they say, because the hackers can just mask their IP address. Or just because a game was downloaded doesn't mean that the computer's owner was the pirate. Worse, pirates say that any prosecution is just a way to scare people or that most of the time pirates become real customers of the game. Jas Purewal is a lawyer based in London and he pointed out today that most of those arguments don't hold up to any real logical scrutiny.

Purewal says there is really no evidence that most pirates have the desire or technical chops to effectively mask their IP address, and even if some did, that's hardly a reason to stop going after pirates. "There's no empirical evidence so far to support how often IP spoofing is done," he said. "In reality, I suspect fairly few pirates actually go to the trouble of disguising themselves. Besides which, just because the method is not perfect, doesn't mean we should throw our hands up in the air and do nothing, does it?"

The notion that piracy does not equate to lost sales is just as erroneous. "Piracy might result in an eventual purchase of a game, but in the meantime it means a financial loss for the developer," Purewal said. "Sadly developers are not gamer banks, willing to effectively loan gamers money until we decide we like them enough to pay them."

Even though Purewal is a lawyer and should therefor be on board for litigation solving all problems, he's also a gamer. The solution to piracy should come from publishers offering better ways for customers to enjoy their games, not suing willy-nilly. "If we can reduce piracy through the means of technology and via the market, then that's got to be better than getting lawyers involved," he said. He applauds platforms like Steam that are a form of DRM which don't slap paying customers in the face.

The arguments for game piracy seem a bit flimsy in response to stories like CD Projekt's DRM-less Witcher 2 being pirated more than it was purchased or this abominable list of pirated games from TorrentFreak. The games industry can't just ignore these thefts, and no amount of backwards logic can argue the impact of piracy away.

Source: NextGen

Permalink

Greg, is there any way I can block your content from showing up? The ignore button doesnt seem to work. No offense, but I have had enough of your articles.

I currently own almost 200 games on Steam (plus uncounted boxed games, both old and new titles) and I'll admit I have pirated games.

Why have I done it? Titles that look fun but have a dubious feel to it; I usually end up testing for a couple of hours (more or less) then make a decision if I want to acquire it or not based on fun-factor.

Bulletstorm is the lastest I have gotten (Not long after release and I was both horrified and relieved). Horrified at the dullness of it. Relieved that I hadn't spent 40, 50$ bucks for it.

Now, understand that if there were demo versions of those dubious games in the first place I wouldn't even have to download all that data. I would be happy to download a smaller set of the game itself, test it out; the mechanics, the fun I'm having and replayability potential, to finally be able to make a decision based on personal values I find important in a game.

In the last two years I might have downloaded 5-6 games and bought NONE of them. But you know what, I didn't even finish any either. I played a couple of hours, didn't like my experience then uninstalled/deleted the whole thing.

I do not, again, DO NOT, get pirated games because I'm a cheap ass customer. I do it because I want to have fun for the money I'm spending. Nothing else. Sadly, that doesn't represent the state of mind of most "pirates".

There really weren't any good arguments for piracy to begin with. It's bad to illegally copy games and one who does that doesn't have any moral high ground to stand on unless the game wasn't available for release in their country or the original game makers were out of business or something like that.

One real issue, though, is that DRM frequently penalizes legitimate buyers more than the pirates.

Not many people are willing to dump 60 dollars on a game that they may not find fun or may only last them a couple of hours. I know I'm not, I purchase games almost exclusively on sale simply because I am no longer willing to pay exorbitant prices for them, much in the same way that I will not pay 10-12 dollars to see a movie in the theater (I go to the weekend morning matinees for 5.50).

The irony here of course is that by the logic that a pirated game is an automatic lost sale, the same applies for me buying a steeply discounted game. Because I did not purchase the game at release, the company "lost" money by me not doing so. The fact that I purchased it later at a different price doesn't even enter into the equation. Non-sequitur much?

The real joke here though, is the concept that a company that gives away its product will make no money off of that product. I'm fairly certain this concept has be grossly disproved thanks to the release of hundreds of free-to-play MMOs. Did SOE not just release a press statement saying that their sales went up by 700% during the few weeks after releasing DCUO as free-to-play?

There's also the subject of returns. No software is eligible for return or resale except for console games (and thanks to the bullshit the industry is pulling with cd-keys that is slowly evaporating). Say a game releases with significant launch problems, or say there is a specific problem which prevents your hardware from running that game. Congratulations, you now own a 60 dollar paper weight (that wont even do that). Instead of the company incurring financial loss due to shoddy product design, the end consumer now has to foot that loss.

While I'm on the subject of consumer returns, why don't game publishers offer buy back programs? Do we not have such a highly effective mail network in this day and age that we can ship an object for a few dollars halfway across the globe in three to five business days? Why can't a publisher buy and sell new and used games straight from their website and then mail them direct to door? This would effectively allow the publisher to control the used game market and cut out middle men like Gamestop, giving them a huge profit when it comes to resell of used games (since they're making exactly nothing on used games currently).

If the publishers want to cry about lost sales, then they need to stop funneling money into sleazy profiteers like Gamestop. Wake up pubs! This is the digital age. You don't have to go through Steam, or EA, or Direct 2 Drive, you can host your own digital distribution AND physical distribution services which will net you both increased revenue and allow you to control content.

Don't just stop there though, allow owners of digital copies to TRADE OR RESELL THOSE DIGITAL COPIES. Don't devalue digital versions of games when all we end users are buying anyway are CD-Keys (and don't even try to convince anyone that the physical copy is worth more because its physical, when you have to activate it on steam anyway.

Greg Tito:
Even though Purewal is a lawyer and should therefor be on board for litigation solving all problems, he's also a gamer. The solution to piracy should come from publishers offering better ways for customers to enjoy their games, not suing willy-nilly. "If we can reduce piracy through the means of technology and via the market, then that's got to be better than getting lawyers involved," he said. He applauds platforms like Steam that are a form of DRM which don't slap paying customers in the face.

This guy gets it. Legally pursing pirates works about as well as it does for illegal immigrants or drug users. it gets a lot of people in trouble but doesn't really remove any of the incentives for bad behavior.

We've heard all those arguments a thousand times before - and expressed better. I mostly agree with him, but that's certainly not going to change anyone's mind.

Besides which, just because the method is not perfect, doesn't mean we should throw our hands up in the air and do nothing, does it?

Actually, that's exactly what it means. If you can't find a method to reliably catch and punish pirates, and only pirates, then you should do nothing. No matter how many criminals you catch, punishing an innocent is still wrong, and completely inexcusable if it's done in the process of punishing a crime as petty as piracy.

Also, by "not perfect", I assume he actually means "only harmful to legitimate customers" if he's referring to DRM, or "completely indiscriminate and abusable" if he's referring to something like SOPA.

Except the Atty is wrong. The Atty is basing arguments in speculation and conjecture. Seriously the guy is in essence proposing that just because we cant prove the "owner" of an IP address was the person downloading a game, we shouldnt stop trying to prosecute them?!?! WTF Cause yanno, Just because we dont have any actual evidence to suggest Obama is a Kenyan Socialistic muslim nazi, doesnt mean we should not put him on trial for his crimes. Im glad this guy really has a solid understanding of the way the internet works, and completely understands how easy it is to create a zombie node army spoofing/hijacking IP addresses or any of the various other ways that an IP address is not a validation of identity. /facepalm.

Seriously if your an atty and first argument is not only wrong but in essence illegal, then there is no reason to take anything else you have to say seriously. So theres no reason to bother with pointing out there is no evidence that a pirated copy = a lost sale or any of the other piracy arguments.

No what I find to be an extremely disturbing trend is the levels of agenda pushing yellow journalism as of late. I do understand the point of having no tolerance toward promoting piracy. It absolutely makes sense. But there is a massive difference between refusing to allow a community become a cesspool of piracy, and blatantly using falsehoods guilt and fear mongering in order to promote and force personal opinions based on specious reason on the audience.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 21 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here