You're assuming the person would actually buy the product in the first place, which is not true.

ThePlasmatizer:

Slycne:
Software piracy isn't stealing though it's illegal copying and distribution. It's simply not an analog to taking someones car, and the more we reach for these inane analogies the less we can have an intelligent discussion on the matter.

It's the same as stealing someone's car, the funny thing is all these inane analogies are true you just don't want to admit that what you are doing is stealing someones hard work and intellectual property.

If you bothered to read back through all the posts you would realize I am about as against software piracy as they come. Not even the law recognizes it as stealing and it's foolish to try to classify it as such because all you are doing is flame baiting instead of discussing. It's copyright infringement.

Slycne:
If you bothered to read back through all the posts you would realize I am about as against software piracy as they come. Not even the law recognizes it as stealing and it's foolish to try to classify it as such because all you are doing is flame baiting instead of discussing. It's copyright infringement.

I believe, regardless of it's influence on the conversation, that piracy is in fact stealing. A team of designers, artists, programmers, administrators etc work 3+ years, creating something in which they have great personal and professional investment. They do this for the purpose of creating a commercial product/experience to sell and make a living from. Pirates play the game, have the experience, but do not pay these people for their work. They have stolen from them.

Issues of incorporating their work into other works (Machinima, Mods etc.) is where copyright discussions make more sense.

Akafrank:

Slycne:
...

I believe, regardless of it's influence on the conversation, that piracy is in fact stealing. A team of designers, artists, programmers, administrators etc work 3+ years, creating something in which they have great personal and professional investment. They do this for the purpose of creating a commercial product/experience to sell and make a living from. Pirates play the game, have the experience, but do not pay these people for their work. They have stolen from them.

Issues of incorporating their work into other works (Machinima, Mods etc.) is where copyright discussions make more sense.

The crux is that it's illegal. Everything else is just arguing semantics and detracting from a discussion what software piracy does to the industry we all enjoy, good or bad.

One of the reasons why I am against software piracy and in favor of purchasing is to steer the market. If I buy a game then a developer knows they did something right, and they will continue to make games that I enjoy. One of the developers from Stardock puts it best

In the end, the pirates hurt themselves. PC game developers will either slowly migrate to making games that cater to the people who buy PC games or they'll move to platforms where people are more inclined to buy games. - http://draginol.joeuser.com/article/303512/Piracy_PC_Gaming

Slycne:
Because researching a major purchase is obviously out of the realm of reason. That's right everyone here who is advocating against piracy is a millionaire with more money then God, you caught us.

I haven't regretted a video game purchase for years now, and I never had to resort to downloading it to make a decision.

To further the discussion though

However, so far the arguments for piracy are not that it fosters innovation, or creates an environment that does. If this is the position you are taking, then I am genuinely interested in hearing that side of the debate.

For me, downloading it IS researching, unless you want me to shell out $50 on nothing but people's opinions?

THAT is out of the realm of reason.

If I don't like a game, I delete it without buying it, nothing gained or lost for either party. If I do like it, then I delete it and purchase it. It seems pretty reasonable to me.

While it's true that not all software pirates hold themselves to the same honor code, my point was that the OP's generalizations about pirates were incorrect.

(fun bit of trivia, have a look at my Steam account and see all the games I legitimately purchased, most of them after trying them first :) http://steamcommunity.com/id/9890 )

Here is my big question. Why is it that almost everyone justifies piracy because games are expensive? If I go into a store with 50 cents in my pocket and I see a chocolate bar I want that costs a buck why does it seem the general concensus through this (and other threads on this very topic) it is OK for me to steal it? I won't die if I don't get said chocolate bar. If I wait I might be able to get the bar for cheaper. And a worse case scenario is I'll have to save that 50 cents til I can afford the bar.

And I wouldn't define friedmetroid's scenario as piracy. There should be a demo for every game put out there since we are being charged upwards of 60 bucks a pop for alot of times poor games that are half finished. We consumers should have an opportunity to test out said product before we are stuck with our purchase with no chance of a refund.

Arr, arr, ahoy and avast!

Okay. So, first you get the ideas of other people. Then you convert that into a game. But don't fix it. No, just make it playable enough to be open for patches. There's your money.

FUCK. THAT.

Everybody wants their money from selling their shit, and there will be gigantic mark-ups everywhere. But who is screwed? The consumer is. Either the developer craps out a half baked game (Oh, hello there, almost 100% of the christmas releases. I -am- talking about you!) which you will have to buy at full price or the original minds get absorbed by the grey goop that is the bigger software house. WE. LOSE.

What's the use of keeping a game clutched to your chest when others could be enjoying it? Do you make games for your own enjoyment and others? Or for your own money and enjoyment?

ThePlasmatizer:

Answers.com

Definition

Stealing is taking another person's property without permission.

Wow--you looked up the definition of stealing at answers.com to make a point in a debate about property rights and digital goods. That reminds me of how they looked up 'money laundering' in _Office Space_ in the dictionary to find out how to do it.

Stealing is taking another person's property without permission or justification. Ever heard of eminent domain?

Akafrank:

I believe, regardless of it's influence on the conversation, that piracy is in fact stealing. A team of designers, artists, programmers, administrators etc work 3+ years, creating something in which they have great personal and professional investment. They do this for the purpose of creating a commercial product/experience to sell and make a living from. Pirates play the game, have the experience, but do not pay these people for their work. They have stolen from them.

Slycne:

The crux is that it's illegal. Everything else is just arguing semantics and detracting from a discussion what software piracy does to the industry we all enjoy, good or bad.

Another:
quick two bits.

If you are getting a stolen radio from a friend, is that wrong? Yes
If you are shoplifting, is that wrong? Yes

If you are playing music on your radio station and you don't compensate the performer, is that wrong? Well, whether it's wrong or not, it's not illegal--at least in the U.S.

That's right--since 1922 terrestrial radio has not had to compensate the performers of musical works of the records they play. So for all the people that have an issue with piracy, where's the concern about performance rights and terrestrial radio?

It's interesting to think about the fact that P2P file sharing takes no more advantage of a musical performer's rights than a radio station, isn't it? Or that a person can't even control the use of their own songs?

paulgruberman:

Ok, I think you've lost me. Your initial comparison involved ads and not watching them being a moral issue. My only issue was that it didn't seem to be a good comparison. Now we're on copying, but not just copying, copying with some sort of use. I'm not sure what the point is anymore, as it seems to have been moved on the way to where we're at. Can you restate what it is you're driving at?

It's not relevant--my TiVo question was geared towards someone with a different take on morality vs. legality in this area.

You're not the droid I was looking for ;-D

Oh, there's plenty of generalizations being passed around, and yes, they oversimplify the issues. However, so far the arguments for piracy are not that it fosters innovation, or creates an environment that does. If this is the position you are taking, then I am genuinely interested in hearing that side of the debate.

Kal Raustiala, a law professor at UCLA, suggested in the New Republic Online that, because much of the appeal of high fashion for those who are able to wear it is the mere fact that others can't, free copying may not be a bad thing for the industry. As Raustiala put it, "Once a style ends up on ordinary suburbanites getting on the 5:45 to Asbury Park, fashionistas want nothing to do with it. Indeed, they've already moved on-to the next look." The fact that cut-rate manufacturers can freely copy designs, the argument goes, reduces the time it takes for those highbrow designs to show up on the 5:45, which in turn makes early adopters move on to the next new thing. And the quick repetition of the cycle benefits all in the business.

I never pirate. I buy my video games (new, not used, but that's not relevant). I buy my software from the developers. I'll get Final Cut or Adobe software legally, no matter how expensive it is. I pay for all my music through iTunes, or buy the CDs.

Some call me a fool, but at least I'm a fool with clean record.

I've always found this debate an interesting one, and though I'll make an injection into the subject, know that my basic opinion is that piracy is wrong.

Now, if I go to a store and take a CD off the shelf, that's theft in the fact that I'm removing material that was previously owned by someone else. However, piracy is not the removal of any material object, and in fact nothing is technically lost on the side of the developer. Hear me out here.

If I were to have the ability to get the material and assemble it, I could make a computer that looks exactly like a Dell. Also, I could distribute it as long as it is free, with the only likely lawsuit against me being that I might be tarnishing Dell's name. No one in their right mind would call this theft, as nothing is taken from Dell. Now, the only argument I see is that music/games are theft due to one stealing intellectual property.

However, again, if I were to play music on my own instruments, and again only distribute this recreated music for free, it's unlikely that anyone would call this theft, regardless of how close it comes to the original. This is instead exclusively copying.

Since copying by nature is not theft, I don't see how piracy can (by technicality) be theft. Piracy is only the recreation of existing materials, not the removal of existing materials.

However, one could state that this may be against the original owners will, but I don't believe that the original owner has any say once they have sold their work. I'm allowed to do with my car what I please, and that is more than what's afforded with current laws forbidding the removal of DRM from bought software. So as is, it makes sense that the consumer fights back when their rights are hurt.

Now, to reiterate, I am not pro-piracy, I'm just putting forth some of my musings on the subject.

Prototype:

However, again, if I were to play music on my own instruments, and again only distribute this recreated music for free, it's unlikely that anyone would call this theft, regardless of how close it comes to the original. This is instead exclusively copying.

That's interesting. It makes me think of how no one would call it theft if they went to a restaurant and ate a dish, then copied it at home, even if they did so instead of going back to the restaurant.

Nobody Gives a Fuck, I'm Still not going to pay for Something that's Not physical. (Steam&What-not)

Ok, I've been aftsailed here for about a page... apologies if a few people get questions un-answered but I'm falling off my chair here from fatigue since it's in the middle of the night.

Let me just again re-iterate my opinion that I do not equal piracy to stealing. I see many others are doing it here... but I simply do not agree. If someone was to steal software from me, that would involve breaking into my computer, taking my code, erasing it from my system and somehow manage to transfer the owner rights of that code to themselves without my consent. Piracy is not that.

I am arguing that piracy is wrong because it is disrespectful to the owner's right to have final say-so over his own creation... that pirates act shameful when they say "I haev just decided that I am entitled to spread your software anywhere I see fit despite you having told me I must not do that".

The very same principle governs this as that say I cannot take your car for a spin without your permission, even if I do return it refueled when I'm done. The same principle that says I cannot walk into your house; eat your food; sleep in our bed; play on your computer; borrow your DVDs without your permission, even if I do return everything to its original state and you don't lose anything.

Yours & Mine, the principle that says: "Ask and get permission first before you use other people's stuff". We learn it as kids and we respect it in all other ways of life. Why shouldn't we do that with software?

/S

Any moral or altruistic values aside. If you want developers and publishers to dedicate more money, time and effort into protecting their work, if you want games to get more expensive, if you want fewer pc titles, if you want more invasive DRM's then piracy is definately the way to go.

Sayvara:

Yours & Mine, the principle that says: "Ask and get permission first before you use other people's stuff". We learn it as kids and we respect it in all other ways of life. Why shouldn't we do that with software?

Because you give permission to that software not because you think someone deserves it or not because you like that person or even because you think the world needs it--you give access to anyone who will pay. That means that you've decided to change your property from something personal to you or a form of charity into an article of commerce. When we learned it as kids we learned it as a reason not to take our playmate's toys without asking. There's a big difference between that kind of property and property that is a commercial product, just like there's a big difference between my property rights over my home as opposed to my office.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Sayvara:

Yours & Mine, the principle that says: "Ask and get permission first before you use other people's stuff". We learn it as kids and we respect it in all other ways of life. Why shouldn't we do that with software?

Because you give permission to that software not because you think someone deserves it or not because you like that person or even because you think the world needs it--you give access to anyone who will pay.

Assuming a software developer has no pride in what they do; has no sense of public good; and is only in it for the cash is an unfounded opinion at best... and at worst one that deserves as good a smack over the head as I can get you without being imprisoned for assault.

Yes it is true that we charge money for our work. But from own experience, I can tell you that what you said above is dead wrong... especially about me.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
That means that you've decided to change your property from something personal to you or a form of charity into an article of commerce. When we learned it as kids we learned it as a reason not to take our playmate's toys without asking. There's a big difference between that kind of property and property that is a commercial product, just like there's a big difference between my property rights over my home as opposed to my office.

This makes no sense what so ever. As kids, we most certainly learned that you don't stand and read the comic magazines without paying for them first. You cannot seriously be saying that we only have to respect personal property and as soon as it is offered for sale, or as a part of a purchase, then we don't have to respect it any more. That is just nonsense.
/S

Sayvara:

Assuming a software developer has no pride in what they do; has no sense of public good; and is only in it for the cash is an unfounded opinion at best...

Good thing it's not the opinion I expressed, but only a slanted caricature of it.

This makes no sense what so ever. As kids, we most certainly learned that you don't stand and read the comic magazines without paying for them first. You cannot seriously be saying that we only have to respect personal property and as soon as it is offered for sale, or as a part of a purchase, then we don't have to respect it any more. That is just nonsense.

Nope, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that while there are behaviors that are disrespectful towards property put up for sale, but would be if the object of those same behaviors was a piece of personal property. Just like we learned that it's disrespectful to yell 'bitch better bake me a pot pie' at both friends cooking for us and restaurant staff, but that it's not disrespectful to expect more from a restaurant staff in terms of service and quality because we're paying for it.

I think you're problem is that you see everyone as having the same kind of polarized view of issues that you do. If someone says that you "give access to anyone who will pay" you take that and turn it into 'the only reason you made it in the first place and the only connection you have with it is that you want to profit off of it' in your head. Just because you see the world in such extreme dichotomies doesn't mean we all do. If you're interested in learning why not everyone feels the same way about piracy as you do and not just ranting at people, you need to try harder to understand their thinking on their own terms.

That doesn't mean you can't disagree with their thinking, but it does mean for example that just because someone says 'There's a big difference between the property that is your playmate's toys and property that is a commercial product' you don't jump right to assuming that difference is something so polarized and so fitting with your stereotypes of people who defend piracy as 'the difference is one deserves respect and the other does not at all'. It should be clear to you by now that where you see black and white, other people see shades of gray.

What you need to understand is that they believe those shades of gray are sufficient for living up to the principle of Respect for Yours and Mine. You think they aren't sufficient. That's fine, but you need to take that person's shades of gray as they are, and not just treat them as if they are black or white and lump in 'commercial products deserve less respect' with 'commercial products deserve no respect' without showing why.

You need to decide if this post was a rant and you just want people to yell louder at each other, or if you want a dialog. If you want the latter, you need to start really trying to understand what the other side is saying, and refrain from exaggerating what people say in order to fit your arguments.

There seems to be an overriding theme in this thread that "people who download stuff would not have bought it anyway". Earlier in the month I downloaded Death Magnetic as I'm a big metallica fan. I downloaded it as I could listen to it 1 week before it was released, When it was released I bought the CD and I also bought the DLC for Guitar hero 3 So they got my money twice because I was able to preview their album and loved it. Where as I paid money for the first 2 linkin park albums but didn't bother with minutes to midnight after I downloaded it and found it had like 2 good songs.

Basically the pro developer people are saying "we should be able to sell you whatever shit we want and after you have given us the money to "own" a copy it still belongs to us cause your an untrustworthy cunt" If I buy something it's mine If I buy a car I can lend it to my friends to drive around sell it to who ever I want and add new wheels spoilers change the doors paint it a different colour if I want. So too bad if you created something, you sold it to me took my money it's mine.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Sayvara:

Cheeze_Pavilion:
Because you give permission to that software not because you think someone deserves it or not because you like that person or even because you think the world needs it--you give access to anyone who will pay.

Assuming a software developer has no pride in what they do; has no sense of public good; and is only in it for the cash is an unfounded opinion at best...

Good thing it's not the opinion I expressed, but only a slanted caricature of it.

Read what you wrote again. You excluded the possibility that I might be doing it both because of the public good and because I want to make a profit in the process. And looking back at one of my latest projects I was involved in, which involved taking part in the development and launch one of the first major DRM free music & software stores, I say your statement is flawed.

Sure there are those that only do it because they want to make a profit and couldn't care less about public good, nor of the customer experience. But I say that those are few and far between. Most developers have a sense of pride and wish to be genuinely deserving of the money they ask for the product.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
Just like we learned that it's disrespectful to yell 'bitch better bake me a pot pie' at both friends cooking for us and restaurant staff, but that it's not disrespectful to expect more from a restaurant staff in terms of service and quality because we're paying for it.

I have never argued against customer rights and that providing a product does not ential certain obligations on the producer's part. Nowhere in my arguments here will you find anything like that so why you are bringing it up I simply don't know.

And if you don't want me to polarize your arguments, perhaps you should be a bit clearer in your way of expressing yourself. And I think you should take a moment to read what I am saying and not make the very same kind of mistakes you say I do.

What I am discussing here is the breaches of principles that most people hold for granted in all other walks of like, i.e. the principle of respecting other people's property. Pirates assume they have some kind of moral right to ignore those principles. In a few cases, they are right, when the software owners are acting like unwashed cheezy pricks and not respecting customer rights. But in most cases the arguments to not carry enough weight to tip the scale back from the unfairness of stepping over other people's rights when it comes to their property.

- So the price was high: doesn't matter because you have no inaliable right to use my stuff.
- So I lanuched it late in your area: doesn't make it right because I'm not obliged to release it globally on teh same day.
- So you'd buy it if I bent over backwards for you: take your money and leave then because I don't want to bend that far right now. You still dont' get to use my stuff unless I give the OK.

Sure, there are things that producers could do better, even when they are within their rights. Sure, piracy will take place no matter what. Sure... things could be better. But that is a separate discussion. In the discussion about piracy being disrespectful to people's rights of ownership, none of those things have any bearing on the matter.

/S

falcontwin:
There seems to be an overriding theme in this thread that "people who download stuff would not have bought it anyway".

Noone here argued that. Link me any of those posts or retract your statement on account of it being a false argument.

falcontwin:
Basically the pro developer people are saying "we should be able to sell you whatever shit we want and after you have given us the money to "own" a copy it still belongs to us cause your an untrustworthy cunt"

No, we do not say that. I myself have argued specifically that this is not the case. Not even taking into account a possibility of interpreting arguments generously have any of us ever said that producers need not respect customer rigths, or that selling defective products is OK.

Again: link to posts that say any of these things for go stand in a corner and feel ashamed for lying

/S

Would software and video games be better if people never pirated though? Go!

Ps. Sayavara can you please stop with the chronic double posting and constant quoting? You have stated every point several times.

ME::

There seems to be an overriding theme in this thread that "people who download stuff would not have bought it anyway".
[you said this]
Noone here argued that. Link me any of those posts or retract your statement on account of it being a false argument.

snowplow:
You're assuming the person would actually buy the product in the first place, which is not true.

Theres one. If I bother to go back through the pages I'll find several more

Dommyboy:
Would software and video games be better if people never pirated though? Go!

Ps. Sayavara can you please stop with the chronic double posting and constant quoting? You have stated every point several times.

I have no idea if they would be better, but that is a out of the scope of this discussion. Start a separate thread about it if you like.

Since people seems to not be reading my points properly, I re-iterate the points until they are understood and answered to in a relevant manner.

/S

Okay I have a question for Sayvara. What is your point of view on piracy in areas that could not have the software anyway ?
Such as someone in australia downloading games that have been banned, or places downloading anime that has no been licenced yet or even when it is licenced is heavily censored.
This is still piracy and thus they are taking the ip without permission however they do not have the option of paying for it anyway.

falcontwin:

ME::

There seems to be an overriding theme in this thread that "people who download stuff would not have bought it anyway".
[you said this]
Noone here argued that. Link me any of those posts or retract your statement on account of it being a false argument.

snowplow:
You're assuming the person would actually buy the product in the first place, which is not true.

Theres one. If I bother to go back through the pages I'll find several more

Wrong. What he said was that it is wrong to assume that everyone that downloaded will buy the product later. As is evidenced in this thread this is a fair assumption to make. Some will pay, some will not, which means that not everyone is buying after download.

You on the other hand said that this means that we assume that noone will buy after downloading, which is a false statement since obviously some people do buy and we are well aware of that. There's a huge difference between "not everyone" and "noone".

/S

Sayvara:

Dommyboy:
Would software and video games be better if people never pirated though? Go!

Ps. Sayavara can you please stop with the chronic double posting and constant quoting? You have stated every point several times.

I have no idea if they would be better, but that is a out of the scope of this discussion. Start a separate thread about it if you like.

Since people seems to not be reading my points properly, I re-iterate the points until they are understood and answered to in a relevant manner.

/S

I wouldn't say it is out of the scope, you could compare it to that piracy doesn't effect developers but that's basically not true.
Have you been affected much by piracy though?

avykins:
Okay I have a question for Sayvara. What is your point of view on piracy in areas that could not have the software anyway ?
Such as someone in australia downloading games that have been banned, or places downloading anime that has no been licenced yet or even when it is licenced is heavily censored.
This is still piracy and thus they are taking the ip without permission however they do not have the option of paying for it anyway.

This one is a tricky area, I admit. So I'm going to do a bit of a cop-out here and say: the product may become available later, which means that the piracy was just as wrong as before.

One could argue that with IP being able to be distributed globally, fair trade means that everyone around the globe should be offered the product on equal terms. However we are not there yet. I have no solution for tha problem since every country still has the sovereign right to decide if something is to be allowed to be sold there.

/S

So basically sayvara is a serial pedantic troll who should be ignored.

Anyway if developers want to make money they should create products of some value to the consumer, rather than just charging people for useless software .

falcontwin:
So basically sayvara is a serial pedantic troll who should be ignored.

Anyway if developers want to make money they should create products of some value to the consumer, rather than just charging people for useless software .

Summed it up pretty well there.

However most items that are banned are never released. Even if they are they are ususally heavily censored with alot of content removed same with censorship in anime. Therefore since the item we are buying is no longer the same game/series are we still stealing their intellectual property. The exact item we pirated was still not released in our countries.

Also with the case of anime some argue that as no company has bought the rights to distribute the series in our countries technically we are taking from the original japanese producers thus when someone finally buys the rights to it we were already in possession of it. Also fansub groups usually request you stop distributing said item once the rights are acquired.

falcontwin:
So basically sayvara is a serial pedantic troll who should be ignored.

Anyway if developers want to make money they should create products of some value to the consumer, rather than just charging people for useless software .

See: Stardock

Dommyboy:

falcontwin:
So basically sayvara is a serial pedantic troll who should be ignored.

Anyway if developers want to make money they should create products of some value to the consumer, rather than just charging people for useless software .

Summed it up pretty well there.

[Sarcasm] Oh yeah, I'm a troll because I called you on arguing against something I have never said. That makes me such a troll... [/Sarcasm]

I say that the only one trolling here is you because you don't even respond to what has been said but instead respond to a figment of your imagination.

/S

Has anyone pointed out this article at all? Anyone seriously interested in the subjects involved in this thread should give it a read:

http://draginol.joeuser.com/article/303512/Piracy_PC_Gaming

Incidentally, I own a copy of Stardock's Galactic Civilization 2 and recently purchased a copy of Sins of a Solar Empire. At some point in the future I plan on checking out Impulse, I believe its called.

I feel I should point out, though its such a distant post now its probably pointless to some degree, where I disagreed with the original post was about ownership of a copy, not ownership of the intellectual property. On the subject of piracy, I actually agree with Sayvara (I think that was the original poster, right?), there is no excuse - which of course stems from my own experience with it from years ago where they damaged their PR with me by discovering the malware and other viral programs contained within their supposedly "free" libraries. I view that not a lot differently then "activation" DRM malware that come with legitimately purchased copies, to be honest.

If you use pirated software, expect to have to format and reinstall everything not pirated or worse, and don't even think of doing anything secure, like private email, banking or other financial purchases online - Welcome to the Zombie Nation as well. Might as well just take your gaming offline then, unplug the cable.