"Pirating" a game that was never released in your country/language

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Buy the Japanese version to support the publisher, and get the ROM to play it?

Not wrong at all. It wasn't released in your country and if you can't obtain it by other means, pirate away.

CrystalShadow:

coolbeans21:

You also missed the point that although used games do not help the industry, they do help the economy. Piracy only benefits the pirate as he thinks he's entitled to things without paying for them.

Right... So the only thing that matters in life is the economy right?
Do you know why copyright terms were originally limited to just 25 years at most?

Do you know why those same laws declared that to benefit from copyright in the first place you had to agree to your work being in the public domain as part of the bargain?

Do you know why the effects of ever-increasing copyright terms are in effect having the complete opposite result from the one copyright laws were intended to accomplish?

Do you even know what those original goals were?

But hey. Endless patent litigation helps the economy too right? Even though frequently the lawsuits cost far more money than the commercial value of the patents...

Or how about that copyright laws are essentially an unfair legally imposed monopoly that while benefiting anyone who holds copyrights, is in effect potentially abusive towards anyone whose income derives from sources without such legally sanctioned monopolistic rights?

But, hey... As long as it helps the economy right?

Did I say say the only thing that matters is the economy? no I didnt, don't put words in my mouth.

I cited the benefit to the economy as its the only benefit of the used games industry, some people insist that because used games exist and games companies lose money this way then, there is no issue with piracy, that they are the same thing, despite the fact one is legal, and has this marginal benefit and the other is illegal and benefits noone but the pirate.

I couldn't care less about the specifics of copyright law, they have never impacted my life in a significant way, possibly because I buy my games.

This is the sort of thing the Neil Gaiman Defense was made for. It's practically the reason he spoke about it.

Vigormortis:
Actually, you are legally allowed to own cracks, ROMs, and what-not as back-ups, provided you own a legitimate copy of the software.

Just like old-console ROMs. As long as you own a real copy of the game, you can have as many ROMs of the game as you like. Again, provided you don't sell them or give them away as copies to others that don't own the game.

The tools used to create ROMs are illegal. Laws don't make sense and sometimes are conflicting, I'm already used to it.

Vigormortis:
I like how people try to craft counter-points with analogies that make no sense.

The analogy is yours, and even though I am not a farmer I do know what I am talking about.

Vigormortis:
If we were to take your analogy at face value, it would apply more to someone making a mod of a game than actually pirating the game.

You say they "take the left-overs and grow their own trees". Sounds just like how most mods, especially full-conversions, are done.

A modification requires the original game. I can eat fruit without owning the original tree or original fruit.

You have cornered yourself into an analogy that we could spend years trying to explore...

Vigormortis:
And, adhering to this analogy, as long as you aren't reselling the used "seeds" (i.e., the game code) but are instead just giving it away, it's perfectly legal.

What part of "clone" do you not understand? I am trying to explain that humans try to "breed" the perfect tree and then replicate it.

Same genetic code.

That translates into the exact same game, running on it's engine. Not a mod. I don't need prerequisites to enjoy food.

Vigormortis:
However, if you take the original fruit, in it's entirety (and not the left overs), and then resell or give it away, THAT is illegal.

So...where was your counter-point again?

I bought a game. Does it matter if I played it or not if I want to put a ISO online? If I did not play, it's illegal, if I already played it and decide to post the "left-overs" it's still illegal.

Also, I can't buy fruit in second hand?

Then we are all committing crimes because suppliers buy fruit to farmers and those suppliers sell to grocery stores and supermarkets.

The more we explore this analogy the more it makes sense to pirate it.

Kahunaburger:

LiquidSolstice:

Kahunaburger:

No, I'm pointing out that basically everyone in this country violates intellectual property on a pretty regular basis, and implying that perhaps some people (particularly on this site, for some reason) respond to software piracy as if this were not the case.

...I don't get why you don't think you're attacking a strawman. It doesn't matter what everyone in this country does (not that it makes it right), we're talking about whether or not in this instance, concerning a regionally distributed (or undistributed, as it were) game, it's justified/legal.

As clever as you might have thought you were being, that logic isn't required in this thread.

You still appear to be missing the point. And the irony of misinterpreting someone else's argument to accuse them of strawmanning.

Yes, We're talking about the moral and legal qualms of pirating a video game ROM, and you bring in the Happy Birthday song and that's totally related.

Got it.

LilithSlave:
And a 5 year old from the 50s would be able to tell you that copying a book from the library is not taking something.

Right, but the 5 year old would know that it's wrong, the part you conveniently chose to ignore because you're among the rest of the sheep who want to sit there bitching about whether or not piracy is stealing rather than whether or not it's wrong.

Copying is not stealing. uselss shit snipped

Funny, I don't remember saying copying is stealing. I'd ask you to show me where I said that, but seeing as you're hopping up and down like a dog that's about to get a treat, utterly excited to spew your "piracy isn't stealing" bullshit at me, I doubt you'd be able to process that.

You mean like yourself?

....no. I understand commerce. You don't understand how to read, seeing as you've ascribed me to the position that piracy is stealing when I never said that. You're too funny!

Oh, right, it's not okay to listen to the radio?

Oh boy, here come the strawmans. Games are played on the radio now?

It's not okay to check out a book from the library?

See, the funny think about a library is that only one person has that book out at a time. Unless you're telling me that pirates "give back" the game after they are done with it?

It's not okay to play at a friend's house?

So pirating a game is the same as playing it at a friend's house? Silly me. I didn't realize that 1 person seeding a pirated release on The Pirate Bay to 10,000 other people was the same as you loaning Max your spare copy for him to try.

We're back to the same old faulty arguments that anti-pirates use all the time. Unsurprising, as the arguments against piracy don't have any logical basis.

No, we're actyually back to the same fucking stupid arguments that pirate apologists use all the time. Unsurprising, as most piracy arguments are full of strawmans and hypocrisy.

If copyright law is outdated and shouldn't apply to digital content, why are we using outdated sharing concepts to describe the sharing of digital content? Oh wait, Pirate Defense Mechanism #1: We get to make up the rules of argument.

LiquidSolstice:
Then all the less is piracy depriving anyone of anything. If gaming is so trivial, there's no reason to flip a lid over how creators are having things "taken" from them.

You took that out of context (Good work!). The response was to someone who felt that they shouldn't be denied to such art that is gaming.

LiquidSolstice:
If you don't have enough for it, you wait until you do.

Do anti-pirates have any other arguments other than ordering people on what to do with their life?

Telling people what they already know is ordering them around? Well fuck. Here I was thinking that you need to have money to buy something was something everyone learned. I suppose your education must not have been up to par with the rest of ours...

No, people should copy and spread anything and everything that deserves to be copied. Anything that deserves to be copied and spread should be copied and spread. If something is not worth copying and spreading on a massive scale, it is worthless.

Spoken like a true fucking pirate. Good job, sir. Good job.

You don't tell what to do based upon some twist anti-piracy morality. You are WRONG.

Yes, I am wrong for telling you not to bypass the price tag on something. What twisted morality I have, what travesty I commit by doing so. :(

You don't get to tell people what to do. You don't have any logical basis in your disagreement with piracy.

....what!?! A. There is a price tag. B. You ignored the price tag. C. Is there a C?? YOU don't have any fucking logical basis in your argument other than the emotional speeches of "oh it should ALL be copied" and "you can't tell me what to do NYAH NYAH NYAH".

You don't get to tell people they have to pay for every single thing they use.

No, that's the fucking job of the people who set the price of things. You know, because they're the ones who made it.

If you don't have the money for a video game, you do get to play it. You get to use the many resources available to you in order to play it for free. Some of them legal, some of them not. But they are morally correct.

That was so fucking stupid I don't even know how to get my head around it. A, we're talking about morality here. B, did you really just fucking that illegal ways to play it for free are still morally correct?

Wow. I thought you were just a generic pirate. I now realize you're just in outright denial of any shred of logic.

You don't deserve to have anyone listen to you and your twisted "morality".

Yeah! Fuck my sense of twisted morality. How DARE I suggest it is wrong to circumvent payment for something that is meant to be paid for so blatantly.

What on earth? Are you even attempting to argue there's a difference here? Based upon what? A ridiculous prejudice that video games are better than music or music videos or the like? Video games are not better or more deserving of money than music.

So, by your logic, then nothing is worth anything because you previously said all video game piracy is justified and moral. Got it.

The fact that the Escapist heavily punishes video games piracy of any variety but allows people to link to pirated material via youtube is an irony.

You realize YouTube has tons of privacy agreements in place to combat or adapt to the pirated nature? I once uploaded the final clip of "Religilous" and using digital fingerprinting, they knew what it was/ Lionsgate sent me a YouTube message saying a copyright notice will be posted on my video page and I won't be able to embed it.

That's all that happened.

Youtube has agreements and safe harbor to help it deal with pirated material. The Escapist does not. But since you want to relate everything to everything else, I suppose such a concept is lost upon you.

If people don't buy music, it hurts the industry.

But according to you, its is perfectly justified, acceptable, and morally ok. Got it.

Of course, some record companies are putting their own material onto youtube for free.

Some!?! Ever heard of VEVO?

But the vast majority of music on youtube is piracy.

So many facts and sources to back that up! Just like a typical pirate :)

The most stupid fucking part about all of this is that I don't have an issue with people who pirate. I have pirated a decent chunk of stuff myself. I will not lie.

But you know what i won't do? I won't drop to your pathetic level. I won't try and convince myself that what I do is alright. I won't try and tell myself that I am "screwing The Man" and "sticking it to the greedy media companies". I won't say "oh, he's made plenty off this, it's ok for me to do this". I won't say "oh, what if I don't like it, I don't want to pay for it if that's the case".

I will say "fuck this shit, I want it for free". Pirates need to grow some fucking balls. I remember back in the day when piracy only happened on the IRC DCC networks. Pirates were just as spineless then as they are now, but at least back then they didn't pretend that every single one of them was a fucking messiah or political crusader leading an attack on "outdated copyright law".

Fucking. Pathetic.

Abedeus:

LiquidSolstice:
I don't understand why the fuck people think pirates would stop if their self-justification doesn't hold up. I could tell you it's morally wrong and illegal, but you wouldn't listen.

And I wouldn't blame you one bit. I don't have an issue with people claiming to pirate. As long as you never think what you're doing is in anyway justified, I don't take issue with it (because there's just too many people to combat if I do).

Problem is, I have no way of buying half of the Nintendo DS games that comes out nowadays. Every retail store I've visited (and we have no DS-focused stores in my town, probably in my country there's a handful) has some shit like Nintendogs or puzzle games for children. I think only Pokemon somehow avoided it, but even then it's freshly after release.

I remember when I bought GBA and wanted to buy some Megaman Zero or Battle Network, or one of the older Pokemon games, or Zelda...

Nope. I had a choice between Bomberman and Mario.

You didn't have online retailers to hunt from? Look, I'm not saying I don't sympathize with you, nor am I saying "don't pirate it". I'm just telling you that the above is not justification for piracy. Perhaps it's a reason why you did, no doubt. But it's definitely not justification.

I don't know the exact wording of the law(s) in question, so I can't speek for it. Morally, however, this is one of a very small number of times I would say okay to pirating a game. What I've always believed is that if a game can be legally purchased in your area, then piracy is not allowed. If it cannot be obtained any other way or in a language you don't understand only, like Mother 3 for those who don't speek/read japanesse, then I'm willing to to say okay to that.

It's still illegal but from what I've heard from many developers in interviews regarding piracy they generally hint that they don't mind so long as you legitimately do not have the means to obtain their game any other way.

Game developers can be some pretty cool dudes.

And no, this isn't me condoning piracy, just repeating what I've read in interviews.

Well hell, they obviously didn't want my money in the first place. Not like they're losing profit.

If the there's no legal way to get a game, I think it's perfectly fine to pirate it. If the developer or publisher didn't do anything to make it available to you, that's money that they didn't care enough to try to make, and so pirating it is not hurting them and at the very least you are trying to appreciate their work which might be more than they deserve. Of course it's illegal, but since when has something being legal automatically made it moral. It used to legal to own slaves in America, the law is not and never has been the last word on what is actually ethical, no matter what country and what laws you are talking about.

coolbeans21:
I dont understand the point you are making, because developers/publishers lose money through a legitimate channel (used sales) We should all accept that piracy is fine and they lose no money from it?

Not my point at all. People equate piracy to theft because it deprives people of money. Used games sales do the exact same thing, but in a different way, yet it is not considered theft. Piracy is as much like theft as used games sales are theft. Neither are actually theft. One is capitalism, the other is copyright infringement. That was the point I was making. It's like saying ur and you are are the same thing because they sound the same. They're not. One is two letters, the other is two words.

Devs and publishers have to live with used sales, as its legal, they can do things to impinge them (day1dlc for new copies, online passes etc) But the end of the day its something they have to accept.

Piracy they do not have to roll over and take though, as it, unlike used sales, is not permited under law.

But it's not something that they're rolling over and accepting. Instead they've resorted to making DLC that's free day one with software purchased new, but you have to pay for used (and sometimes pushing the price of a used game to more than a new game). Free online passes to new games, but you have to pay for if you get the game used, once again making the used game cost more than the new. They're not accepting the losses, they're trying to break the market that is providing competitive prices.

You also missed the point that although used games do not help the industry, they do help the economy. Piracy only benefits the pirate as he thinks he's entitled to things without paying for them.

As to the point about piracies benefits, perhaps if all people were like you andbought the game or music, then fine, however they are not and its naive to think that they are, the vast majority of pirates are scum who like to take things for free.

Piracy doesn't always benefit the pirate. I'm going to go old school with this one. If I were the unproud owner of Superman 64, I would have wished someone would have pirated it before I bought it so they could tell me that it was a steaming pile of dog shit. On the flip side I've also bought games on the recommendation of a pirate (hello Unreal Tournament).

How many people who pirate the game "just to see what its like" delete it straight away when they realise its not great, I imagine the majority think "don't want to pay for it, but might as well play it, i mean i went to the trouble of downloading it after all"

I could borrow the game from a friend or rent it. I'm still not paying for it, but I'm playing it anyway. Yes, I realize that both of those situations are legal (well, borrowing from a friend is shaky legal ground). Think of piracy as borrowing from a friend you haven't met yet!

Gaming is a luxury, people don't have a right to demo the entire thing before they decide if its "worth it" in their opinion, if the publisher doesn't offer a demo, then the options are to wait for reviews, take a chance on it or not buy it.

I agree, gaming is a luxury. With my financial situation, I can't really take chances on games and hope they're good. I also distrust many publications' employees, and am very cautious about their reviews. I mean, it's hard to make informed purchases of XBox 360 games when the only reviewers I trust work for Nintendo Power. On the flip side, it shouldn't be harder to install/run legally obtained software than it is pirated software (I'm looking at you Portal).

FelixG:

Nu-Hir:
I love the "Piracy is stealing because it deprives people (developers/publishers) of money!" You know what, so does heading down to your local GameStop and buying used, but people don't equate that to stealing. "But that's different, you paid GameStop for the game!" Yes, but I also paid my ISP for my bandwidth, paid a computer retailer for my HDD, possibly even paid that same retailer for optical media to burn it to a CD/DVD/BD.

You know, I really like that comparison.

I payed my ISP to download the game, you payed gamestop to give you the used game. Same thing, but I pay my ISP a monthly charge.

(Note to mods: That is an editorial I, not meaning I personally download games)

I demand royalties!

Nu-Hir:

FelixG:

Nu-Hir:
I love the "Piracy is stealing because it deprives people (developers/publishers) of money!" You know what, so does heading down to your local GameStop and buying used, but people don't equate that to stealing. "But that's different, you paid GameStop for the game!" Yes, but I also paid my ISP for my bandwidth, paid a computer retailer for my HDD, possibly even paid that same retailer for optical media to burn it to a CD/DVD/BD.

You know, I really like that comparison.

I payed my ISP to download the game, you payed gamestop to give you the used game. Same thing, but I pay my ISP a monthly charge.

(Note to mods: That is an editorial I, not meaning I personally download games)

I demand royalties!

Demand all you like! I is pirating your words! MWAHAHAHA

coolbeans21:
I cited the benefit to the economy as its the only benefit of the used games industry, some people insist that because used games exist and games companies lose money this way then, there is no issue with piracy, that they are the same thing, despite the fact one is legal, and has this marginal benefit and the other is illegal and benefits noone but the pirate.

I assume by some people you mean me. I'm not saying there's isn't an issue with piracy, nor am I saying used games sales and piracy are the same thing. I'm saying they're both home runs (for the consumer), it just depends on which side of the foul pole you're on.

The used game market gives marginal benefit to the consumer (slight price reduction), zero benefit to publishers (lost sales), and major benefit to the middle man (one copy of a game has the potential to be sold multiple times, profiting each time). Piracy gives major benefit to the consumer (free game), marginal benefit to the publisher (word of mouth for the game), and zero to the middle man.

It's funny that used games sales have the same outcome as piracy, just with the benefits being shifted around. The only reason it isn't demonized as much is due to it's legality. Both are different sides to the same coin. If I had the choice of pirating or buying used, I'll almost always chose pirate, because if I get a game, I want to support its makers. I really only buy used if that's the only way I'll find a copy (Where are you PSO for Gamecube!).

coolbeans21:
I couldn't care less about the specifics of copyright law, they have never impacted my life in a significant way, possibly because I buy my games.

That's like saying, "I couldn't care less about the specifics of the PATRIOT Act, it has never impacted my life in a significant way, possibly because I'm not a terrorist."

This specific case is completely justified in my opinion. As far as Nintendo is concerned, you shouldn't even be able to buy this game, therefore pirating it couldn't possibly count as a 'lost sale'. In my opinion this also extends to older games that have left store shelves ages ago and are incredibly hard to find (or play without an emulator, because they got released on a crappy and rare console like the Sega CD or Philips CD-i).

However, if you really liked the game and eventually it somehow does get localized and released in your region, you should buy it in my opinion. I did the same with Chrono Trigger and will also do so if Earthbound or Mother 3 would ever get a release in Europe.

Nu-Hir:

coolbeans21:
I cited the benefit to the economy as its the only benefit of the used games industry, some people insist that because used games exist and games companies lose money this way then, there is no issue with piracy, that they are the same thing, despite the fact one is legal, and has this marginal benefit and the other is illegal and benefits noone but the pirate.

I assume by some people you mean me. I'm not saying there's isn't an issue with piracy, nor am I saying used games sales and piracy are the same thing. I'm saying they're both home runs (for the consumer), it just depends on which side of the foul pole you're on.

The used game market gives marginal benefit to the consumer (slight price reduction), zero benefit to publishers (lost sales), and major benefit to the middle man (one copy of a game has the potential to be sold multiple times, profiting each time). Piracy gives major benefit to the consumer (free game), marginal benefit to the publisher (word of mouth for the game), and zero to the middle man.

I didnt mean to single out just you, its a prevelant attitude among the pro piracy crowd, I guess I come down on the side of the foul pole that doesn't mean breaking the law. THe word of mouth from piracy is very marginal, possibly because it runs something like this

"dude this game is sweet, you should totally pirate it"

Nu-Hir:
It's funny that used games sales have the same outcome as piracy, just with the benefits being shifted around. The only reason it isn't demonized as much is due to it's legality. Both are different sides to the same coin. If I had the choice of pirating or buying used, I'll almost always chose pirate, because if I get a game, I want to support its makers. I really only buy used if that's the only way I'll find a copy (Where are you PSO for Gamecube!).

The reason it isn't demonized as much is because it is legal, the only argument is the ethical one, should you support an industry you love or not.

Nu-Hir:

coolbeans21:
I couldn't care less about the specifics of copyright law, they have never impacted my life in a significant way, possibly because I buy my games.

That's like saying, "I couldn't care less about the specifics of the PATRIOT Act, it has never impacted my life in a significant way, possibly because I'm not a terrorist."

The patriot act has never impacted my life because Im not an American, I wouldn;t quite put that piece of extremist legislation on a par with copyright law.

Pirates have to stop seeing themselves as crusaders against the big companies and accept that they just want to take stuff for free.

edit (I didn't see you other post)

You can't honestly say lending to a friend or renting a single copy or a game is the same as seeding it to thousands upon thousands thats just mental.

I sympathise with the financial situation, I've been there, but as you agree that gaming is a luxury, it doesn't grant the right to break the law, its not like stealing bread to feed a starving family.

Even if you distrust Proffesional reviews, You're part of a world spanning community with the internet, you should be able to garner a good enough idea of the quality of a game through word of mouth, asking peeps on forums, without having to pirate it.

What if you pirate it and the games only ok in your opinion, nothing special, good enough to pass the hours, you get some enjoyment from it. Would you really go pay money for it? Do those developers deserve nothing, you got a couple of hours fun from it, they got nothing for their work.

zidine100:

IWCAS:
I've never really thought about that. I'd like to play the Higurashi no Naku Koro ni games...

i thought there was a translated download verson over at mangagamer that would work.

I'm not sure man, I didn't look incredibly hard for one. I figured it was hopeless. My computer would probably kill itself anyways; It's like 8 years old and won't even run Minecraft. Maybe when I get a new computer I'll try looking for it or something. Buuuuut, I'll be getting a Mac so I'm not sure if that'll hinder me getting a download of it or not. We'll see I guess.

Also, I found a ps2 translated version, but I still had to import it from Japan which costs like 11 million and a half dollars.

LiquidSolstice:

Abedeus:

LiquidSolstice:
I don't understand why the fuck people think pirates would stop if their self-justification doesn't hold up. I could tell you it's morally wrong and illegal, but you wouldn't listen.

And I wouldn't blame you one bit. I don't have an issue with people claiming to pirate. As long as you never think what you're doing is in anyway justified, I don't take issue with it (because there's just too many people to combat if I do).

Problem is, I have no way of buying half of the Nintendo DS games that comes out nowadays. Every retail store I've visited (and we have no DS-focused stores in my town, probably in my country there's a handful) has some shit like Nintendogs or puzzle games for children. I think only Pokemon somehow avoided it, but even then it's freshly after release.

I remember when I bought GBA and wanted to buy some Megaman Zero or Battle Network, or one of the older Pokemon games, or Zelda...

Nope. I had a choice between Bomberman and Mario.

You didn't have online retailers to hunt from? Look, I'm not saying I don't sympathize with you, nor am I saying "don't pirate it". I'm just telling you that the above is not justification for piracy. Perhaps it's a reason why you did, no doubt. But it's definitely not justification.

I refuse to pay for a game 150% of the retail price because the publisher didn't bother releasing it in any major store in my country.

Choice here is very easy - pirate or not play at all. There is no "you could buy it". When game costs $30 and shipping is $15+, there's something wrong.

It's kind of pointless to discuss piracy on a forum where you get banned if you admit to pirate games.

Yar har fiddle dee dee
Being a pirate is alright with me
DO WHAT YOU WANT cause A PIRATE IS FREE

YOU. ARE. A PIRATE.

LiquidSolstice:
Right, but the 5 year old would know that it's wrong

Not if they're a sensible 5 year old that knows better.

LiquidSolstice:
Oh boy, here come the strawmans.

That's not a strawman. You said, "you don't get to enjoy media you don't pay for". Radio is listening to music without paying for it.

If you don't actually believe or want to make a claim like "you don't get to enjoy something without buying it", don't make it.

Also, music is copyrighted, just like video games. Pirating music is not different than pirating video games. It doesn't make a bit of difference whether it's possible to play video games over the radio or not.

LiquidSolstice:
So pirating a game is the same as playing it at a friend's house?

No, but it's the same as playing something without buying it. I said nothing about pirating a game being the same as playing it at a friend's house. This was a part of a rebuttal to the statement, "you don't get to play it if you don't buy it".

Again, if you don't want people to discuss and argue against claims like that, don't make them.

LiquidSolstice:
No, we're actyually back to the same fucking stupid arguments that pirate apologists use all the time.

The arguments for piracy are logically founded. Not all of them are, but the combined moral assessments of the issue lie in favor of pro-piracy, not anti-piracy. I have never seen an anti-piracy argument that was logically sound. And you're certainly not bringing one to the table.

LiquidSolstice:
outdated sharing concepts

What on earth are you talking about?

LiquidSolstice:
Telling people what they already know is ordering them around?

They don't "know" this, there's no reason for them to "know this", because it's a ridiculous and untrue claim.

LiquidSolstice:
Well fuck. Here I was thinking that you need to have money to buy something was something everyone learned.

Piracy isn't buying or stealing. It is downloading copyrighted content. Or rather, sometimes broadly enough defined as any copyright infringement.

LiquidSolstice:
Spoken like a true fucking pirate. Good job, sir. Good job.

Good job just responding to someone you disagree with, with sarcasm. Instead of making any kind of rebuttal.

I actually don't pirate video games. I have enough money and desire to buy every game I play. But I do have an immense and well earned respect for file sharing and the spread of information. So to say I'm speaking like a "true pirate" is a wonderful complement. File sharers are often fairly selfless people who spend thousands of dollars out of their own pockets, to share various copyrighted media, when they could have just kept it to themselves. With no other benefit from the action of spending all this money, than knowing they did the right thing.

From what I can tell from your posts here, they're deserving of respect a lot more than you.

LiquidSolstice:
Yes, I am wrong for telling you not to bypass the price tag on something.

Yes, you are.

LiquidSolstice:
....what!?! A. There is a price tag. B. You ignored the price tag.

Charging a price for something, does not mean that it should not be copied. Or that is it wrong to seek a free avenue to attain it.

LiquidSolstice:
emotional speeches

No I haven't. And you're really one to talk, given your emotional tirades of outrage against piracy that amount to telling people what they can and can't do, instead of why.

LiquidSolstice:
"you can't tell me what to do NYAH NYAH NYAH".

That's not an argument for piracy I'm making. That's an argument against your authoritative downtalking as an argument instead of logical reasoning. Instead of telling why you believe that piracy is immoral, you tell people what to do. This is becoming a very old and sad form of argument by anti-pirates.

LiquidSolstice:
That was so fucking stupid I don't even know how to get my head around it.

I think you should tone down on calling claims other people make "stupid".

LiquidSolstice:
B, did you really just fucking that illegal ways to play it for free are still morally correct?

Of course, something being illegal does not mean it is immoral.

LiquidSolstice:
Wow. I thought you were just a generic pirate.

Calling someone a pirate is not an insult. File sharers are filled with many great people who spend thousand of dollars on things, just so they can give them away.

LiquidSolstice:
Yeah! Fuck my sense of twisted morality. How DARE I suggest it is wrong to circumvent payment for something that is meant to be paid for so blatantly.

Cars are meant to be paid for, that doesn't mean we shouldn't copy them and protect scarcity.

Why does something having a price tag, mean it shouldn't be copied and used for free? A house has a price tag on it, and if someone invents some kind of "copy-gun" that allows you to quickly copy an entire house, it will allow you to circumvent the price tag of that house. But that doesn't mean it's immoral. It was "meant to be paid for", but that doesn't mean it necessarily should only be used when paid for, and kept scarce.

LiquidSolstice:
So, by your logic, then nothing is worth anything because you previously said all video game piracy is justified and moral. Got it.

This isn't a response to the words you quoted. And I don't even know where you pulled this argument from. Also, as I stated before, I think anything worth of any value is worth copying. If something is not worth endlessly copying, it is worthless. And it's value is only artificially created due to scarcity. Like gold or diamonds. Gold and diamonds aren't as valuable as many pieces of art, is they are possible to copy. Their value is thus much weaker. If you could copy Gold, the more you copied it, the less valuable it would be, because most of the point of gold is in it's scarcity. If you could copy gold, there would be hardly any need to copy it, aside from the uses gold actually has(like various electronic components).

If something is not worthy copying, it is honestly not worth buying. Especially if it is possible to copy it.

LiquidSolstice:
You realize YouTube has tons of privacy agreements in place to combat or adapt to the pirated nature? I once uploaded the final clip of "Religilous" and using digital fingerprinting, they knew what it was/ Lionsgate sent me a YouTube message saying a copyright notice will be posted on my video page and I won't be able to embed it.

So you're now admitting to piracy, after all that unjustified disrespect towards them?

LiquidSolstice:
But according to you, its is perfectly justified, acceptable, and morally ok. Got it.

I didn't say I agree with people not buying music. I said I understand piracy, or file sharing, as morally correct. I understand that piracy increases sales, not decreases it. Piracy is largely a hobby of those who are emotionally invested in media, and statistics show that heavy to pirate means heavy to buy. And that most pirates spend more money on media than non-pirates.

Piracy disappears, interest and investment goes down, and sales go down. As someone who wants sales of media to remain healthy, I am grateful for piracy because it increases sales. The worst thing a media can ever be for sales, is irrelevant.

LiquidSolstice:
I won't drop to your pathetic level.

And I buy ever single video game I play. But I won't drop to the level of claiming that piracy is wrong or morally unjustified. When there is no logical basis for it.

I spend hundreds of dollars per month on video games. I've no need to pirate them. But I understand the value of piracy.

And this whole thing of arguing that something is wrong, because "you're just trying to justify YOURSELF" is illogical, and another argument far too often used by anti-pirates. It's no better than calling people for marijuana legalization, and pro-marijuana folks of being "druggies", who are just trying to "legitimize" their bad habit. You don't have to be a marijuana user to be for the legalization and recreational use of it, and you don't have to be a pirate to be pro-piracy.

LiquidSolstice:
I won't try and convince myself that what I do is alright.

If you think it's wrong, then you shouldn't do it.

LiquidSolstice:
I will say "fuck this shit, I want it for free". Pirates need to grow some fucking balls.

That's an incredibly sexist phrase and I hate it.

And you're just being anti-intellectual about an issue with a lot of intellectual merit worth discussing. And you shouldn't ever think like that. You are attacking maturity itself about the issue, and adherence to morals. If you do not think that something is moral, you should not do it, if you think it is, you should. Just because many pro-pirates have maturity about the issue and interest in the ethics/morals about the issue on an intellectual level, does not make them inferior. If anything, the people who are pro-piracy that pirate, should spend less time pirating, and more time talking about the issue.

Nah, it's no lost sale. Victimless.

Thoric485:

Hey, look, Ubisoft designed a bench!

Is this relevant to the topic at all, in any form? Let me answer that: nope.
Seems to me you just found a funny(?) video and wanted to share it and make a stab at Ubisoft without any actual relevance.

OT: It's their game and they own the rights to it. If they decide you can't have their game, then you can't have their game. Simple as that.
So yes, it's wrong to do that. Go play another game and forget about it.

I want stuff that I can't get too. So I deal with it and move on. You can't have everything you want, especially if what you want is copyrighted.

I treat it like I'd treat anime.

There is a ton of anime out there in Japan. 90% of it will never leave the country.

Anime that's been licensed in your country should be honored and purchased.

Anime that has not been licensed in your country can be acquired through fan-sub with no legal bearing. *

Anime that has been fan-subbed, but is also licensed in your country should be honored and purchased.

After acquiring a fan-subbed copy of an anime that was later licensed, it is typically fair to buy the legit version if you are fond of the anime and wish to support those that made it.

* The fact that it has no legal bearing all corresponds to your country not having the item for purchase. However this only stands in 'fair-game' use if it is translated by fans for fans, and given for free to those in countries not with-standing to the license agreement. If you go out and seek/buy bootlegged items, direct rips, or rip the item yourself and sell it to others to turn a profit, it is illegal and morally wrong.

So therefore, if you are certain no one is going to buy the license to this game and it is being fan-subbed/translated for free, it is okay to acquire. However, before you do - if you feel so morally unsteady on the issue - check common JRPG contractors to see if they have plans to buy (or have already bought) the rights to the game for the US. I mean, the last two years have been crazy for Japan. They've been saying left and right that certain games will never make it to international shores... And then you find that Nintendo decided to bring over stuff like Last Story after all. Level 5 has been playing a particularly grand part in bringing stranded DS games to other parts of the world.

That and there's always a 2 to 3 year gap between Japan release and the release to other nations. This goes for almost everything, including games, anime, and manga. Stuff's expensive to translate, dub, and all that stuff - especially games with heavy dialogue like jrpgs.

Sorry Lilithslave, I'll jump into your discussion with liquidsolstice, if you don't mind.

LilithSlave:
That's not a strawman. You said, "you don't get to enjoy media you don't pay for". Radio is listening to music without paying for it.

Listening to the radio is in no way like piracy, Artists/labels receive payment for music played on the radio, and in my country at least, I pay a TV/radio license each year which gives me permission to listen to music on the radio.

LilithSlave:

LiquidSolstice:
....what!?! A. There is a price tag. B. You ignored the price tag.

Charging a price for something, does not mean that it should not be copied. Or that is it wrong to seek a free avenue to attain it.

What right do pirates have to break the law, charging a price for something absolutely means it should not be copied, the creators of the content have decided on the worth of the creation, its not for anyone to ignore this. If you disagree with the assigned worth of the creation then do not partake in it.

LilithSlave:

LiquidSolstice:
"you can't tell me what to do NYAH NYAH NYAH".

That's not an argument for piracy I'm making. That's an argument against your authoritative downtalking as an argument instead of logical reasoning. Instead of telling why you believe that piracy is immoral, you tell people what to do. This is becoming a very old and sad form of argument by anti-pirates.

Personally I believe piracy is immoral, I believe that content creators should be paid for their time and effort, I believe that laws should be upheld, until I hear cold hard statistics that PROVE that piracy aids an IP as you claim I will continue to believe this.

LilithSlave:

LiquidSolstice:
B, did you really just fucking that illegal ways to play it for free are still morally correct?

Of course, something being illegal does not mean it is immoral.

In most cases it does though, I don't believe the exceptions include piracy.

LilithSlave:

LiquidSolstice:
Wow. I thought you were just a generic pirate.

Calling someone a pirate is not an insult. File sharers are filled with many great people who spend thousand of dollars on things, just so they can give them away.

It is not the filesharers right to decide that they can operate outside of the law and wishes of the content creator.

LilithSlave:

Cars are meant to be paid for, that doesn't mean we shouldn't copy them and protect scarcity.

Why does something having a price tag, mean it shouldn't be copied and used for free? A house has a price tag on it, and if someone invents some kind of "copy-gun" that allows you to quickly copy an entire house, it will allow you to circumvent the price tag of that house. But that doesn't mean it's immoral. It was "meant to be paid for", but that doesn't mean it necessarily should only be used when paid for, and kept scarce.

You can't bring imaginary "copy guns" into this debate, because when you do the entirety of our economy collapses, why would I create anything when within minutes it can be copied and
I receive nothing for it.

LilithSlave:

If something is not worthy copying, it is honestly not worth buying. Especially if it is possible to copy it.

If everything is copied for free then nothing will be created, games developers are not creating these things for the sake of art, they are doing it to be paid for it.

LilithSlave:

I didn't say I agree with people not buying music. I said I understand piracy, or file sharing, as morally correct. I understand that piracy increases sales, not decreases it. Piracy is largely a hobby of those who are emotionally invested in media, and statistics show that heavy to pirate means heavy to buy. And that most pirates spend more money on media than non-pirates.

Piracy disappears, interest and investment goes down, and sales go down. As someone who wants sales of media to remain healthy, I am grateful for piracy because it increases sales. The worst thing a media can ever be for sales, is irrelevant.

Can you provide some evidence that piracy increases sales, One of my collegues is a prolific pirate, more so than anyone I have ever met, he is not heavy to pirate, heavy to buy, he hasn't paid for a movie or game in the four years I have known him, yet feels entitled to all the latest releases, this is despite the fact he could easily afford to buy them, not one of the guys I went to uni with, who downloaded more music than you could listen to in a lifetime have purchased a cd or paid for an itunes download.

Vegosiux:

targren:

No one but you said it was personal. They opted not to make it available where he could purchase it, and made it so the only way to obtain the game would be illegal.

They only opted not to make it available where it would be most convenient for him to purchase it.

The opted also not to make it in his language. That's a pretty clear indication that they don't want anyone who can't read Japanese to play that game.

You shouldn't have to pirate the game or even use an emulator. I bought Fatal Frame for the Wii and then the translation patch and I run it on my Wii. I don't need a ROM. I just put in the disc. The technology for it is open source and available to any other backyard translators. Subverting region restrictions, though construed as a crime in some 'free countries' is not in mine, and therefore I have never felt that the lack of domestic version is reason enough to pirate. That goes for DVDs, HD DVDs, Blu Rays and CDs, though the latter has no region restrictions. ANd for movies which didn't have English subs, I just downloaded soft subs from the Net and added them in realtime with my PC player.

And no, the developers are not saying, by the lack of release, that they don't want you to play. Of course they Want you to. The issue is entirely financial and resource lack.

Sandytimeman:

The opted also not to make it in his language. That's a pretty clear indication that they don't want anyone who can't read Japanese to play that game.

Yes, I'm sure that's exactly the reason it's not been released outside Japan. They just wanted to give a big middle finger to anyone who can't read Japanese! Yeah, that's it.

...seriously.

Could we knock off this nonsensical talk about developers "not wanting someone to get their game"? You know, I can't read Japanese very well, but I still managed to get through a few games in Japanese back on SNES. Hah! TAKE THAT, NINTENDO!

Vegosiux:

Sandytimeman:

The opted also not to make it in his language. That's a pretty clear indication that they don't want anyone who can't read Japanese to play that game.

Yes, I'm sure that's exactly the reason it's not been released outside Japan. They just wanted to give a big middle finger to anyone who can't read Japanese! Yeah, that's it.

...seriously.

Could we knock off this nonsensical talk about developers "not wanting someone to get their game"? You know, I can't read Japanese very well, but I still managed to get through a few games in Japanese back on SNES. Hah! TAKE THAT, NINTENDO!

But did it have the same experience of playing through it to the point where you could understand whats going on? Would Final Fantasy 3 (6 in Japan) have been as touching and moving if you had no idea what was going on? No it wouldn't have been.

Nintendo isn't playing the bad guy on purpose there just isn't enough interest in those games to warrant a release outside of Japan. Even when hundreds of thousands of people petition to have it sold in their country, I'd assume sometimes its just not profitable to translate a game for just a few hundred thousand sales.

In said case, what I would do to make things ethically right is buy the game. IE import it. And then download the version with the user created translation.

coolbeans21:
What right do pirates have to break the law, charging a price for something absolutely means it should not be copied, the creators of the content have decided on the worth of the creation, its not for anyone to ignore this. If you disagree with the assigned worth of the creation then do not partake in it.

If one wishes to recieve monetary compensation for the use of their creation that is fair enough. The moral grey area comes from the fact that a potential customer might be prepared to pay this compensation but is not provided with a way to do so. So by pirating this creation the pirate has not denied the creator anything.
Of course if a way of paying for this content was provided at a later date the pirate would be morally obliged to use it.

coolbeans21:
Personally I believe piracy is immoral, I believe that content creators should be paid for their time and effort, I believe that laws should be upheld, until I hear cold hard statistics that PROVE that piracy aids an IP as you claim I will continue to believe this.

If the creator of something decides that there will be a charge to use it, is it not up to them to ensure that people who wish to use it have the oppotunity to pay the charge? Labeling something "piracy" and making it immoral by default is all well and good but such rigid and narrow focused rules are rarely applicable to each individual situation.

I'll give you an example. I watch an anime called Bleach every week, fansubbed. I have done so for a few years now and each time I have watched it has technically been piracy. However I purchase each English release of the Bleach DVD's as soon as I notice them come out. Is it truly immoral that I watch the programme every week? knowing that in the future, when the opportunity is provided, I will legitimately pay for my viewing pleasure.

LilithSlave:
Of course, something being illegal does not mean it is immoral.

coolbeans21:
In most cases it does though, I don't believe the exceptions include piracy.

The law should follow morality though, not the other way round. If the general populace's attitudes towards piracy and intellectual property have changed then the law should change to accomodate that.

coolbeans21:
You can't bring imaginary "copy guns" into this debate, because when you do the entirety of our economy collapses, why would I create anything when within minutes it can be copied and
I receive nothing for it.

And yet the majority of the world's servers are run on a linux based operating system.

It has been proved that an open source business model can work with often better results than the conventional models. Economies are a fluid and ever changing thing that ultimately humankind controls, not the other way round and any effects that the economy would feel from open source business' are easily dealt with and temporary.

coolbeans21:
If everything is copied for free then nothing will be created, games developers are not creating these things for the sake of art, they are doing it to be paid for it.

Is that really true though? It's kind of a chicken and egg situation, but what comes first, the desire to create an engaging, exciting, involving game, or the desire to make money by doing so?
I myself have fantasised many a time about the game I would make with unlimited money and resources, but not about making a game that would provide me with money and resources.

In fact when I think about it, I get the feeling that truly creative and innovative games, such as Minecraft are created with monetary gain as a secondary concern. Where as the cash cows like COD, that are actively damaging to industry creativity and innovation seem to have money as the one and only concern.

Then charge 50$ for the game, and 10$ for the code. They already did this with ME 2.

They're not trying to stop piracy, or recoup costs, with this method. They're trying to generate extra profit.

fish games

Smeatza:

coolbeans21:
What right do pirates have to break the law, charging a price for something absolutely means it should not be copied, the creators of the content have decided on the worth of the creation, its not for anyone to ignore this. If you disagree with the assigned worth of the creation then do not partake in it.

If one wishes to recieve monetary compensation for the use of their creation that is fair enough. The moral grey area comes from the fact that a potential customer might be prepared to pay this compensation but is not provided with a way to do so. So by pirating this creation the pirate has not denied the creator anything.
Of course if a way of paying for this content was provided at a later date the pirate would be morally obliged to use it.

coolbeans21:
Personally I believe piracy is immoral, I believe that content creators should be paid for their time and effort, I believe that laws should be upheld, until I hear cold hard statistics that PROVE that piracy aids an IP as you claim I will continue to believe this.

If the creator of something decides that there will be a charge to use it, is it not up to them to ensure that people who wish to use it have the oppotunity to pay the charge? Labeling something "piracy" and making it immoral by default is all well and good but such rigid and narrow focused rules are rarely applicable to each individual situation.

I'll give you an example. I watch an anime called Bleach every week, fansubbed. I have done so for a few years now and each time I have watched it has technically been piracy. However I purchase each English release of the Bleach DVD's as soon as I notice them come out. Is it truly immoral that I watch the programme every week? knowing that in the future, when the opportunity is provided, I will legitimately pay for my viewing pleasure.

I'll admit the majority of my argument is aimed more at piracy in general, rather than the on topic discusion of pirating things not available in your country, I went off topic and its my bad, I feel strongly about piracy.

smeatza:

The law should follow morality though, not the other way round. If the general populace's attitudes towards piracy and intellectual property have changed then the law should change to accomodate that.

Its my view that in most cases the law does follow morality, The cases where it doesn't, generally have people campagning to change them.

I don't think the general populaces attitudes towards piracy have changed a great deal, if you feel they have and live in a democracy, you should run for office and attempt to change them working within the political system, not ignoring the laws in place because the are inconvenient.

smeatza:

coolbeans21:
You can't bring imaginary "copy guns" into this debate, because when you do the entirety of our economy collapses, why would I create anything when within minutes it can be copied and
I receive nothing for it.

And yet the majority of the world's servers are run on a linux based operating system.

It has been proved that an open source business model can work with often better results than the conventional models. Economies are a fluid and ever changing thing that ultimately humankind controls, not the other way round and any effects that the economy would feel from open source business' are easily dealt with and temporary.

I have no problem with an open source business model, However I feel its the creators choice as to whether or not their product becomes open souce, not a group of unregulated people who in their belief it would be better if everything was free.

smeatza:

coolbeans21:
If everything is copied for free then nothing will be created, games developers are not creating these things for the sake of art, they are doing it to be paid for it.

Is that really true though? It's kind of a chicken and egg situation, but what comes first, the desire to create an engaging, exciting, involving game, or the desire to make money by doing so?
I myself have fantasised many a time about the game I would make with unlimited money and resources, but not about making a game that would provide me with money and resources.

In fact when I think about it, I get the feeling that truly creative and innovative games, such as Minecraft are created with monetary gain as a secondary concern. Where as the cash cows like COD, that are actively damaging to industry creativity and innovation seem to have money as the one and only concern.

I believe it is true, gaming is a business. People may wish to go into gaming to create an engaging, exciting and involving game, but you can't live without money, no investment means no resources, and without these that exciting and involving game remains stuck in the realms of fantasy.

I stand by my point, even if these gamining creators would wish to create something for arts sake, they are going to need something to pay the bills, therefore they are going to need paying.

I think it's painfully obvious that (to put this respectfully), LilithSlave and I have very, very differing ideas as to what is right and what is wrong. I'm no coward, I won't run away from an argument, but I can't see this discussion becoming anything more than a back-and-forth slap-fest between the two of us. I don't think he(she?) is on the same level as I am on this topic (not vertically, horizontally-- that is to say, neither better, just highly different).

I think coolbeans21 seems to have nailed my stance on piracy as a whole.

Smeatza:
If one wishes to recieve monetary compensation for the use of their creation that is fair enough.

Evidently, it's not fair enough for some people.

The moral grey area comes from the fact that a potential customer might be prepared to pay this compensation but is not provided with a way to do so. So by pirating this creation the pirate has not denied the creator anything.
Of course if a way of paying for this content was provided at a later date the pirate would be morally obliged to use it.

I find this judgement to be acceptable, but if one cannot take the effort to attempt to purchase something legally, what guarantee or even good faith is there that said person will jump at the opportunity to purchase it?

If the creator of something decides that there will be a charge to use it, is it not up to them to ensure that people who wish to use it have the oppotunity to pay the charge? Labeling something "piracy" and making it immoral by default is all well and good but such rigid and narrow focused rules are rarely applicable to each individual situation.

Yet unfortunately, attempting to paint piracy in a good light by bringing up very niche examples such as regionally restricted material is also a narrow generalization.

I'll give you an example. I watch an anime called Bleach every week, fansubbed. I have done so for a few years now and each time I have watched it has technically been piracy. However I purchase each English release of the Bleach DVD's as soon as I notice them come out. Is it truly immoral that I watch the programme every week? knowing that in the future, when the opportunity is provided, I will legitimately pay for my viewing pleasure.

And this is the problem we inevitably keep coming to; there is no "knowing" anything. Money is a cold, hard, and proper statistic. The ambiguous and sometimes hypocritical (but ultimately unknown) idea of a fan's dedication to something does not translate.

The law should follow morality though, not the other way round. If the general populace's attitudes towards piracy and intellectual property have changed then the law should change to accomodate that.

Perhaps, but there are already many organizations attempting to do so. The fact that said organizations have not yet achieved their goal does not make it any more acceptable to continue piracy.

And yet the majority of the world's servers are run on a linux based operating system.

I don't understand how this is in any way relevant whatsoever? The fact you're most likely accessing a linux server is completely unrelated. You're accessing content on these servers. What operating system those servers run are almost never even noticed or cared about by content consumers.

It has been proved that an open source business model can work with often better results than the conventional models. Economies are a fluid and ever changing thing that ultimately humankind controls, not the other way round and any effects that the economy would feel from open source business' are easily dealt with and temporary.

This is a mix of opinion, wishful thinking, and incompatible reasoning. When was the last time you heard about a successful open-source game?

Is that really true though? It's kind of a chicken and egg situation, but what comes first, the desire to create an engaging, exciting, involving game, or the desire to make money by doing so?

This is an unfair question. Money has always been (and will always be in whatever form it comes in) the unquestioned form of compensation for a service or product. You don't need to tell your boss why you should be paid, right?

In fact when I think about it, I get the feeling that truly creative and innovative games, such as Minecraft are created with monetary gain as a secondary concern.

And yet there are legions of people out there (me included) who think Minecraft is not innovative or entertaining. Opinions on a game only bias your opinion on the development of future games (as you demonstrate below).

Where as the cash cows like COD, that are actively damaging to industry creativity and innovation seem to have money as the one and only concern.

I don't find this true. At all. I generally avoid those who criticize the CoD franchise mainly because of the poor reasoning behind it. While it's obvious Activision is very much aware of the potential money being made on their game series, I don't think money is there only concern. To this day, excepting Battlefield 3 and perhaps the Halo series (but even that is getting "eh"), I have yet to play a fast-paced, satisfying, and instantly-gratifying online shooter experience that matches the quality provided to me by the CoD series. The gameplay is tight, the rewards are constant, the balance appears to be more or less spot on (as opposed to other games; looking at you, 12G Frag Rounds from Battlefield 3). I have CoD Elite, but only because of the DLC benefits and the fact I purchased the Hardened edition (Which I will be honest, the material you get with the Hardened edition is quite possibly the most amazing and well done bit of CE material I have ever owned). Would I renew it? Probably not. Am I aware that many other people will and Activision is counting on it? Oh yeah.

I don't think it's "dragging the industry down", I believe the popularity of gaming in general (and it's dramatic increase over the past few years) is "dragging it down". Nowadays, it's about accessibility, not so much complexity and depth. One only needs to see how dramatically different Splinter Cell Conviction was from Splinter Cell Chaos Theory (a game which I regard today still as being one of the greatest games ever made).

I think it's easy to blame the popular crowd for what's happened to something you love, but I don't think it's the right thing to do.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked