Lawyer Destroys Arguments for Game Piracy

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 . . . 21 NEXT
 

xvbones:

Hammeroj:
Please. Don't equate it with actual, physical theft. Piracy is piracy, it doesn't remove the original product.

When you own something through illegal or legally sketchy means for free that has an actual cash value, you have stolen that thing.

Do you seriously think intellectual property cannot be stolen?

Do you have any idea how many lawyers would absolutely love to get paid lots and lots of money to explain to you how incorrect that is?

Piracy is Piracy eh? let's do a simple google search, see if we can't find the definition of piracy:

Definition of PIRACY
1: an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery
2: robbery on the high seas
3: the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright

In other words;
THEFT.

And the argument 'there was no physical object to remove' is nothing more than extremely shaky rationalization.

But you know, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Apologists gonna apologize. Piracy is a crime. Splitting hairs like this helps no one. And hilariously enough, the fine is ENORMOUS for civil cases like these. Rationalising like this still doesn't excuse anything, and the faster people realise this, the faster everyone can move to the next stage of dialogue.

a crime is a crime

I find it disgusting to witness the intellectual gymnastics some people are able to perform to justify what is, if not technically then at least morally, theft. I've known a few pirates but at least they had the honesty to admit what they were doing was morally wrong, rather than casting themselves as some kind of modern day revolutionaries taking it to the big corporations.

Enough of this nonsense please.

Pay for your games people.

LilithSlave:

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

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

sorry he's right.
there is a difference on if you pay 60 bucks now or 60 bucks in half a years time.
they effect: liquidity of business, and also, return on investment(specifically, interest )

net effect: lower liquidity means the banks are less likely to borrow you money, or against a higher rate, ( e.g. you'd rather borrow money to people who dont actualy NEED it )

interest: half a year @ say 2.5% times ( 1.000.000*60 //60mil// = 1.500.000 otherwise know as one and a half million bucks. the interest rate saving by higher liquidity will add onother 500k til a mil to this figure.

SenorStocks:

xvbones:

Hammeroj:
Please. Don't equate it with actual, physical theft. Piracy is piracy, it doesn't remove the original product.

When you own something through illegal or legally sketchy means for free that has an actual cash value, you have stolen that thing.

Do you seriously think intellectual property cannot be stolen?

Do you have any idea how many lawyers would absolutely love to get paid lots and lots of money to explain to you how incorrect that is?

Piracy is Piracy eh? let's do a simple google search, see if we can't find the definition of piracy:

Definition of PIRACY
1: an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery
2: robbery on the high seas
3: the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright

In other words;
THEFT.

And the argument 'there was no physical object to remove' is nothing more than extremely shaky rationalization.

But you know, whatever helps you sleep at night.

I think you'll find that lawyers would not agree with you. Piracy is unequivocally not theft, not be reason of the property being intangible, but because there is no deprivation of the property which is an essential element of theft. The law is very clear on this point in the UK and the US.

How do you think that definition helps you? The only relevant branch of that definition is the third one, and that says nothing about theft at all. Also writing THEFT in bold doesn't make you right.

hey someone payed attention in law class ( or is just clever, one of both, good going sir or madam! )

if you want to poke him some more: theft can only apply when there has been a TRANSFER of goods(in abstract from, so real stuff and faerydust//ideas). from a person to a person ( legal or real ) copying, is not as per say a transfer. (unless the publisher itsself copies his own game and you then ctl-x it off his harddrive XD )

Superior Mind:

Credossuck:

Superior Mind:
I've never bought the argument for pirates who download games to 'try before they buy'.

However I disagree with this argument. Gamers pre-purchase games all the time, what this results in is game companies holding your money interest free long before you actually have a product. Is that any better than pirates downloading first and buying later? Not really, despite it being illegal of course. He argues that game companies aren't willing to effectively loan us money until we like a game enough to pay them - well why do they expect us to loan money to them before they've even given us a product?

Not that I'm arguing for piracy, I just think that this is a weak argument given the circumstances.

Wrong.

If you pre-order, the seller is legally bound to actually deliver the product you ordered (and depending on where you live, is also legally bound to compensate you if the product is unplayable - bugs, online DRM system etc.).

However if you just pirate: where is the legal safeguard for the seller that forces you to later give him the money? Or compensate him (in case of digital distribution) that you bought it at the special-offer super low price event?

?

Pre-ordering is legal, legal in the sense that there are screw over protections and safeguards built into theprocess. Both sides are protected from the other sides douche bag behavior.
You pirating a game leaves no safeguards for the seller that you will actually buy the game at any point.
Hes left hanging in the wind.

They had your pre-order money for month with no interest BECAUSE YOU GAVE IT THEM in good faith and knowing they have to deliver or refund/compensate. You feel safe to pre-order because you know there is a legal system serving your interest as much as theirs.

Piracy is not pre-ordering.
Its not the Dev GIVING you the game in good faith knowing that he will get paid for it later. You just took the game in the cover of anonymity. There is no consent here. No deliberate choice on the part of both parties. No "offer" and no "taker".

No, not wrong. My point was that Prewal's argument was flawed, I'm not saying "piracy equals pre-ordering". The original argument from Prewal was that game developers aren't banks who could absorb the costs before pirates decided to pay them. My point was that if this is the concern then pre-ordering shouldn't be acceptable either.

You're right, the key difference is the obligation game developers have to those who pre-order their products, there is no such obligation for pirates. But Prewal's argument that it was unfair for pirates to expect developers to temporarily absorb the cost - well why is it fine for the consumers to temporarily absorb the cost?

I'm not saying piracy is acceptable, even if the pirates decide to later buy the game, I'm saying the Prewal's apparent game-changing argument is flawed.

Oh i apologize for misreading your words then. Its a sad condition of mine to generally outright ignore blatant bullshit coming from some remote windpipes like that lawyer in whateverstan. Sorry to have bothered you.

No really that lawyer is a Male example of the species Gallus gallus domesticus in that he likes to come out of his shed and make a noise and try to pose as something that he isn't. (like a credible persona).

No relation to dangly parts.

Because most Asses don't dangle.

please don't hit me, mods.

I love these arguments because no matter how people spin it, "ITS FUCKING WRONG"

Eternal Taros:
Stealing, defrauding and embezzlement are different from causing loss in potential revenue.

Loss of potential revenue is still a loss, only how great a loss is up for debate.

A Farmer's crop is only potential income because they do not know the actual yield, quality or market price at harvest time.

Yet if the crop gets destroyed before harvest the farmer still suffers an actual loss.

Eternal Taros:
You cannot compare the theft of intellectual property with the act of stealing a physical good.

Your bank balance is not a pile of actual money in a bank vault (so is not a physical good), but is it any different if it gets stolen?

If your employer does not pay you for your labor, what physical good has he stolen from you?

Clearly in the modern world more things have tangible value than just physical goods.

Eternal Taros:
If you steal "Intellectual Property" nothing of value to the creator of the property has been lost.

Except the time, labor and inspiration that went into creating the IP.

Eternal Taros:

Arguably, certain pirates aren't even doing that.
Like I said, not every pirated copy is a lost sale.
Do you really think that an obscure game like Witcher 2 would have sold over 2 million copies if piracy didn't exist? Don't be ridiculous.

Care to elaborate?

You say that if I want something, I pay for it. If I genuinely don't want it, there would be no reason to pirate it?
That makes zero sense.
Stop thinking in black and white. It's not either "I want it enough to pay for it" or "I have no intention of playing that game at all"
You might want it, but not enough to dish out 50 dollars on a half-assed game.

That's why little things called "buying used" and "wait till the price goes down/there's a sale" exist.

You cannot compare the theft of intellectual property with the act of stealing a physical good.
How you define stealing is completely fucking irrelevant.
If you steal a physical good, that good is no longer available to the original owner. Thus, there is real monetary loss to the previous owner.
If you steal "Intellectual Property" nothing of value to the creator of the property has been lost.
The only thing that one could argue has been lost, is potential revenue. That idea itself stands on shaky ground.
As I have previously stated, not every pirated copy means a real lost sale.

Under that logic forgery and counterfeiting would both be fine. (see also TechNoFear's post above)

Can you believe that? Holy shit right?
Some pirates actually buy games that they think are worth the money.
They want to support the publishers.
They just can't afford to spend 50 dollars on every game they ever wanted to play.

"Some" people have won the lottery or survived plane crashes, doesn't make them a majority.

And if you can't afford a game then maybe you could just, you know, not buy/pirate it, but I suppose to today's average gamer taking that route would mean letting "THE MAN" win (plus they wouldn't get those free games they feel they're entitled to.)

You also have to understand that the corporations are not saints.
They DO NOT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE CONSUMER.
They will fuck over their customers any day for an increase in revenue.

And the Consumers will/would do the same if they are/were given even the possibility of a chance. There are "some" people on this very forum who would gladly see game developers/publishers/both starve to death for the "crime" of wanting to stop piracy/make money.

Eternal Taros:
Jesus, did you even read my post?

See, now you're just yelling the same thing over and over, as though saying it "madder" gives it more weight. You're not reading and responding, you're getting the vague sense of which "side" of the argument a person is on, and then spewing forth every argument you have against what you perceive that "side" to think. And hey, that's fine... unless you're trying to pretend it's a "reply."

thahat:

hey someone payed attention in law class ( or is just clever, one of both, good going sir or madam! )

if you want to poke him some more: theft can only apply when there has been a TRANSFER of goods(in abstract from, so real stuff and faerydust//ideas). from a person to a person ( legal or real ) copying, is not as per say a transfer. (unless the publisher itsself copies his own game and you then ctl-x it off his harddrive XD )

Thanks! One of my degrees is in law so I'd like to think I have some vague idea of what I'm talking about! And yes, you're absolutely correct in your assertion as well. It's nice to know someone has some sense around here.

Even still, the fact that this whole "piracy = theft" thing gets thrown around with such frequency and conviction by these ignorant people sometimes makes me question my own reasoning.

TechNoFear:

Eternal Taros:
Stealing, defrauding and embezzlement are different from causing loss in potential revenue.

Loss of potential revenue is still a loss, only how great a loss is up for debate.

A Farmer's crop is only potential income because they do not know the actual yield, quality or market price at harvest time.

Yet if the crop gets destroyed before harvest the farmer still suffers an actual loss.

Eternal Taros:
You cannot compare the theft of intellectual property with the act of stealing a physical good.

Your bank balance is not a pile of actual money in a bank vault (so is not a physical good), but is it any different if it gets stolen?

If your employer does not pay you for your labor, what physical good has he stolen from you?

Clearly in the modern world more things have tangible value than just physical goods.

Eternal Taros:
If you steal "Intellectual Property" nothing of value to the creator of the property has been lost.

Except the time, labor and inspiration that went into creating the IP.

The definition of property with regards to theft DOES extend past the physical to certain intangible property, the issue you (and others) seem to be struggling with is the idea of deprivation, which is an essential element of theft under the law. That's why taking money from a bank account is theft but copying a game is not as the publisher does not lose anything. Your example with the farmer is different because he now does not have the crops to sell, the publisher still has the game.

"because the hackers can just mask their IP address"

Haven't we started to use the word hacker just a bit to loosely(seeing how pirating doesn't involve any kind of "hacking")? o_o

Guess what I'm doing?
Yup, coming out of the woodwork to defend the little piracy I do engage in.

The only reason I do it is because the developers have not given me any other option. Basically, my only other choice aside from downloading the game illegally is to go out, FIND the old system (we're talking N64 (with the POS controllers I can't even arse myself to use when I have access to the actual system), SNES, NES, GBA) and buy it along with the controllers and game(s) I want. Simply not happening, for one, because I'm far too poor to be able to afford such frivolity, and for two, because it's super inconvenient. And I could be wrong, but does Nintendo or game developers even make money off these old junkers anymore? Even if a store had a new SNES in stock, I could buy it and Nintendo wouldn't see a dime of that sale because they already sold the system to the store. Nintendo no longer makes those systems now (AFAIK) so there's nothing for them to lose.

The obvious answer is the Virtual Console. And I agree- that's a great idea. I can't tell you how much I want to support Hudson in bringing Bomberman 64 and Second Attack onto a platform that won't annihilate my left thumb while simultaneously jiggling and being unresponsive. I may not have a lot of money to drop on games anymore, but there are a lot of old games I've owned and played before (and some I never played) that I'd really like to go back to. And nobody is working to bring them back. Thus, the only decently-convenient way for a modern gamer to go back and revisit the 2+ generations ago age is through emulators.

I've heard this one before somewhere and I think it applies oh-so-well here. If you want to stop piracy, the first step is to make your game more available than the pirates do. When it's easier to go torrent a cracked version of a major game release than it is to go to their website, download their terrible, required PC program, set up a new account, enter in all your information, purchase the game, jump through hoops to activate online multiplayer, etc... obviously the developer is doing something wrong. That's not MY case particularly, since I've never downloaded anything but ROMs, usually of games I own/have owned, but it's a real issue that should be seriously looked into.
See, I only have two options. On one hand, there's the horribly inconvenient option which I not only can't afford, but refuse to go through the hassle of either way. On the other, there's the massively convenient method that allows me to play the games I want, where I want. I feel bad doing what I do, but what can I say? I continue to support these developers as much as I can afford in their modern endeavors, and I make it my personal goal not to download a game if I can potentially buy it. Hence, Virtual Console. Hence why I'm so UPSET that Nintendo has basically stopped supporting their own great classic game downloading service. It's a travesty, and they're losing a lot of potential easy sales. IMO, Virtual Console should be one of the biggest selling points of the Wii and 3DS. Nintendo should realize that and step up on making those services bigger and better.

I probably don't make a good case for piracy. I know I'm technically breaking the law. But morally I see no problem with what I personally do. Obviously I don't support piracy that might actually result in a loss of sales.

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?"

Yeah because its not like millions of illegal file sharers use VPN, BTGuard, TorrentPrivacy, Seedboxes or Anomos right? well wrong. those services count millions of costumers. sure not all of them are pirates, but its not like everyone just steal the shop on the other side of police station.

Greg Tito:

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."

His statement is illogical. If i make a game that sucks, and noone buys it, will i make a loss for every person in the world that didnt buy it? can i sue them for not buying? how does he find that logical? ok ill make a painting tomorrow and sue him for not buying it. it doesnt matter that it sucks, he didnt buy it so i made a loss because of him.

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.

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.

This i have to agree with him, smart developers is better than suing everyone around.
As for the witcher being pirated more than sold, well this is suppsoed to be news site. its no news that EVERY game is pirated more than sold. thing is, most of those downloads never ever turn the game on.

"CD Projekt's DRM-less Witcher 2 being pirated more than it was purchased"

What does that tell you, boys and girls?

It tells us that when faced with a choice between PAYING to have malware installed on your PC, or taking a free copy someone ran through the virus-checker, people will take the one that doesn't have malware.

DRM encourages Piracy.

Now, after having read most of this thread, I feel the urge to contribute as well. First of all, let me start with the big argument against piracy: It's illegal. It's not in any "gray" area, like e.g. streaming a movie is, it is completely illegal, and for good reasons. Do you truly believe that the people making piracy illegal did not think about it before doing so? How lileky s it, that anyone in this forum will be able to contribute anything that the guys making the laws did not think of before making the law? So, let's just go with piracy being illegal and nothing else. No pirate can ever have the moral highground, since he is never doing anyhting moral. If you want to protest a publisher's DRM, then don't buy the game and don't play it. The notion that pirating a game to make a statement is ok is plain stupid. You are only making the statement that you are a self-righteous whiner. If you want to make a statement, then do what I do. Don't buy the game, simple as that. If you dislike the pubishers policies enough to actually refuse them payment, then you shouldn't be allowed to play the game, since the game will give you joy and pleasure. And why should you personally be allowed to enjoy said game without paying for it? Because you believe the publisher to be a dick? Does that entitle you to play a game a lot of people worked hard on without paying for the privilege? Does that mean that although people spend money on making said game you still don't have to pay for it?
My opinion: No, it does not.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2002/4/29/

Sud0_x:

Thyunda:

Sylveria:
+0 is not loss. Loss indicates a negative, in other words, cost. They, and publisher apologists, use the word "loss" instead of "less profit than we are entitled to/should have made" because it sounds more dramatic and less scummy.

By the logic of "Not buying = deprived of profit = loss" every single person who didn't buy the game, not just the ones that pirated it, is making them lose money.

And lets not forget, in the eyes of these people, buying used is just as bad as piracy. So if you bought a used game in the past 30 years, you're a pirate in their eyes. But keep defending the same people who'd spit on you in the street given the chance if it helps you sleep at night.

What the hell is this crap? Really? You're justifying piracy by saying it's just as bad as not buying the game?
It's not a +0. It's a -1. It's a LOST SALE. Not because there's a finite amount of digital copies that can be distributed, but because somebody is using your product, and you're not getting your due. That's income that should have come in, but it hasn't. And now it won't.
It's still a lost sale. It's still theft. And you're still a criminal.

I'm not defending the publishers. No. I'm defending the God damned law. I don't care how mistreated you feel by the big bad corporations. If you really want to suffer to fight back, stop buying their games, and go outside and play. You don't need these games. You WANT them. But you're not prepared to give the bad guys their due, so please tell me one thing.

How can you look down on us 'apologists' when you're playing stolen games? No amount of rhetoric is going to escape that fact. 'Less profit than we are entitled to' is a more serious concern than "Corporations are evil and I am a revolutionary for stealing from them."
You're not a revolutionary.

Those rioters in London this summer? Taking advantage of the chaos to bag a load of free shit? You're no better than they are. Dirty pirates.

First off, it doesn't look at all like the guy was trying to justify piracy.

Second, please read the post you quoted again.
He's just arguing semantics, like most people posting in the thread.
He's doing this because, while it may not seem like it, it is an important distinction to make. He even used examples to help you.

The featured article did a good enough job of skirting around the truth, there's really no need to follow suit.
Why are you attacking the guy? Wow, that was rather crass.
Anything to base your accusations on?

I was attacking pirates in general. The accusations were levelled at anybody who indulges in this behaviour and attempts to justify it. The parts about the corporation were semi-aimed at the poster, but the gist of the post was against the broader group.

Wargamer:
"CD Projekt's DRM-less Witcher 2 being pirated more than it was purchased"

What does that tell you, boys and girls?

It tells us that when faced with a choice between PAYING to have malware installed on your PC, or taking a free copy someone ran through the virus-checker, people will take the one that doesn't have malware.

DRM encourages Piracy.

I'm pretty sure that you read that statement wrong.

If DRM encourages piracy and
The witcher 2 had no DRM ie is DRM less therefore
The witcher 2 should not have been as pirated as DRM heavy titles

The Witcher 2 was heavily pirated which leads us, boys and girls back to the point that while DRM does suck, it is just another in the long long long line of flimsy defences that pirates throw up to justify their receiving a product/service without paying for it.

A self entitled consumer base encourages piracy.

the clockmaker:

Wargamer:
"CD Projekt's DRM-less Witcher 2 being pirated more than it was purchased"

What does that tell you, boys and girls?

It tells us that when faced with a choice between PAYING to have malware installed on your PC, or taking a free copy someone ran through the virus-checker, people will take the one that doesn't have malware.

DRM encourages Piracy.

I'm pretty sure that you read that statement wrong.

If DRM encourages piracy and
The witcher 2 had no DRM ie is DRM less therefore
The witcher 2 should not have been as pirated as DRM heavy titles

The Witcher 2 was heavily pirated which leads us, boys and girls back to the point that while DRM does suck, it is just another in the long long long line of flimsy defences that pirates throw up to justify their receiving a product/service without paying for it.

A self entitled consumer base encourages piracy.

only that it has been debunked as a myth that witcher2 would have been pirated that often. it turned out they counted connections in torrent networks as downloads, not the actual number of finished downloads. due to the structure of p2p networks that number is of course many, many times higher.
the real numbers are pretty much like any AAA title, be it with or without DRM. DRM doesn't stop anyone, it might slow things down for a few days maybe. most downloads come with cracks already packaged into the game nowadays.

Nobody's argument changes the fact that software piracy is against the law, nobody (not even pirates or pirate sympathizers or whatever you want to call each other) has tried to argue otherwise. Everybody knows it's against the law.

Why can't we just have an honest discussion?
Why can't people follow and form coherent thoughts instead of throwing a thread in endless loops?

An IP address doesn't prove anything on its own but, yes, pirates should be prosecuted when possible and as fairly as possible.
Piracy is copyright infringement, not theft. Throw out your dictionaries.
DRM is useless and does infinitely more harm than good to both consumer and industry. (Got that, hypocritical Valve fanboys?)
Not every illegal download is a lost sale.
Piracy on the whole possibly losing the industry money? Hard to argue with.
However, on a case-by-case basis; just because someone takes it for the low, low price of free absolutely does not mean they would have paid for it. (It's really not that hard to follow, is it?)
Note, above, I said possibly losing some money to piracy. Know what else you're getting? Free marketing.
Put a little more effort into your games and listen to your customers instead of crapping out absolute garbage, you have to be prepared to lower prices if that's what it takes, things will improve. People will buy your games if.. wait for it.. they actually want to buy your games.
Do this and piracy has the potential to actually help your sales. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qkyt1wXNlI
Want more sources, find them yourself. There are already plenty throughout the thread, that's a start.

Purewal seems to think otherwise, he seems to think that out of the box games already provide a better service than the pirates do.
I have to disagree. How can that be true when... They have no DRM, all the content is available in one neat package, they're completely free. Above all, they aren't being shafted from every imaginable direction. Genuine consumers are, all around, getting the raw end of the deal.
You can't change any of that by shouting about it and taking it out on your legitimate customers even more.
You won't win anybody over by kicking them when they're down.

I don't even know how to run a small business so I'm very limited as far as offering solutions goes.
Look at your policies, look at your development cycles, look at your quality assurance, look at what your customers are telling you and do your utmost to right the things that you're doing wrong. One thing that definitely needs to be improved is communication, we've all seen far too many demonstrations of atrocious PR in recent times.

If they want progress or change they're going to have to be willing to make some tough decisions to get there.
I believe radical reform is the way forward and not every publisher/developer will make it through the other side.
What they're undeniably doing wrong is taking it out on their customers, the people calling the shots are too afraid of failure that they're not willing to compromise or take risks. The world of technology is moving every day, you either keep up and adapt or you fall by the wayside, law is no different. If the industry keeps pushing in the incredibly skewed direction it's going at the moment it's going to hurt everyone and it's going to hurt our games.

No DRM, no shouting, no whining, no crying into your billions of dollars of revenue, do something to make people want to buy your games.
Note: cutting things out of your games and charging more for it later is the wrong direction!
(Mostly talking about things like used sales and exclusives here, paid DLC has proven largely effective but only if done right).

Piracy will never go away completely but things don't have to be the way they are right now.

Want to call me a filthy pirate and attack me for saying it? Fine. You instantly lose my ear and you lose my respect.

Pirates suck, the industry sucks, everybody sucks.
You know what, Greg, this article sucks.

But why would anybody listen to me, I'm just a high school dropout.
If professionals can't seem to figure it out then what the hell are people like me going to accomplish?

I'll be the first to admit that I'm far from perfect, I'm just trying to move the discussion forward rather than sideways or backwards.

TheMadJack:
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.

Did you just get slapped with a warning? I said the same sort of thing on another article, and got a warning for it. Escapist, saying "My friend" pirates games isn't fooling anyone, and in discussions like this we'd like the liberty of being able to give personal experiences.

To restate what I said before, I have pirated games before. However, as the above forumer stated, I usually play them for half an hour or so and then delete them. Sometimes, I play them for an hour or so and then forget to delete them.

Ways to reduce piracy (That will never be put into practice):

1. Cheaper games. Someone's more likely to take a risk on a $50 game than a $100 game.

2. Better games/quality consistency. If there's an 80-90% chance the game is new, fun, fresh and so on, they're more likely to take the risk of buying a full price game.

3. Better copy protection. Not more, but less intrusive. If the choice was between a $100 game that needed to be connected to the interwebs at all time to play, and the same $100 game without the need for the interweb connection, what do you think would sell best? Then add in the fact that the second one's free...

4. Nicer players. Respect the time and effort the devs went into to make the game, and buy it.

5. Better distribution. The devs would make a lot less from the game than you paid. Minor price markups from retailers and more independent publishing would help devs make more profits, making games cost less, meaning (probably) less piracy.

Ok, the last one is sort of happening. Maybe number #3 as well. I hope.

Sud0_x:

~snip~

I'm listening. Maybe I should have just gone ^this.

Strazdas:
-snip-

This i have to agree with him, smart developers is better than suing everyone around.
As for the witcher being pirated more than sold, well this is suppsoed to be news site. its no news that EVERY game is pirated more than sold. thing is, most of those downloads never ever turn the game on.

the clockmaker:
-snip-

The Witcher 2 was heavily pirated which leads us, boys and girls back to the point that while DRM does suck, it is just another in the long long long line of flimsy defences that pirates throw up to justify their receiving a product/service without paying for it.

And just as I predicted at the beginning of this thread, it only takes two minutes for these ESTIMATES of piracy based on non published data collection and methodology to be treat in discussions as fact. There is as much fact in these figures as discussion about how many angles can fit on the head of a needle.

In fact the estimates of Witcher piracy are even more suspicious since if the numbers were in any right it would have appeared on the torrent freak list. Sure keep going ahead and treating estimates that don't even tally with each other as fact to back up your arguments. Whatever your view on piracy, using those 'figures' in anyway to justify your point of view is useless.

Kathinka:
-snip-

only that it has been debunked as a myth that witcher2 would have been pirated that often. it turned out they counted connections in torrent networks as downloads, not the actual number of finished downloads. due to the structure of p2p networks that number is of course many, many times higher.
the real numbers are pretty much like any AAA title, be it with or without DRM. DRM doesn't stop anyone, it might slow things down for a few days maybe. most downloads come with cracks already packaged into the game nowadays.

Oh, strange the story about the figures being rubbish has not had much coverage. Not that tech sites and journalist, like on this site, are in any way biased. Just keep on reporting the fact of the markers estimates as fact in related stories to keep your narrative going. Right out of the FOX news play-book.

As much as I am not a fan of piracy, it useless arguing about it until we actually have some proper facts rather than biased estimates of the back of useless data collection.

I have no means of proving this but, a huge number of those games are pirated in third world countries where it is NOT POSSIBLE to buy a legitimate copy of a game. You literally cannot buy games from Steam in many countries. Just something to consider.

xvbones:

Hammeroj:
Please. Don't equate it with actual, physical theft. Piracy is piracy, it doesn't remove the original product.

When you own something through illegal or legally sketchy means for free that has an actual cash value, you have stolen that thing.

Do you seriously think intellectual property cannot be stolen?

Do you have any idea how many lawyers would absolutely love to get paid lots and lots of money to explain to you how incorrect that is?

Piracy is Piracy eh? let's do a simple google search, see if we can't find the definition of piracy:

Definition of PIRACY
1: an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery
2: robbery on the high seas
3: the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright

In other words;
THEFT.

And the argument 'there was no physical object to remove' is nothing more than extremely shaky rationalization.

But you know, whatever helps you sleep at night.

You people have got to be fucking kidding me. This is exactly what I mean.

I just said, in plain fucking terms, that I don't think piracy is good or even neutral in terms of morals. I just pointed out a logic gap you high horsers seem to all have. Nope, seems I'm rationalizing.

And other people at least go out of their way to find definitions that are actually close to theft. What you quoted there is further from theft than plagiarism.

hatseflats:
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.

There's also the people that claim that gamers who pirate a game then buy it are still making a developer lose a sale, even though the sale they WOULD have lost (the pirated copy) was immideately removed by that same pirate buying the game the legal way.

This is the real problem with piracy today, it's such a grey hazy mess that you can't nail it down one way or the other.

It's not definably good, it's not definably evil, it's not definably rebellion, it's not definably theft. Not in 100% of the cases anyway . . .

"Lawyer Destroys Arguments for Game Piracy" is a preety S*** title. He haven't said anything new, at best he is not the one who brought these up. Piracy bad? Yes. So why not arrest based on IP? Because that's not a good definitive proof of culpability. If someone personal cumputer IP was identified as used for piracy, the owner is probably guilty, PROBABLY. Can you bring a definitive piece of evidence to confirm that? NOOOOOOOOO.... so shut the hell up.

Computer IP is at best a tool to track down suspects, not a conclusive piece of evidence, unfortunately.

Only useful tought is "The solution to piracy should come from publishers offering better ways for customers to enjoy their games, not suing willy-nilly." but that's also not new.

If he says anything that would convince a regular pirate gamer to spend $60 on a game instead of getting it for free on the internet, then I will be impressed.

I have to ask, Do game developers not make money when they sell their games to the distributers and stores alike that us gamers buy from? Meaning that they have already made money off of their games? Albet a smaller amount than what the stores are making when they sell the copies to us as they increase the prices on the games in order to obtain a profit from their original purchase. And if the answer to the above question is yes,(which I am mostly certain it would be in this case as I hardly think game developers loan games to stores like Gamestop and then split the proceeds later as that practice never happens within other forms of industry) then wouldn't the game developers not be losing money as such from physical sales and instead only from digital ones if their games are pirated? Or am I getting it all wrong and need to be slapped in the face with a wet fish to stop this silly thread of thought?

Nile McMorrow:
I have to ask, Do game developers not make money when they sell their games to the distributers and stores alike that us gamers buy from? Meaning that they have already made money off of their games? Albet a smaller amount than what the stores are making when they sell the copies to us as they increase the prices on the games in order to obtain a profit from their original purchase. And if the answer to the above question is yes,(which I am mostly certain it would be in this case as I hardly think game developers loan games to stores like Gamestop and then split the proceeds later as that practice never happens within other forms of industry) then wouldn't the game developers not be losing money as such from physical sales and instead only from digital ones if their games are pirated? Or am I getting it all wrong and need to be slapped in the face with a wet fish to stop this silly thread of thought?

Only for places like Blockbuster.

I'm 96% certain that retailers like Gamestop don't pay licensing fees.

ResonanceSD:
Apologists gonna apologize. Piracy is a crime. Splitting hairs like this helps no one. And hilariously enough, the fine is ENORMOUS for civil cases like these. Rationalising like this still doesn't excuse anything, and the faster people realise this, the faster everyone can move to the next stage of dialogue.

And doesn't it strike you that it's just a little fucked up that I can pay a much higher fine for copying a game than for stealing it? Y'know, just a little out of proportion?

Besides, again, I haven't seen anyone here truly arguing that piracy is "morally right", or that it's not a crime. That's a straw-man created, largely, by people such as yourself who refuse to discuss the real points we've been trying to make.

1) Piracy is, by and large, inevitable. Much like the "war on drugs", the "war on piracy" has already been lost in the court of public opinion.
2) Piracy can be alleviated or even exploited by making the legitimate product more valuable than the pirated one. Currently, the opposite is true.

I find it ironic that you criticize people for "not moving to the next stage of dialog", because it certainly appears to me that you're still hung up on the "Is piracy a crime?" non-debate. We, on the other hand, have reached the "sure, it's a crime. But are we really taking the best approach to preventing it?" stage.

Apparently, you (much like the industry at large) are unable or unwilling to even acknowledge the existence of that question.

Aeshi:
There are "some" people on this very forum who would gladly see game developers/publishers/both starve to death for the "crime" of wanting to stop piracy/make money.

Really? I strongly doubt that. However, since you apparently have intimate knowledge of the forums, I'm sure you have no problem whatsoever providing a link.

Personally, I'm all for Ubisoft starving themselves to sanity. Their DRM is counter-productive, obtrusive and, largely, ineffective.

Also, I'd like to point out that there's no fundamental right to success. If a game company produces a game that's blatantly hostile to their customer, they have NO RIGHT to expect profit from it. Piracy doesn't change that fact.

Thyunda:

How can you look down on us 'apologists' when you're playing stolen games? No amount of rhetoric is going to escape that fact. 'Less profit than we are entitled to' is a more serious concern than "Corporations are evil and I am a revolutionary for stealing from them."
You're not a revolutionary.

Those rioters in London this summer? Taking advantage of the chaos to bag a load of free shit? You're no better than they are. Dirty pirates.

I'm not going to debate the merits of your post. Others have done that quite thoroughly, and with minimal effect.

I'd simply like to point out that, unless you have evidence for your assertion that Sylveria is a "dirty pirate" and has been "playing stolen games" (link it, please) the above statements fall under the technical definition of Libel.

Which... is illegal.

So, to clarify, you just broke the law in your post telling us how much you're

Thyunda:
defending the God damned law.

Congratulations.

saregos:

Thyunda:

How can you look down on us 'apologists' when you're playing stolen games? No amount of rhetoric is going to escape that fact. 'Less profit than we are entitled to' is a more serious concern than "Corporations are evil and I am a revolutionary for stealing from them."
You're not a revolutionary.

Those rioters in London this summer? Taking advantage of the chaos to bag a load of free shit? You're no better than they are. Dirty pirates.

I'm not going to debate the merits of your post. Others have done that quite thoroughly, and with minimal effect.

I'd simply like to point out that, unless you have evidence for your assertion that Sylveria is a "dirty pirate" and has been "playing stolen games" (link it, please) the above statements fall under the technical definition of Libel.

Which... is illegal.

So, to clarify, you just broke the law in your post telling us how much you're

Thyunda:
defending the God damned law.

Congratulations.

Clearly you didn't pay much attention to my response to the earlier post. I said I wasn't aiming exactly at the poster I was talking to, it was a response aimed at pirates in general.

Greg Tito:
Lawyer Destroys Arguments for Game Piracy

Erm... no he didn't. He brought one or two poorly-researched and poorly-articulated opinions to the table (I wouldn't call them arguments, let alone facts). Email this "Destroyer of Pirates" and tell him to register on this forum and take part in one of the regular piracy threads, I don't think he'd be able to discuss his way out of a paper bag.

What a weak non-story. :/

Thyunda:

saregos:

Thyunda:

How can you look down on us 'apologists' when you're playing stolen games? No amount of rhetoric is going to escape that fact. 'Less profit than we are entitled to' is a more serious concern than "Corporations are evil and I am a revolutionary for stealing from them."
You're not a revolutionary.

Those rioters in London this summer? Taking advantage of the chaos to bag a load of free shit? You're no better than they are. Dirty pirates.

I'm not going to debate the merits of your post. Others have done that quite thoroughly, and with minimal effect.

I'd simply like to point out that, unless you have evidence for your assertion that Sylveria is a "dirty pirate" and has been "playing stolen games" (link it, please) the above statements fall under the technical definition of Libel.

Which... is illegal.

So, to clarify, you just broke the law in your post telling us how much you're

Thyunda:
defending the God damned law.

Congratulations.

Clearly you didn't pay much attention to my response to the earlier post. I said I wasn't aiming exactly at the poster I was talking to, it was a response aimed at pirates in general.

Doesn't matter. Still libelous, as the initial post was aimed at a specific person. And if you were really aiming at "pirates in general"...

Escapist provides a wonderful edit button. Also, apologies work wonders. Since the fact remains that you DID libel Sylveria.

And now, you're providing excuses for why your illegal actions should be given a pass. Tell me, is your sense of irony going berserk right now? Because mine is...

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 . . . 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