Lawyer Destroys Arguments for Game Piracy

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . . . 21 NEXT
 

xXxJessicaxXx:
Ugh pirates choose arguments they know can't be proven or dis-proven. No one can say they would have bought it otherwise although in a lot of cases they would have I think... Think about the people waiting for Skyrim or COD for example.

To me piracy is like walking into a bookstore, photocopying a book and walking out with it, sounds absurd right?

The 'no demo' and ineffectual reviewing defence is better but the fact is that you can still rent games. Got no pennies? Then go to a rental system online and just rent them and see if you like them rather than downloading torrents.

I can understand why companies see this sort of thing as a lost sale, why on earth would you buy a game you have already played through for free?

I'd just like to throw this in here. I do have a rental subscription. And it's saved me approximately 2000 in games, just in the last 6 months, yet I still find myself occasionally firing up the Pirate Bay.

Why?

Because you cannot rent PC games.

While this argument probably will just be ignored by the majority of people, I will put myself on the record as saying that I do torrent games. And the last one I did?

Borderlands.

The last game I bought?

Borderlands, technically Supreme Commander 2 (Which I bought because I play SC1 to death. SC2 sucked enough to generate Cherenkov radiation), because that was swiped after Borderlands. (if you don't count pre-ordering ME3).

Maybe I'm one of those who just like buying things I've already "stolen" (if the mouthpieces in here are to be believed). So yes, I stole the Mona Lisa, left a shitty replica in its place. But I also then left a cheque for 80m (or whatever its valued at) stuck in the back of the frame.

And the argument that because I have it and didn't pay for it, so I shouldn't have it?
What if I have someone stay over, who leaves a game behind, then says "oh, I'll pick it up next time"? I didn't pay for it, and I have it, and I'll sure as hell play it. So apparently I stole that too, despite the owner of said disc knowing where it is, what I'll do with it, and that they will get it back?

Hmm, those are some pretty solid arguments.

I don't think I can disagree.

As has been pointed out, this guy didn't really "destroy" the arguments for piracy. Pointed out flaws, yes, but hardly destroyed.

For example: the implication that every pirated game is a lost sale. No, not every one of them. A lot of them, yes, are lost sales. If the game weren't available for pirating, the people who really want it would go buy it. But honestly, the majority of people pirating stuff are frequently college age or younger, and we've grown up in a world where everything is one Google search away from a torrent or a download link, so to a lot of people my age, that's just part of how the world works. And after all, why pay when you can get something for free? You can twist rhetoric and logic to say that because they have the means to get something for free, of course they won't pay for it. But this is circular, as piracy is required to provide a free way to get games to justify pirating them. So in other words, that argument comes down to "piracy justifies piracy". Anyways. If somehow pirated games didn't exist, a lot of these people still want the games badly enough to either shell out the full list price for it or wait for it to go on sale on Steam or to come down in price or what have you. It's the exact same reasoning behind why you buy generic drugs rather than brand name--there's a cheaper alternative. It doesn't mean you wouldn't buy the brand name drugs, but there's no reason why you shouldn't save a few bucks. Same reasoning applies to a lot of pirates--"well yeah, I could buy it, but I could save a few bucks doing this instead." Yeah, there are some people who are just "HRRRNG NO I WOULD NOT EVER WANT TO BUY THIS GAME but I will totally pirate it and enjoy the fuck out of it without compensating the developers". They're not as much of an overwhelming majority as people want to think.

As for DRM and such, there are, to me, three ways to do it. The first is restrictions on accessibility, like requiring a valid Steam or Origin login or having online passes or some sort of bulky program to constantly monitor the game itself. The former--requiring a valid login for something--is effective, because it's not cumbersome on the player and the majority of PC gamers already have a Steam account and/or an Origin account. Online passes are just a nuisance, and I imagine effective at blocking online play for pirates but I don't have any actual gauge for its effectiveness, so that's mere speculation. The third type of this is what everyone hates, because oftentimes it directly and severely impacts gameplay for legitimate customers, while pirates who crack the game to remove that coding get a smoother experience. There is frankly no excuse for this sort of DRM, but that doesn't in any way count as a justification for pirating something. The second type: do what Serious Sam 3 or Dark Souls or Arkham Asylum did, and have a gameplay element change or be introduced (like the invincible scorpion in SS3) that makes progression in the game difficult or impossible. No idea how effective this is or how easy it is to remove something like this from a cracked copy, though. And the last type of DRM is "none," which is wildly ineffective because, as The Wither 2 proved, on the whole pirates don't give a rat's ass about how much DRM affects legitimate players, because no DRM makes it infinitely more easy to pirate something.

On the whole, as you may have noticed, I very much despise piracy and people who try to justify it. Ultimately, it removes incentive for people to keep doing work, decreases industry innovation (see Jim Sterling's article on casual gamers, where he explains this point in more depth), and is just plain selfish. After all, debate morals all you like, piracy is very explicitly illegal, and deciding "oh but I want this" and proceeding to break the law is just plain immature and stupid. Rule of Law, people. You don't get to pick and choose what laws you follow.

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

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."

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".

It's amazing how many pro-piracy advocates never want to use their giant beautiful brain when they're not posting on forums. Using your brain and exercising some common sense would do wonders for you. There are a lot of fun games I've missed out on or had to get much later and it doesn't make me less of a person. I've also had my fair share of release-day disappointments that helped me learn lessons. Either way I use my brain before I buy anything, maybe more people should start doing that.

Here are some rules you may want to think about.

If you're unsure about it, then wait a while; if you can't wait then buy it and learn your lesson.

If you want to complain about DRM, get a crack or don't buy it.

If you even have a doubt about how fun it is, then don't buy it; if you're unsure about the fun factor then why even try?

If you want to complain about the price, then wait for it to go down in price or fucking eat Ramen for a month.

There are a few exceptions; such as it is impossible to get in your area. Tons of old games that you simply cannot find or games that were never released in your area. I'd agree to those but there is one condition, if you have the resources and can import it then you should do that... even if you have to eat Ramen, show the company you value their product.

xvbones:

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.

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

And I'm not saying it's morally right or even neutral. It's a simple fact everyone has high horses so high they fail to see or acknowledge, which is an obnoxious attitude in terms of intellectuality.

Colinmac93:
Never mind his argument, it's a lawyer who doesn't seem to hate games!
/fanfare

:D

From the opening post:
"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.""

How the fuck is it erroneous? How is a pirated game a financial loss? Its DREAM MONEY. The developer is not missing a game (unless its physically stolen from the shelf), there is absolutely no guarantee that the gamer would have purchased the game if he didnt pirate it. Its MAKE BELIEVE.

One can discuss the morality of it past the end of forever, but no amount of college-years or lawyer education is going to change the FACT that a pirated game is NOT a financial loss. Its a THEORETICAL loss...but nothing more.

If one starts to pull numbers out of ones ass...how much free PR does a pirate provide? Downloading a game...telling all his friends, this is the best game ever...they buy it...they tell their friends et cetera. How much money is this? Maybe its not a financial loss at all, maybe the game industry owes pirates money. And lots of it!

tzimize:
Its a THEORETICAL loss...but nothing more.

Therefore they should be compensated with THEORETICAL MONEY!

Finally, a use for that old monopoly set with half the pieces missing.

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.

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.

You completely missed the point of what I was saying. I'm not giving pirates an excuse. I'm pointing out it's not a lost sale. Which it isn't.

And second hand games are the exact same problem as piracy. It has the exact same effect.

I am not in favour of Piracy.

I am simply against "Anti-piracy" efforts that hurt legitimate consumers more than the actual perpetrators!

Oppressive DRM can kill your sales FAR worse than piracy, mostly because even with people turned away by the inconvenience of DRM preventing games they paid for working, it's a matter of time before the DRM can be cracked and then the bootleg version is the better version.

THAT is the insidious thing about gaming piracy. All throughout the history of people making and illegally selling bootleg copies of things, the strongest argument against the bootleg is that it is:
-lower quality
-less reliable
-less durable
-Still have to pay with no guarantee

But the OPPOSITE is true with software piracy as crippling the DRM you have a version which will work more reliably and being digital the quality is identical and may even be better if it is cracked for more convenient rendering modes.

I think the solution to piracy is not DRM (in the traditional sense) but smaller and more reliable lawsuits against pirates. Suits me fine. Well, almost fine:

(Also, I think there should be a clause that if a game has been out of print for 5 years and NO ONE is selling a digital copy then it should have a greatly reduced penalty for piracy. For example Microsoft is flatly refusing to digitally nor Disc-copy sell Halo on PC to anyone anywhere, they are trying to retcon gaming history as if Halo was only ever released on consoles. As you could make the case that there is no lost-sale as the owners of the rights are refusing to sell it anyway, copyright law should account for sales. So you can't copyright something then refuse to sell a single new copy for over a decade!)

DISCLAIMER: I do not support piracy. I have never pirated. I am only stating opinion, Blah blah blah.

I would really like to know the purpose for the posting of this.

First of all, just because he is a lawyer doesn't mean he knows everything everywhere. He can still make grievous mistakes.

Second, any nerd could tell you there IS evidence to support that most pirates use proxies as pirates are typically very adept computer users.

Third, you can't simply say "Every torrent IS a lost sale. Period." You need something to back it up.

Fourth, and most important, you can't stop piracy. You simply can't. No matter how many people you sue, no matter what laws you enact, people will continue to steal things digitally. In addition, any effective means of reducing it would have a horrible effect on people at large. So in reality, it comes down to a choice between a large number of people giving up a massive number of freedoms of privacy OR companies losing money

And just because I like giving, here is a video:


Great video, just felt like the time to post it.

Okay, this is bugging the hell out of me..

"Piracy is theft" is like saying "Corporations are people" or at least, they share the same hole in the argument. "If they were the same exact thing then we wouldn't need two separate words."

Neither Theft nor Piracy is morally acceptable, but both imply something completely different, Don't believe me? Then open up a dictionary published within the last decade and prove me wrong.

Devoneaux:
"Piracy is theft" is like saying "Corporations are people"

What about Soylent Green? Is Soylent Green people? Charlton Heston put forward a pretty compelling case but it's not without it's flaws.

Eternal Taros:
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.

There is money that I would like that I don't have any intention of working for. That money I do not get to spend. However, if I steal/defraud/embezzle, I could have that money. I understand why people pirate. Having a "reason" doesn't make it okay.

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.

If you want something, pay for it. If you genuinely don't want it, there would be no reason to pirate it. If a person would have even paid $5 for a game, that's lost revenue to the publisher.

Dastardly:
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.

I'm absolutely clear on what it is. For your benefit: It's when someone's argument is challenged, so they change the definition of one or more of the terms involved to insulate their original argument from criticism. Say there's a psycho-killer, and a proud Scot says, "Well, it's not a Scotsman, because no Scotsman would do such a thing." Later, it's discovered that the killer is indeed a Scot. When confronted, our proud Scot friend says, "Well, no true Scotsman would do such a thing."

He has changed the definition of "Scotsman" by adding arbitrary details, simply so it can't be used to assail his opinion. For instance:

A: "Piracy is good/okay/whatever."
B: "No, Piracy is stealing. You're taking something that doesn't belong to you."

A: "It's not stealing, because it has to be physical property."
B: "That's a NTS, because the definition doesn't say the property has to be physical."

A: "Well 'property' is different from 'intellectual property.'"
B: "That's another NTS, because the definition doesn't make that distinction. You're adding that detail and moving the bar."

A: "But the owner isn't deprived of the property, so it's not really stealing."
B: "That's yet another NTS, because the definition of stealing doesn't demand that the original owner be deprived, only that the would-be thief in question has obtained the property without permission or right."

Here are some accepted definitions of stealing:

From thefreedictionary.com:
"1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission."

From dictionary.com
"to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force"

From Merriam-Webster:
"to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully" and "to take surreptitiously or without permission"

From Oxford:
"take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it"

None of these definitions preclude intellectual property, or thefts that do not result in deprivation. Only by retroactively appending details to the definition can such a claim be made. That is a No True Scotsman (or, more generally, "Moving the Goalposts")

Dastardly:
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.

Because you don't pirate. So you're a non-issue in this, aren't you? If you did pirate, you'd be getting the game for free. Making the game better doesn't suddenly make "free" any less enticing. There is no reason to believe that someone (who has already demonstrated a willingness to take the game for free) will suddenly decide to pay simply because the perceived quality of the product has improved. That just means now they're getting even more for free.

It's far more likely, given knowledge of basic human psychology, that a person will pirate to "try" a game, realize they have it for free, and then retroactively decide, "Nah, this game wouldn't have been worth the $60, so I'll just keep the free copy." Even if they loved the game immensely, it's easy enough to point out a few flaws to self-justify that claim.

whiteblood:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

whiteblood:
Pirates are screwing the gaming community over like the lazy, brain-dead swindling cretins they are! If profit can't be made off of a game because pirates insist on stealing it from the hard-working people that made it, mark my words, quality will be the first thing to be sacked. Eventually the quality of writing and production will get so bad, the problem will spiral so far out of control that the entire genre will collapse into one QTE cutscene! No game'play', no personal interaction beyond loading the disk and hitting the 'continue' button when prompted to!

Of course, people will bitch. To that and this.

One will likely say, "Why make one batch of shiny boobies, explosions and angst with button mashing to the beat of....something, when you can make good games!?

Because you lazy fucks can't be assed to pay for it! It's theft! If this were the middle east, half of the internet community would be handless by the age of 14!

Oh, and don't try to drop, "I'm just sampling it! I'll buy if it's good!"

Bullshit. Bull-fucking-shit.

You want to see what a game looks and feels like? Go to Youtube and watch 20 minutes of gameplay! When I heard about Limbo, I went to Youtube and watched a little of it. You know what I did? I liked what I saw, I bought a MS points card and purchased the damn thing! I saw quality and I forked over some of my cash to experience it! This is not an alien concept, it's as old as humanity! If one guy had a cow and you had a chicken and you each wanted what the other had, you GAVE THEM THE CHICKEN. You didn't milk the cow and run off grinning, you didn't slaughter the cow while it slept so you could have some ultra-rare steak and a few demented laughs, you gave them the damn chicken and guess what!? You got your cow, flies, udders and all!

Seriously, screw piracy. These people will turn games like Shadow of the Colossus into General Hospital, Half-Life into Days of our Lives, and Mass Effect into Young and the freakin' Restless.

Go chickens.

So many uninformed people! Well, im going to pick you out and respond to you. So yeah.

You wrote that rant and overlooked one thing: major pirates are also major customers. The people that download the most games illegally are also the people buying the most games legally. I will never get this "OMG PIRATES R RUINING DA INDUSTRY!" thing. No, you idiots, they are not, they are the same people keeping it alive.

Furthermore, watching a youtube video is not a good way to decide whether you will like a game or not. Did you know, that in video games, you typically press buttons to make things happen? Then how the hell are you going to judge a game when its not you pressing the fucking buttons? How would you know how the game feels? How would you know how responsive the controls are? Its the most important fucking thing about games. Watching a video to judge a game is the equivalent of reviewing a movie although you only listened to the audio without watching it.

And last but not least, no, for the love of God, it is not theft. Heres a handy guide for all the thick skulled people out there.

Theft is theft. Piracy is piracy. Theft is taking a unique object that does not belong to you away. (Video game) Piracy is downloading a COPY. Two separate things. They do not overlap.

image

You.
Are taking.
Something.
Without, WITH OUT.
Paying for it.

Ergo, theft.

This argument pretty much excuses any master thief who steals a piece of art and leaves a shitty replica in it's place, too.

Pretty language and semantics doesn't deny the fact that you are acquiring an item through illegal means, essentially flipping off the people who made it and demanding they work for your pleasure alone, not for a wage. Not sure if you have kept track, but slavery is a fairly outdated concept. Just sayin'.

Oh yeah, saying that pirates are also big customers is like saying there's honor among theives.

No, it does not. Straight up idiotic reasoning right there. You are not acquiring an item. Pieces of digital data that exist only on a hard drive do not qualify as an item. Furthermore, they can be multiplied without the original copy being damaged.

Both legally and ethically speaking, piracy is not theft. The people who say piracy is theft generally get their information from terrible articles like this one, and read Greg Tito articles.

This argument pretty much excuses any master thief who steals a piece of art and leaves a shitty replica in it's place, too.

If you can explain to me how the fuck it does that, please do, because it makes absolutely no sense to me. The master thief is stealing an object and leaving a different one there. The pirate leaves the "object" in its place, makes a carbon copy and fucks off.

Oh yeah, saying that pirates are also big customers is like saying there's honor among theives.

I have no idea if there is honor amongst thieves since I am neither a thief not have any experience with them, but there are several studies that back me up on this. A few have been posted in this very thread. So, theres my proof, whats yours? Until you can back yourself up with something, I think its safe to say dismissing your take on this as irrelevant since you are badly informed and unreasonable is the right course of action.

LilithSlave:

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

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

Pray tell - what percentage of pirated games do you believe to be 'lost sales'?

Bear in mind that if you say none, any argument you make past this point is moronic.

Dastardly:

Eternal Taros:
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.

There is money that I would like that I don't have any intention of working for. That money I do not get to spend. However, if I steal/defraud/embezzle, I could have that money. I understand why people pirate. Having a "reason" doesn't make it okay.

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.

If you want something, pay for it. If you genuinely don't want it, there would be no reason to pirate it. If a person would have even paid $5 for a game, that's lost revenue to the publisher.

Dastardly:
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.

I'm absolutely clear on what it is. For your benefit: It's when someone's argument is challenged, so they change the definition of one or more of the terms involved to insulate their original argument from criticism. Say there's a psycho-killer, and a proud Scot says, "Well, it's not a Scotsman, because no Scotsman would do such a thing." Later, it's discovered that the killer is indeed a Scot. When confronted, our proud Scot friend says, "Well, no true Scotsman would do such a thing."

He has changed the definition of "Scotsman" by adding arbitrary details, simply so it can't be used to assail his opinion. For instance:

A: "Piracy is good/okay/whatever."
B: "No, Piracy is stealing. You're taking something that doesn't belong to you."

A: "It's not stealing, because it has to be physical property."
B: "That's a NTS, because the definition doesn't say the property has to be physical."

A: "Well 'property' is different from 'intellectual property.'"
B: "That's another NTS, because the definition doesn't make that distinction. You're adding that detail and moving the bar."

A: "But the owner isn't deprived of the property, so it's not really stealing."
B: "That's yet another NTS, because the definition of stealing doesn't demand that the original owner be deprived, only that the would-be thief in question has obtained the property without permission or right."

Here are some accepted definitions of stealing:

From thefreedictionary.com:
"1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission."

From dictionary.com
"to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force"

From Merriam-Webster:
"to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully" and "to take surreptitiously or without permission"

From Oxford:
"take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it"

None of these definitions preclude intellectual property, or thefts that do not result in deprivation. Only by retroactively appending details to the definition can such a claim be made. That is a No True Scotsman (or, more generally, "Moving the Goalposts")

Dastardly:
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.

Because you don't pirate. So you're a non-issue in this, aren't you? If you did pirate, you'd be getting the game for free. Making the game better doesn't suddenly make "free" any less enticing. There is no reason to believe that someone (who has already demonstrated a willingness to take the game for free) will suddenly decide to pay simply because the perceived quality of the product has improved. That just means now they're getting even more for free.

It's far more likely, given knowledge of basic human psychology, that a person will pirate to "try" a game, realize they have it for free, and then retroactively decide, "Nah, this game wouldn't have been worth the $60, so I'll just keep the free copy." Even if they loved the game immensely, it's easy enough to point out a few flaws to self-justify that claim.

You seem to have trouble understanding the difference between theft and copyright infringement.

It's not a fallacy of any kind, it's a mislabeled crime. Difference.

Edit: While i'm at it, I went back and double checked. US law has a clear difference between stealing something and duplicating it illegally, Piracy and Theft are NOT the same thing, supreme court rulings in the past support this. (See: Dowling v. United States 1985)

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?

Oh i'm sorry, did you just go on a tangent away from my actual point? You insulted him using an argument that was invalid, I pointed that out. If that makes me a moron then I will quite gladly be a moron. I never said I agree'd with his view, but your argument was flawed. No need to be a prick about it.

And on your movie theater analogy? They bring out trailers, those are the "demo's" of the theater world. You can argue that games bring out trailers too, but you can't magically sense how the game feels without a true demo. That analogy doesn't work, feel free to try again. This time, try to keep it civil, your tone is rather barbaric.

A lawyer offering his superficial understanding of what copyright is? And an overexcited journo calling the exposition of that opinion a 'destruction' of arguments? How tired. A lawyer the man may be, but a legal philosopher of any note he appears not to be.

Intellectual property is a legal fiction that in many cases seems to have outlived its usefulness. "Stealing" a game may or may not be a lost sale. That issue is mostly one of academic interest. What really matters is whether there are appropriate incentives to make games. If copyrights were fully enforceable, that incentive would actually be too high in comparison to those for producing the things which people actually need-- and that can't be copied at will (corn, for instance.) It may even be too high now: one can say that production of the Call of Duty franchise has enjoyed quite the incentive. The grant of a monopoly is a powerful thing, especially over something that is (more or less) unique and can be copied for pennies or less. Games companies should be able to tolerate some friction in the realization of the value of their legal monopolies. There is one thing I agree with: developers should look to adapting their business models rather than their legal strategies. The unfortunate downside of that is that it means doing something actually useful rather than whining about being unable to collect every rent to which they feel entitled.

Devoneaux:
"Piracy is theft" is like saying "Corporations are people"

I don't think corporations are considered people, never heard of a company be put on trial for murder. At least not in the sense of criminal law, only civil law in terms of paying damages like in lawsuits and matters of ownership.

And it IS very important that there is corporate ownership, as it is ripe of embezzlement if it is the actual human being at the top who personally owns all the property of a company, like say if for a trucking company the boss of the company owns personally all 300 trucks they operate. But a company owning and being financially responsible for something doesn't make the company a person.

PS: you know who popularised the term "piracy is theft"?

Steve Jobs.

Before that the industry was extremely reluctant and conflicted on how to categorise online music piracy, but in Steve Jobs push for iTunes he had Apple pretty much coin the phrase "piracy is theft" at the same time as "iTunes is great". Soon after that criminal prosecutions and civil damages were pursued not just against napster but also the users of such service. iTunes was pushed as the one legitimate alternative locked into Apple products like iPad. It would be over half a decade before DRM-free songs would be sold on iTunes in that time iTunes and iDevices had more than cornered the market it had completely dominated it.

On the other hand, while Jobs screwed the pooch with 99c per song for the music industry, he did a wonderful move setting sub-$2 as the price for iOS games while Nintendo and Sony were struggling along with $40-50 games of very similar engagement/value (Steel Diver anyone?)

Treblaine:

Devoneaux:
"Piracy is theft" is like saying "Corporations are people"

I don't think corporations are considered people, never heard of a company be put on trial for murder. At least not in the sense of criminal law, only civil law in terms of paying damages like in lawsuits and matters of ownership.

And it IS very important that there is corporate ownership, as it is ripe of embezzlement if it is the actual human being at the top who personally owns all the property of a company, like say if for a trucking company the boss of the company owns personally all 300 trucks they operate. But a company owning and being financially responsible for something doesn't make the company a person.

PS: you know who popularised the term "piracy is theft"?

Steve Jobs.

Before that the industry was extremely reluctant and conflicted on how to categorise online music piracy, but in Steve Jobs push for iTunes he had Apple pretty much coin the phrase "piracy is theft" at the same time as "iTunes is great". Soon after that criminal prosecutions and civil damages were pursued not just against napster but also the users of such service. iTunes was pushed as the one legitimate alternative locked into Apple products like iPad. It would be over half a decade before DRM-free songs would be sold on iTunes in that time iTunes and iDevices had more than cornered the market it had completely dominated it.

On the other hand, while Jobs screwed the pooch with 99c per song for the music industry, he did a wonderful move setting sub-$2 as the price for iOS games while Nintendo and Sony were struggling along with $40-50 games of very similar engagement/value (Steel Diver anyone?)

Steve jobs can spout out all he wants about theft and piracy until god's angels fall to earth and it wont matter because the Supreme Court ruled differently. Copyright infringement is Copyright infringement. Theft is theft.

Personally I just buy all my games on Steam. Seriously, I rarely pay more then 10 bucks for a game and I'm happy with that. I also avoid most triple A titles. If a game has annoying DRM, I don't buy it.

Basically the only games I used to pirate was Chronotrigger and Secret of Mana, but as I have the first one on DS now, and hopefully the second will get a similar release.

Heck even some of my favorite sega games can be bought on steam for a 1-2 dollars us, and I own them for all time now.

I'm cool with that, I wouldn't mind another type of Steam service. In fact a company is more likely to allist a purchase for me if I can redownload a digital copy of said product on a new machine at a later date. Kind of like Blizzard's Battle.net system. (I refuse to use Origin because of all the spyware and other crazy shit that is in that)

Ancient Chinese Proverb - "All things come to the man who waits for the steam holiday sales"

I am so proud of my profession right now.

The word 'piracy' is an inflammatory label for what is really copyright infringement, and any laws designed to limit or punish such behavior should be appropriate to that interpretation.

Remember that guy who was sued for half a million dollars? Or the woman who was fined nearly two million dollars? They are still alive you know. What do you think the next seventy years of their lives are going to be like? Do you think that's a bit much for not paying for a video?

If I actually stole those exact same products from a store, what kind of fine could be imposed? Would it be potentially ruinous to my life?

Something is seriously wrong with the punishments not fitting the crime.

Lawyers are paid advocates, don't forget.

Piracy, DRM, etc... I just really detest what has happened to intellectual property. I have consumer rights protected by law for almost any consumer product i buy. If I buy a chainsaw I can return if it isn't fit for the purpose it was made, like cutting down a tree, and i have this right by law even if the retailer tries to refuse and puts up signs saying no returns (implied warranty of fitness for purpose). I have the right to get my money back if this chainsaw turns out to be something other than what a reasonable person would have expected it to be based on the description (the implied warranty of merchantability).

But wait, we've slowly stripped away all consumer rights from the realm of software. So much yelling, screaming, fear mongering, oh feel sorry for poor EA and ubisoft, their concerns are more important than your rights. If people start shoplifting chainsaws should i then lose *my* right to return mine when it doesn't even do what it purports to do on the box?

I remember a day when i could get a pc game and return it if it didn't work. Did the world end? Were no games made back then because it was impossible to make a profit? No. The world kept turning, games kept being made, some really good ones too. Its just greed.

Or for movies. Instead of being innovative, adapting to changing demands, and making a legit way for someone to see a new movie release on their computer over the internet at home, lets make it so someone who is willing to pay to see it this way, willing to pay full price, has to either wait a year for it to be on dvd/netflix, or pirate it, because there's zero legal ways to watch this finished and distributed product from home, even for someone ready, willing, and able to pay.

Its capitalism, adapt or die. Give the public what they want in a form they are willing to pay for, or die. If you don't give it to them, they might find their own means of getting what they want. People are like that. If they'd rather pirate than buy your product, you're doing it wrong. Or maybe its an issue of time, maybe they'd rather pirate than wait for you to take your sweet time in getting your product out there in a form they aren't even going to like. If so, you're doing it wrong. You don't use force to prevent the world from changing so that you don't have to change in response to it. If the pirated version of your game/movie works better than the official version, you're doing it wrong. If customers are sick of having to buy your product multiple times as different formats come out (dvd vs. blu ray, cassette vs. dvd, cd vs. mp3) at full price each time, then you are doing it wrong. Find a way to make money giving the customer something they are willing to pay for. Adapt.

But why adapt or be innovative when you can just strip away consumer protections, create invasive DRM that makes the official version of a product inferior to the pirated version, or turn potential customers into criminals by changing the law itself. Why adapt when you can just make an empty promise to your customer that your product will be x,y,and z, then avoid all accountability when it turns out to be anything but. Why adapt when you can dupe consumers themselves into arguing against their own hard fought consumer rights.

SmegInThePants, J.D.
Lawyered

Lawyers are all blood sucking, poison veined leeches. I don't believe a word of anything that comes out of their mouthes regardless of the stance on piracy. Quickly, stake him in the heart

Devoneaux:

Steve jobs can spout out all he wants about theft and piracy until god's angels fall to earth and it wont matter because the Supreme Court ruled differently. Copyright infringement is Copyright infringement. Theft is theft.

Supreme court is a criminal court. Their ruling says that if you merely download (or even buy) a pirated copy you are not criminally liable, the actual copyright violator is criminally liable. But that's criminal law. As in fines paid to the government and time spent in prison for committing crimes. So you won't ever have the cop's kick down your door but that doesn't mean you won't be served with a notice to appear in civil court.

Yeah, the importance of Jobs' evangelism is by saying "Piracy is theft" is that "people who pirate are bad people". He legitimised the idea of suing even a 12 year old girls for hundreds of thousands of dollars because they downloaded a Hannah Montana song. That's Civil Law in terms of lawsuits. Going after the people who download rather than the few intangible people who upload, that is what he had a big part in changing.

This does sway so many cases where such a pervasive idea as "piracy is theft" permeates into civil courts and does influence rulings.

Remember civil and criminal law are completely separate. OJ Simpson was acquitted in Criminal Court but in Civil Court was sued and found culpable for the murder of his wife where IIRK he had to pay so much he had to declare bankruptcy.

I faintly remember (I was very young) piracy in the pre-digital age, I don't think you'll ever find a case of someone being arrested for buying a bootleg VHS tape. Instead the industry was quite sympathetic to the people who bought such bootleg pirate copies and reasoned with them emphatically and reasonably not to buy such pirate goods for their own good.

I can't find a video example of the ad, but it shows how much the industry has changed its stance from informing the public - to threatening them.

Devoneaux:
You seem to have trouble understanding the difference between theft and copyright infringement.

It's not a fallacy of any kind, it's a mislabeled crime. Difference.

Edit: While i'm at it, I went back and double checked. US law has a clear difference between stealing something and duplicating it illegally, Piracy and Theft are NOT the same thing, supreme court rulings in the past support this. (See: Dowling v. United States 1985)

Firstly, I appreciate that you went back and added a bit more of discussion value to your post.

On the topic itself, we're not talking the official labeling of crimes here. More specifically, I do not intend to. Allow me to clarify my position (though this does not necessarily apply to others making superficially-similar arguments):

I'm not arguing the legal definition of terms as used in courts. In these cases, fraud, embezzlement, robbery, and counterfeiting are technically not the same as larceny (commonly referred to as "theft"). That's because our legal system has to more carefully categorize crimes based on the method and means of commission, not just the impact of the crime. That's why murder, manslaughter, etc., are separate crimes.

Whether by murder or manslaughter, we can rightly say, "The convicted person killed the victim." It's the court that has a responsibility to be more specific--this is because the law has no "spirit," only a "letter." But if someone told you they were going to sell you something, you paid them, and then they fell off the grid and never contact you, would you say, "Hey! That guy criminally defrauded me of my money!" or would you feel (and probably say) that you were stolen from?

Where I find the problem is that most people tend to view "stealing" as a broad category of crimes. It includes robbery, larceny, fraud, and all the rest. But when the discussion comes up, we narrow the definition artificially by citing the very narrow legal definitions... and yet some of the very same people using that argument will throw out laws or cases that reinforce ideas they disagree with regarding piracy. It's the inconsistent application that bothers me.

That's why I take a step back from the legal system. I'm discussing the action itself on moral/ethical grounds. A person is receiving property that belongs to another person, to which they are not entitled and have not compensated the proper owner. If one was unaware of how computers work, regarding copying, one would look specifically at the behavior and say "That dude just stole that!"

Even back in 1985, we were still trying to deal with new ideas. Data was getting faster and faster, and the fidelity of recordings better and better. No longer could someone simply argue, "Yeah, he has a bootleg, but the quality sucks!" The quality was improving, to the point that the false product was nearly identical to the original. A crime that was easily ignored (or at least marginalized) was becoming more consequential.

And, as with any new things, the Supreme Court made a very conservative decision -- they didn't want to "throw the book" at this guy rashly. I disagree with their decision, and there's always still room for such things to be overturned by later decisions. I recognize that, under law, these things are prosecuted differently. I prefer to look at it from the human angle, however -- which is actually why the law exists in the first place. The technicalities are simply there to manage all the ins-and-outs of it.

____

Now, as for whether or not data has the same weight as physical goods... we already demonstrate the belief that it does, and we do so daily. My money, almost in its entirety, does not exist in the physical world. But we all, as a society, agree that the digital representation of my money is enough to assert its existence and resulting value. I can spend, loan, borrow, and otherwise operate on this "money" in any way I could actual bills.

If someone were to illegally access the banks computers and duplicate some of that digital money, inserting it into the bank's system, I would not be deprived of anything. They didn't necessarily steal from me, but that money is stolen. Until the crime was discovered and reversed, someone somewhere would be responsible for the value of that duplicated money. So, if the issue is that the goods don't actually "exist," we're inconsistently handling that. A digital good is a representation of something else -- in this case, my monetary value, and in the case of software, it is representative of the work and money put into the creation of the data.

Really think about this a moment -- "money" is intellectual property, in the sense that it only exists in our mind. Just like with software, we impose artificial scarcity on it. There's no reason we couldn't just all agree, "Hey, everyone is worth $1 million dollars." But we don't. We limit the monetary worth of people and demand that they go through proper channels to establish it.

But all of the physical goods (paper bills, metal coins, credit cards, even the computers upon which the data is stolen) all exist simply to represent the concept of "worth," which is entirely arbitrary when you get right down to it. Why is it illegal to steal someone's money? Is it just the paper that's being taken? No -- it's what the paper represents that is being taken. The law allows the physical good to stand in for the concept, but it is the concept itself that is the purpose for the law (if money had no "value" assigned to it, it probably wouldn't be a big deal to "steal" it any more than taking something out of someone's trash bin on the curb).

Intellectual property is still a relatively new concept in the eyes of the law. It hasn't been around as long as money has, in its various forms. Given enough time, as the world becomes more and more information-focused, we'll begin to see intellectual property gain ground as the same kind of concept that is behind our most basic ideas of "ownership" and "monetary value."

Just something to think about. Because, again, I'm not arguing this from a currently-enforceable-legal-perspective. I'm arguing it ideologically. Is that binding in any way? No. But I still feel it's worthwhile to think about, even just for the mental "exercise" of it.

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.

Then we exercise simple math at this point.

Let c be the value of a hypothetical 'lost sale' with d being the number of pirated copies.

The lost sale argument would state the cost would be cd.

On the other hand, there 'there is no loss' argument, would instead state the loss is 0, and thus the cost would be 0d, or zero.

We know, however, the truth is somewhere in the middle, therefore the actual cost per unit, x follows this:

0<x<c

We can all agree this is correct yes?

Oh hey, x is greater than zero... turns out piracy has a cost!

Devoneaux:
It's not a fallacy of any kind, it's a mislabeled crime. Difference.

Edit: While i'm at it, I went back and double checked. US law has a clear difference between stealing something and duplicating it illegally, Piracy and Theft are NOT the same thing, supreme court rulings in the past support this. (See: Dowling v. United States 1985)

This is also an NTS. He's not using the legal definition in his argument or his statement. You're trying to redefine what he is saying to fit your argument, rather than taking his argument on its own merits.

LilithSlave:

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

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

Bullshit. If a thousand people download a pirated game, the developers lose the income that would have come from the payment for those thousand. It's a financially negative impact on the industry, and whatever faults you have with paying for the game, if it was worth downloading and playing in the first place, then you have no fucking excuse.

dogstile:

Kwil:

dogstile:

"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?

Oh i'm sorry, did you just go on a tangent away from my actual point? You insulted him using an argument that was invalid, I pointed that out. If that makes me a moron then I will quite gladly be a moron. I never said I agree'd with his view, but your argument was flawed. No need to be a prick about it.

No. Your point was that I didn't read thoroughly. Had you read thoroughly, you would have seen that I had. That you fail to understand this even though I point it out directly is why you deserved to be insulted.

And on your movie theater analogy? They bring out trailers, those are the "demo's" of the theater world. You can argue that games bring out trailers too, but you can't magically sense how the game feels without a true demo. That analogy doesn't work, feel free to try again. This time, try to keep it civil, your tone is rather barbaric.

Use your brain, and you'll find I'm quite civil. Fail to, and you'll find I go for the gut instead, since that seems to be where you're coming from.

So as to the point of this particular message, tell me, who gets to decide what a "true" demo is? The movie theatre? The movie-goer? Some self-entitled punk who's incapable of respecting what other people create? You, your highness? Incidentally, even if we ignore how ludicrous your argument is that it's random joe on the street who gets to decide what a "true" demo is (heard of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy? Because that's what you're setting up to fail with here), how does the analogy fail for a bar band? I'll note you conveniently ignore that portion of the message. What's their demo? And if they don't have one, does that make it fine for people to sneak into their shows?

I submit that the only one who gets to decide what a demo is is the firm that releases it.. or not.. and that it's their choice.. and that the self-entitled prick has absolutely no right to create a demo for themselves without the permission of the rights-holders. Further, I'd also argue that when people suggest that the action isn't entirely reprehensible because of a lack of action on the company's part, they expose themselves as being prejudiced hypocrites, and deserve to be called down as such. The companies can be called down separately for their actions, but that in no way justifies the pirate's action, and anybody who suggests it is is really a bigger part of the piracy problem, no matter how "reasonable" they think they're being.

As for my tone, this is the internet, any tone to my message you impart yourself, because I assure you, I write these with a smile. So try dealing with what's actually on the page instead of what ever pretend reality you hold in your barbaric brain.

Kwil:
snip

Ah, saw that coming. You're not gonna get the point, I give up. You still don't understand. If you're going to "go for the gut" to win an argument then by all means, you win, because I will not stoop to your level. You know exactly what tone you're trying to impart with the sarcasm and I shall have no part of it.

Oh, and the bit I "ignored"? Of course I did, it had no relevance to my original point which you're still trying to veer off into a tangent. Good day sir, I shall respond to you no more.

Dastardly:

A: "Piracy is good/okay/whatever."
B: "No, Piracy is stealing. You're taking something that doesn't belong to you."

A: "It's not stealing, because it has to be physical property."
B: "That's a NTS, because the definition doesn't say the property has to be physical."

A: "Well 'property' is different from 'intellectual property.'"
B: "That's another NTS, because the definition doesn't make that distinction. You're adding that detail and moving the bar."

A: "But the owner isn't deprived of the property, so it's not really stealing."
B: "That's yet another NTS, because the definition of stealing doesn't demand that the original owner be deprived, only that the would-be thief in question has obtained the property without permission or right."

Here are some accepted definitions of stealing:

From thefreedictionary.com:
"1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission."

From dictionary.com
"to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force"

From Merriam-Webster:
"to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully" and "to take surreptitiously or without permission"

From Oxford:
"take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it"

None of these definitions preclude intellectual property, or thefts that do not result in deprivation. Only by retroactively appending details to the definition can such a claim be made. That is a No True Scotsman (or, more generally, "Moving the Goalposts")

Thank you for this. I've been having trouble with the whole illegal copying isn't theft because it does seem rather reasonable that "well if they still have it, nothing was stolen" would be correct. As such, I've been equating it (erroneously, as it turns out) with slavery -- taking the fruits of another person's labour without their permission.

Your post made me realize that the key point of theft isn't whether a person loses access to the product (which is where pirates have rather successfully managed to move the goalposts to), it's whether another has taken it without permission. We need to get to work on moving those goalposts back to their proper place.

Side note.. my captcha this time is copyright orlieff. Copyright Or Leave. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it.

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.

No, it does not.

Can you prove to me there is a 100% chance that someone would have bought the game if they were unable to pirate it? (assuming they would afford it)

It is potentially a loss of sales, and on the same note, the person who pirated the game could potentially buy that game afterwards.

EDIT: To clarify, both ends of the argument have their flaws, and going for a middle ground results in estimates that could be way off, so the argument shouldn't really be used (for either side) at all.

No, It is not a valid justification of piracy anyways, and there are very few, if not no justifications for piracy (I can only think of one), but it is not killing the industry, and the loss that people are claiming are not only entirely intangible, but are usually based on estimates that are more likely than not far from the actual truth.

One part of this really bugs me. No matter how you try to word it, a pirated copy is still not a "lost sale," because that runs on the assumption it was going to be a sale to begin with. Hardened pirates download shit just because they can, and have no intention of buying the game. Then you have the de facto pirates such as myself, who are pirating games they already legitimately own to remove garbage DRM. (I'M LOOKING AT YOU ARKHAM CITY, FUCK YOUR DRM)

Yes, piracy is a problem. But much like the war on drugs, it's a war that no matter what you do, you aren't going to win it. This has been proven time and time again. DRM hasn't stopped them, threats of SOPA just motivated them to start brainstorming a new decentralized DNS, cease and desist letters have been ignored, and lawsuits against piracy sites have been beaten. I don't have to like it, but I side with Valve on this one. You stop pirates by offering enough to make them WANT to buy your game/movie/etc.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . . . 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