Lawyer Destroys Arguments for Game Piracy

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

Trippy Turtle:

Before I get a warning I still disagree with piracy, just explaining how I hate that argument.

Wow. That censorship.

Sure is feeling North Korea in here.

ResonanceSD:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

image

So, copyright infringement, that's fine then, yeah?

If you can show me where I hinted at anything of the sort, I will reply.

Until then, this really isnt worth my time.

Kwil:

dogstile:

Kwil:

You do it because you're a lazy-ass gamer, who puts your own immediate needs ahead of those who actually did the work to make the game.

Case in point: http://www.joystiq.com/2011/04/04/bulletstorm-pc-demo-now-out-on-steam-and-gfwl/

There ARE demo versions, you were just too damned lazy/impatient to bother finding them.

"Not long after release"

Looks like you were too lazy (Edit: Yes, that was a little jab at you insulting him, it was meant to be a thing of "see, doesn't feel good when someone insults you does it" post, figured i'd clear that up) to read through his post properly. The demo didn't come out on the PC until about two months after.

On an on topic note, what argument did he destroy exactly? Is it just because he has a legal degree that the same argument now magically means more?

Man.. now that's funny -- attempting to berate somebody for not reading thoroughly when it's pretty clear that the only one who has a problem reading thoroughly here is you. And because you probably haven't read this message thoroughly either, I'll just point out I bolded some stuff for you.

I insult people who deserve it, moron. Someone admitting flat out that they pirated a game because they're simply too self-entitled to wait to see if a demo comes out is certainly deserving of that.

Beyond that, however, even if a demo had NEVER come out, that still gives the prick no right to download the game. He's certainly free to not purchase it, and to tell the company that without a demo he won't purchase it. And in fact, if we want to encourage demos, that's the exact thing he SHOULD be doing -- not just downloading a copy anyway and using that to decide.

Tell me, at what point should he pay the movie theatre for a ticket once he's gone in and sat down? Or perhaps he should just sneak into clubs and decide after he's watched the band for a while whether it's worth paying the cover charge? Here's a thought, instead of either of those, why not act like a responsible human being and NOT decide his desires for entertainment supersede the rights of developers to charge a price for their product and release/not release demos if they want?

I like you. You speak with logic and reason and you're not even afraid to show it.

OT: Seriously, this guy pretty much says what I think about piracy.

RhombusHatesYou:

lancar:
CD Projekt, with their DRM free policy, I fear are a bit naive.

Seeing as they've grown from a small Polish game localisation studio to the largest distributor in Eastern Europe and made enough scratch to launch a few game development studios and try their hand at publishing as well, I wouldn't be too worried about their approach.

Yes, I know about their progress. I've been following it with no small degree of interest due to their rather unique approach to the subject, and I admit it's heartening to see them do well for themselves.
Yet we also both know they've been going after the ones that do pirate their games, so they do take part in the system of punishment for piracy, which of course they have every right to do.

The carrot and stick.
Their carrot is DRM free games which garners goodwill, the stick is punishing those who violate their trust.
Yet, only the smallest hoop to jump through would, imho, drastically reduce the size of the stick needed (as it'd stop the ignorant & put a nice sign on the game saying "pirating this is illegal"), and this is why I can't completely get behind their approach.

But then again, when all is said and done, this is the PR image they've decided to brand themselves with. To forsake it now would incur a backlash, so for the time being their best option is probably to just roll with it.

ZippyDSMlee:
Wow another one that dose not get it. IMO at the end of the day its about information and inspiration which can not be defined thus all information needs to be traded freely. However those that own the IP should be the only ones to profit any off its trade.

Right now the system in place is a mess and getting worse so I say most copy right law is a scoff law you can ignore.

I'd like to call it cigital disobedience.

http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/2011/12/31/what-is-cigital-disobedience/

Please. More rebel without a clue crap.
Hint: Civil disobedience is not simply choosing to ignore the laws you don't agree with. That's simply being a punk criminal.

Civil disobedience is where you publicly break the laws and welcome the authorities prosecuting you for it so as to make example of the bad law. If you're not willing to have the latter happen, then you sure as hell aren't doing the former.

Kwil:

ZippyDSMlee:
Wow another one that dose not get it. IMO at the end of the day its about information and inspiration which can not be defined thus all information needs to be traded freely. However those that own the IP should be the only ones to profit any off its trade.

Right now the system in place is a mess and getting worse so I say most copy right law is a scoff law you can ignore.

I'd like to call it cigital disobedience.

http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/2011/12/31/what-is-cigital-disobedience/

Please. More rebel without a clue crap.
Hint: Civil disobedience is not simply choosing to ignore the laws you don't agree with. That's simply being a punk criminal.

Civil disobedience is where you publicly break the laws and welcome the authorities prosecuting you for it so as to make example of the bad law. If you're not willing to have the latter happen, then you sure as hell aren't doing the former.

Can either of you two explain what "its about information and inspiration which can not be defined thus all information needs to be traded freely" means? I sure as hell don't agree with the premise that it's even remotely close to civil disobedience.

Voltano:
Its like a bread baker saying he is being 'stolen from' by other bread bakers because he isn't making any money in the market since he isn't reaching his expected income with the sale of his bread.

Isn't it more like a bread baker saying he's losing sales because someone has set up a stall right at the entrance which gives away for free the same bread he's trying to sell?

Oh! And then he tries selling new 'cheese and bacon rolls' as an incentive to people, but they're only allowed to eat the cheese and bacon rolls while they stay inside his shop(to stop the stall finding his recipe), but within a couple of days the stall at the entrance has learned the recipe anyway and is now giving away cheese and bacon rolls too (again, for free) AND the stall isn't forcing people to eat them in one place like he is.

Some people start taking the stall rolls because they don't want to be forced to stay in his shop to eat, though most are people who were using the stall before anyway. One day he asks on of the people why, asides from being free, they keep taking the stalls stuff over his own. The person answered honestly that they're lazy, the stall is right at the entrance and gives away everything he's offering, and the fact its free does play a big factor in it.

This gives the baker an idea, let the stall have its cheesy bacon rolls and bread, he can't really beat that. Instead, he'll give out something free of his own for anyone who buys their stuff from him.
So then he starts giving away cupcakes! A couple of the people who tried his cheesy bacon rolls and his bread for free decide they'll buy the bread and cupcakes from him out of respect, cause they know he's really the one coming up with the recipes and cupcakes are pretty nice. Unfortunately, less than half of them actually show him this respect, and as the stall starts selling cupcakes too he finds himself losing out even more.

... Man, I could go on with this example for ages.

Long story short, After many trials and tribulations the bakery industry adapts to these stalls, but its not really for the better. His bakery is replaced with larger more aggressive bakeries that buy into tactics like handcuffing their customers to the counter, or selling their bread one slice at a time, or selling people bread licenses that give them a right to eat bread but one false move and you will be punched in the stomach so that you throw up all bread you've bought from them. They also pass a bill that lets them shut down any stall they want to simply by requesting it (Little timmy's lemonade stand is the first to go to this easily abused system. Many others follow, but timmy was the most adorable and thus heartbreaking).
On the plus side most people own giant tv's and flying boat cars by this time and on a completely unrelated note they also solved piracy. ((Turns out there were some old laws about pirates receiving the death penalty, most people avoid piracy pretty fervently now since they started enforcing them again.))

:P

Hammeroj:
The moment you so much as imply that piracy equates to lost sales is the moment you become a disingenuous fuck. Which this guy is.

And that's as much input as this overdone topic deserves from me.

The world where getting something that has monetary value for nothing is not theft is not this world.

Piracy is theft.

Who cares really, if others pirate software I'm not going to say anything against them. I don't condone or oppose such doings. I don't see the developers suffering terribly as starving artists.

It seems to be a case where technology is outpacing capitalism. Until the developer/publishers manage to protect their rights and property without punishing paying consumers, or alternatively adapt a new business model, I am completely apathetic to their plight. It's like dropping bags of cash out of a plane, then complaining when people take some for themselves.

Gabe Newell's belief that piracy can be outdone through superior service is at very least a positive step forward...naive perhaps.

So what about games from 20 years ago from a studeo long since disbanded? Or if you can't legally get a game in your area? What are his thoughts on those?

Some of those arguments are logically sound.
Before you go celebrating your supposed moral victory, consider the fact that your counter-arguments don't hold up.

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

It doesn't matter if it's unverifiable. There are games that I would like that I don't have any intention of paying for. Those games I do not get to play.
However, if I was a pirate, I could download those games. Does that mean the developers have lost revenue? Of course not. They've lost absolutely nothing. The only resulting difference is that I get to play a game I would not otherwise have been able to play.

I'm not saying that all pirates are this way. Some indiscriminately pirate games that they would have otherwise bought. That, however, does not render the argument itself invalid.

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

I don't think you even understand what a "No true Scotsman fallacy" even means.
Please look it up before you start making a fool of yourself and using it incorrectly.
Theft is defined as follows: "The action or crime of stealing"
Since you appear to have trouble properly defining concepts, allow me to define stealing as well: "Take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it"
Note: Property

While you may argue from the standpoint of "Intellectual property," truth is, they aren't really comparable.
A car, once stolen, is no longer available for the original owner to use.
A book stolen from a bookstore cannot be sold to anyone else.

If I pirate a game, potential revenue could possibly have been lost, but that is the extent of it.
I say "possibly" because the person might not have bought the game anyways.
A closer analogue would be if I walked into a bookstore, photocopied the pages of a book, and walked out with it.
It isn't theft. It's just immoral.

Dastardly:
"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.)

This argument is also logically sound. I don't think you understand the reasoning behind this at all.
They aren't saying that better games will somehow magically improve only the non-pirated copy.
They mean that if a game is better, people will be more inclined to buy it.
That has a certain truth to it. While I don't pirate, if every game was as good as Mass Effect 2, for instance, I would have a lot less money.

Stop being so self-congratulating.
I am in no way endorsing piracy. I am simply pointing out the flaws in your counter-arguments.

Kwil:

ZippyDSMlee:
Wow another one that dose not get it. IMO at the end of the day its about information and inspiration which can not be defined thus all information needs to be traded freely. However those that own the IP should be the only ones to profit any off its trade.

Right now the system in place is a mess and getting worse so I say most copy right law is a scoff law you can ignore.

I'd like to call it cigital disobedience.

http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/2011/12/31/what-is-cigital-disobedience/

Please. More rebel without a clue crap.
Hint: Civil disobedience is not simply choosing to ignore the laws you don't agree with. That's simply being a punk criminal.

Civil disobedience is where you publicly break the laws and welcome the authorities prosecuting you for it so as to make example of the bad law. If you're not willing to have the latter happen, then you sure as hell aren't doing the former.

IMO civil disobedience is the act of scoffing and being in defiance of rules and laws that are questionable, the more people rise up against copy right tyranny the better. The more grandmothers and 13 year olds being hounded the better.

=============

ResonanceSD:

Kwil:

ZippyDSMlee:
Wow another one that dose not get it. IMO at the end of the day its about information and inspiration which can not be defined thus all information needs to be traded freely. However those that own the IP should be the only ones to profit any off its trade.

Right now the system in place is a mess and getting worse so I say most copy right law is a scoff law you can ignore.

I'd like to call it cigital disobedience.

http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/2011/12/31/what-is-cigital-disobedience/

Please. More rebel without a clue crap.
Hint: Civil disobedience is not simply choosing to ignore the laws you don't agree with. That's simply being a punk criminal.

Civil disobedience is where you publicly break the laws and welcome the authorities prosecuting you for it so as to make example of the bad law. If you're not willing to have the latter happen, then you sure as hell aren't doing the former.

Can either of you two explain what "its about information and inspiration which can not be defined thus all information needs to be traded freely" means? I sure as hell don't agree with the premise that it's even remotely close to civil disobedience.

Basically information/ and inspiration is a right of every human being its nourishment for the mind and soul much like the fruit and foul in the kings forest is food for the body. One can not lock it away and say you are not allowed this simply because you are the wrong type of person/class/creed to have it.

The trouble as I see it is not sharing of information/media,ect its the profiteering off it which should solely be the domain of the IP owner. If you took out finical support for file sharing it will shrink to a natural part of the modern world rather than be a market which directly competes with retail and thus the IP owners themselves.

Higgs303:
Who cares really, if others pirate software I'm not going to say anything against them. I don't condone or oppose such doings. I don't see the developers suffering terribly as starving artists.

It seems to be a case where technology is outpacing capitalism. Until the developer/publishers manage to protect their rights and property without punishing paying consumers, or alternatively adapt a new business model, I am completely apathetic to their plight. It's like dropping bags of cash out of a plane, then complaining when people take some for themselves.

Gabe Newell's belief that piracy can be outdone through superior service is at very least a positive step forward...naive perhaps.

Another great post. Until the last two words at least.

image

Some_weirdGuy:

Voltano:
Its like a bread baker saying he is being 'stolen from' by other bread bakers because he isn't making any money in the market since he isn't reaching his expected income with the sale of his bread.

Isn't it more like a bread baker saying he's losing sales because someone has set up a stall right at the entrance which gives away for free the same bread he's trying to sell?

Oh! And then he tries selling new 'cheese and bacon rolls' as an incentive to people, but they're only allowed to eat the cheese and bacon rolls while they stay inside his shop(to stop the stall finding his recipe), but within a couple of days the stall at the entrance has learned the recipe anyway and is now giving away cheese and bacon rolls too (again, for free) AND the stall isn't forcing people to eat them in one place like he is.

Some people start taking the stall rolls because they don't want to be forced to stay in his shop to eat, though most are people who were using the stall before anyway. One day he asks on of the people why, asides from being free, they keep taking the stalls stuff over his own. The person answered honestly that they're lazy, the stall is right at the entrance and gives away everything he's offering, and the fact its free does play a big factor in it.

This gives the baker an idea, let the stall have its cheesy bacon rolls and bread, he can't really beat that. Instead, he'll give out something free of his own for anyone who buys their stuff from him.
So then he starts giving away cupcakes! A couple of the people who tried his cheesy bacon rolls and his bread for free decide they'll buy the bread and cupcakes from him out of respect, cause they know he's really the one coming up with the recipes and cupcakes are pretty nice. Unfortunately, less than half of them actually show him this respect, and as the stall starts selling cupcakes too he finds himself losing out even more.

... Man, I could go on with this example for ages.

Long story short, After many trials and tribulations the bakery industry adapts to these stalls, but its not really for the better. His bakery is replaced with larger more aggressive bakeries that buy into tactics like handcuffing their customers to the counter, or selling their bread one slice at a time, or selling people bread licenses that give them a right to eat bread but one false move and you will be punched in the stomach so that you throw up all bread you've bought from them. They also pass a bill that lets them shut down any stall they want to simply by requesting it (Little timmy's lemonade stand is the first to go to this easily abused system. Many others follow, but timmy was the most adorable and thus heartbreaking).
On the plus side most people own giant tv's and flying boat cars by this time and on a completely unrelated note they also solved piracy. ((Turns out there were some old laws about pirates receiving the death penalty, most people avoid piracy pretty fervently now since they started enforcing them again.))

:P

I love your bread analogy. You are my new favourite person on the Escapist. Sorry Susan.

Canadish:

Higgs303:
Who cares really, if others pirate software I'm not going to say anything against them. I don't condone or oppose such doings. I don't see the developers suffering terribly as starving artists.

It seems to be a case where technology is outpacing capitalism. Until the developer/publishers manage to protect their rights and property without punishing paying consumers, or alternatively adapt a new business model, I am completely apathetic to their plight. It's like dropping bags of cash out of a plane, then complaining when people take some for themselves.

Gabe Newell's belief that piracy can be outdone through superior service is at very least a positive step forward...naive perhaps.

Another great post. Until the last two words at least.

image

Heh, I bow to your superior wisdom.

The "right fighters" in this thread disgust me. The ignorance you people display is pathetic. Do some research on the subject and stop being so damn ignorant.

I'll help get you started. Heres a very small amount of examples/opinions.

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/07/05/report-game-industry-worth-74-billion-in-2011/

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/118/1184550p1.html

http://games.slashdot.org/story/11/02/17/0526200/valve-beats-google-apple-for-profits-per-employee

http://torrentfreak.com/top-10-most-pirated-movies-of-all-time-111012/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCkX0KcNwrI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCk9Cheiqqg

http://thenextweb.com/2008/12/09/author-paulo-coelho-supports-piracy-share-to-get-revenue/

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114537-File-sharing-Remains-Legal-In-Switzerland

Bathesda Net income 450 million
Vivendi (ActivisionBlizzard) Profit €2.198 billion (2010)
EA Net income US$-677 million (FY 2010)
Ubisoft Net income €89.8 million (2010) <- Worst DRM offenders and biggest piracy complainers have noticeably lower number.

I'll never understand how people can choose to be so ignorant on a subject and rant at people about it. Unfortunately I doubt a single one of you will look through these links and realize you might have been wrong, but heres hoping. Before you reply repeating the same crap, fully read through that last link.

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.

Um, I'm against piracy and all that, but I think your two links here kind of contradict each other. Witcher 2 is estimated at 4.5 million copies pirated, but this estimate is from the developers, who claim "the reality is probably way worse." However, the other article lists the top 5 pirated games and the Witcher 2 doesn't even make the list.

Again, I'm anti-piracy, but using contradicting articles seems just as bad as "backwards logic".

ZippyDSMlee:

One can not lock it away and say you are not allowed this simply because you are the wrong type of person/class/creed to have it.

No one is doing this. We want people to pay for content we create. Why's that so terrible?

Canadish:

Trippy Turtle:

Before I get a warning I still disagree with piracy, just explaining how I hate that argument.

Wow. That censorship.

Sure is feeling North Korea in here.

No, its a privately owned venue for discussion, if Mr. Tito here kicked in your front door and then shot you for saying that piracy was not so bad, then it would be north korea. As it stands, it is more akin to you not being alowed to scream 'down with capatalism' in a bank than one of the most oppressive regimes in human history.

But on topic if I have something, whether it is a good, service or kick arse beard and I am offering it for a fixed or negotiable price YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE IT WITHOUT PAYING THAT PRICE OR RECIEVING IT WILLINGLY FROM ME!

It is seriously not a hard concept and saying 'I wouldn't have paid for it anyway' is not a good escuse. It's funny actually how often these entitled litle mongrels compare the big companies to whores, because at least no one is claiming that it's alright to run off on a whore without paying.

the clockmaker:

Canadish:

Trippy Turtle:

Before I get a warning I still disagree with piracy, just explaining how I hate that argument.

Wow. That censorship.

Sure is feeling North Korea in here.

No, its a privately owned venue for discussion, if Mr. Tito here kicked in your front door and then shot you for saying that piracy was not so bad, then it would be north korea. As it stands, it is more akin to you not being alowed to scream 'down with capatalism' in a bank than one of the most oppressive regimes in human history.

But on topic if I have something, whether it is a good, service or kick arse beard and I am offering it for a fixed or negotiable price YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE IT WITHOUT PAYING THAT PRICE OR RECIEVING IT WILLINGLY FROM ME!

It is seriously not a hard concept and saying 'I wouldn't have paid for it anyway' is not a good escuse. It's funny actually how often these entitled litle mongrels compare the big companies to whores, because at least no one is claiming that it's alright to run off on a whore without paying.

It's not running off. It's doing the deed, then running them over with the car you're in to get your money back. Oh no he didn't.

ResonanceSD:

ZippyDSMlee:

One can not lock it away and say you are not allowed this simply because you are the wrong type of person/class/creed to have it.

No one is doing this. We want people to pay for content we create. Why's that so terrible?

Yes they are via laws and rules one can not distribute ANYTHING from something that is copyrighted without consent. Since fair use is vague and limp the powers that be abuse their powers and the take down system squelching the public's right to comment and harmlessly derive mashups, parodies and other fair use uses of copyright.

I can agree that any and all money made off the distribution and/or linking to a copy righted IP should go to the IP owners however if it dose not make money then it can not do NO harm to the monetary value of said IP. If anything it should raise it through simple word of mouth. The trouble comes from the loopholes that the powers that be are overlooking to go after the distribution of thought, information and ideas. They want it all, I seek a better middle ground.

ZippyDSMlee:

ResonanceSD:

ZippyDSMlee:

One can not lock it away and say you are not allowed this simply because you are the wrong type of person/class/creed to have it.

No one is doing this. We want people to pay for content we create. Why's that so terrible?

Yes they are via laws and rules one can not distribute ANYTHING from something that is copyrighted without consent. Since fair use is vague and limp the powers that be abuse their powers and the take down system squelching the public's right to comment and harmlessly derive mashups, parodies and other fair use uses of copyright.

I can agree that any and all money made off the distribution and/or linking to a copy righted IP should go to the IP owners however if it dose not make money then it can not do NO harm to the monetary value of said IP. If anything it should raise it through simple word of mouth. The trouble comes from the loopholes that the powers that be are overlooking to go after the distribution of thought, information and ideas. They want it all, I seek a better middle ground.

Oh, you're referencing SOPA now. Right. I'm pretty sure that ruining the internet entirely to protect a company's bottom line isn't the intent, but it could happen.

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)

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114537-File-sharing-Remains-Legal-In-Switzerland

To quote the study (emphasis mine)...

"However, these people don't spend less money as a result because the budgets they reserve for entertainment are fairly constant. This means that downloading is mostly complementary.

The other side of piracy, based on the Dutch study, is that downloaders are reported to be more frequent visitors to concerts, and game downloaders actually bought more games than those who didn't."

Good day, sir.

Is there any way to know where most of the pirates live?

ResonanceSD:

ZippyDSMlee:

ResonanceSD:

No one is doing this. We want people to pay for content we create. Why's that so terrible?

Yes they are via laws and rules one can not distribute ANYTHING from something that is copyrighted without consent. Since fair use is vague and limp the powers that be abuse their powers and the take down system squelching the public's right to comment and harmlessly derive mashups, parodies and other fair use uses of copyright.

I can agree that any and all money made off the distribution and/or linking to a copy righted IP should go to the IP owners however if it dose not make money then it can not do NO harm to the monetary value of said IP. If anything it should raise it through simple word of mouth. The trouble comes from the loopholes that the powers that be are overlooking to go after the distribution of thought, information and ideas. They want it all, I seek a better middle ground.

Oh, you're referencing SOPA now. Right. I'm pretty sure that ruining the internet entirely to protect a company's bottom line isn't the intent, but it could happen.

More like the DMCA, and previous copy right wank that has tried to prevent us useing fair use.

Again whats so wrong about sharing the wealth of humanity via non monetary gaining means? The legal file sharing market would be tiny compared what it is today and with the cost of sharing being placed on the sharers(you can not run a site for donations or ad rev or any other means to gain funds) you shirk the market for "free stuff" to a point its over saturated and controlled via limited bandwidth. Which means more collective money for IP owners. I do not see how this is a loss for anyone.

ZippyDSMlee:

ResonanceSD:

ZippyDSMlee:

Yes they are via laws and rules one can not distribute ANYTHING from something that is copyrighted without consent. Since fair use is vague and limp the powers that be abuse their powers and the take down system squelching the public's right to comment and harmlessly derive mashups, parodies and other fair use uses of copyright.

I can agree that any and all money made off the distribution and/or linking to a copy righted IP should go to the IP owners however if it dose not make money then it can not do NO harm to the monetary value of said IP. If anything it should raise it through simple word of mouth. The trouble comes from the loopholes that the powers that be are overlooking to go after the distribution of thought, information and ideas. They want it all, I seek a better middle ground.

Oh, you're referencing SOPA now. Right. I'm pretty sure that ruining the internet entirely to protect a company's bottom line isn't the intent, but it could happen.

More like the DMCA, and previous copy right wank that has tried to prevent us useing fair use.

Again whats so wrong about sharing the wealth of humanity via non monetary gaining means? The legal file sharing market would be tiny compared what it is today and with the cost of sharing being placed on the sharers(you can not run a site for donations or ad rev or any other means to gain funds) you shirk the market for "free stuff" to a point its over saturated and controlled via limited bandwidth. Which means more collective money for IP owners. I do not see how this is a loss for anyone.

Ok here's how the Earth works. Or at least, game developers.

They create a game they want to share with people. In return for sharing the game with them, you have to help them eat. You know, with money.

ResonanceSD:

ZippyDSMlee:

ResonanceSD:

Oh, you're referencing SOPA now. Right. I'm pretty sure that ruining the internet entirely to protect a company's bottom line isn't the intent, but it could happen.

More like the DMCA, and previous copy right wank that has tried to prevent us useing fair use.

Again whats so wrong about sharing the wealth of humanity via non monetary gaining means? The legal file sharing market would be tiny compared what it is today and with the cost of sharing being placed on the sharers(you can not run a site for donations or ad rev or any other means to gain funds) you shirk the market for "free stuff" to a point its over saturated and controlled via limited bandwidth. Which means more collective money for IP owners. I do not see how this is a loss for anyone.

Ok here's how the Earth works. Or at least, game developers.

They create a game they want to share with people. In return for sharing the game with them, you have to help them eat. You know, with money.

Hardly the world works beyond such simple things. If you can not think out of the box then you must enjoy your cage.

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.

Too significant of a chunk of people would purchase it if that was the only option for this logic to be a legitimate argument.

Good Lord, I need to review how conciseness works...

dantoddd:
Is there any way to know where most of the pirates live?

Assuming that many people use static IPs (I'm not sure) and that many pirates don't consider the consequences of their actions and/or show any foresight (they don't), then yes, yes there is. I'm not sure how to get a list of IPs, but CD Projekt did it.

I've looked at the argument from 3 or 4 different points of view, the absolution'ist's want everything. Either everything to be free or everything controlled under a fascist media regime of which we are heading happily too.

I prefer to think beyond these 2 limited trains of thought and find a middle ground where no one is truly happy. A system as to where you can trade freely just under limited circumstances making it much harder to gain the free stuff while protecting IP owners from profiteering. Its win/win IMO.

A lovely distraction from the underlying flaws of the monetary system itself >_>

The morality of piracy cannot be blanketed across all individuals who have ever been involved.

ResonanceSD:

I love your bread analogy. You are my new favourite person on the Escapist. Sorry Susan.

:P

I had even more in it before
((newly developed bagels being given away by the stall before the baker even finished baking the first batch.
People complaining the baker was greedy even though only a fraction of what the people were paying actually went to him at all [instead the prices were set by the store's owner and local bakers tax costs].
And how although he was making enough money to stay afloat for now investors didn't want to back his business and allow it to grow cause all they could see was the issues of piracy... er, i mean bakery stalls, and so they took their money to other industries that don't have those problems))

But I realised that although it was an amusing satire, silly(but accurate) rambling is best served in moderation :P

Abandon4093:

Baldr:

Abandon4093:
How does a lawyer not understand the difference between 'a lost sale' and 'a lost potential sale'. If piracy equalled a lost sale then yes, it would be near the same level as thievery. (not quite the same because no actual content was stolen, so there's no preventing someone else from buying it.) As it stands, that simply isn't the case.

Piracy means that a potential sale MAY not occur. There's no saying a pirate won't like the game and buy it. Just like there's no saying that without the means to pirate it, the pirate would have bought it.

Possible loss of a potential sale =/= loss of profit.

To state other wise in any way shape or form is disingenuous. Oh wait, we're talking about a lawyer... Of-course it's disingenuous.

If someone playing a game that was all hard work went into making for that players enjoyment and did not pay for it. That is a direct loss of sale, whether the person was "intending" to pay or not.

No it isn't. Will people please stop regurgitating this incredible logical fallacy. It's only a loss of a POTENTIAL sale if the person would have bought it if pirating it wasn't an option.

Legally, you can't work in 'what ifs'. A company can't say 'Oh they might have bought it if they couldn't pirate it. So we've lost a sale.' That's just blatant bullshit.

What is actually happening is someone is playing the game without paying for it. No lost sales, no loss of profit. Because they neither had the sale nor the profit to begin with.

By the same logic, I also ask you this.

If you were to rent a movie from blockbusters. And you and 4 other friends were to watch it. Is that then 4 lost rents for blockbusters? Because this is essentially the same thing.

No that is complete Bullshit, if you can't afford it or refuse to buy it: You don't pirate it. If a person refuses to give money to people who made the game, that make that person a huge arseface. If you refuse to pay for a movie in theatres, you don't sneak in?

As for the blockbuster analogy, you can trade used-games with friends that not a huge problem(unless it is a PC game you installed and plan to keep playing). Downloading over the internet from a stranger is a big problem.

Baldr:

Abandon4093:

Baldr:

If someone playing a game that was all hard work went into making for that players enjoyment and did not pay for it. That is a direct loss of sale, whether the person was "intending" to pay or not.

No it isn't. Will people please stop regurgitating this incredible logical fallacy. It's only a loss of a POTENTIAL sale if the person would have bought it if pirating it wasn't an option.

Legally, you can't work in 'what ifs'. A company can't say 'Oh they might have bought it if they couldn't pirate it. So we've lost a sale.' That's just blatant bullshit.

What is actually happening is someone is playing the game without paying for it. No lost sales, no loss of profit. Because they neither had the sale nor the profit to begin with.

By the same logic, I also ask you this.

If you were to rent a movie from blockbusters. And you and 4 other friends were to watch it. Is that then 4 lost rents for blockbusters? Because this is essentially the same thing.

Abandon4093:

Baldr:

If someone playing a game that was all hard work went into making for that players enjoyment and did not pay for it. That is a direct loss of sale, whether the person was "intending" to pay or not.

No it isn't. Will people please stop regurgitating this incredible logical fallacy. It's only a loss of a POTENTIAL sale if the person would have bought it if pirating it wasn't an option.

Legally, you can't work in 'what ifs'. A company can't say 'Oh they might have bought it if they couldn't pirate it. So we've lost a sale.' That's just blatant bullshit.

What is actually happening is someone is playing the game without paying for it. No lost sales, no loss of profit. Because they neither had the sale nor the profit to begin with.

By the same logic, I also ask you this.

If you were to rent a movie from blockbusters. And you and 4 other friends were to watch it. Is that then 4 lost rents for blockbusters? Because this is essentially the same thing.

No that is complete Bullshit, if you can't afford it or refuse to buy it: You don't pirate it. If a person refuses to give money to people who made the game, that make that person a huge arseface. If you refuse to pay for a movie in theatres, you don't sneak in?

As for the blockbuster analogy, you can trade used-games with friends that not a huge problem(unless it is a PC game you installed and plan to keep playing). Downloading over the internet from a stranger is a big problem.

Er..... one takes up rented space the other uses energy one pays for to create a copy.... IMO limit the profiteering you limit sharing, its the only way to limit it in a fair and civil manner IMO.

 Pages PREV 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