93: Pro-Choice

[The Escapist Staff]

"After hearing about EMI's decision, the PFF's James DeLong, a longtime advocate of using DRM to weed out 'free riders' from not paying, wrote, 'If the new format quickly turns up on the P2P sites, and if sales start off high and then fade away as the songs spread virally from iPod to iPod, then we will have learned something.' This, of course, is silly."

Tom Rhodes has been on both sides of the DRM debate. He thinks piracy sucks, and DRM is just as bad.

Pro-Choice

 

[Pottsy]

It's good to see a company deciding to drop anti-piracy measures. The amount of money spent on developing them can't be less than the amount they save.

 

[Lord_Jaroh]

If companies actually took the time to create a work that was worth spending money on, more people would support it. With the drek that mass music/movies/games are nowadays, it's no wonder that the entertainment industry is so pirate worthy. They need less "copy protection" and more spending time and money on something good.

 

[Bongo Bill]

If companies actually took the time to create a work that was worth spending money on, more people would support it. With the drek that mass music/movies/games are nowadays, it's no wonder that the entertainment industry is so pirate worthy. They need less "copy protection" and more spending time and money on something good.

For music especially, video to a lesser extent, games less so, and going all the way to commercial software at the opposite end, I find that if it's not worth paying for, it's probably also not worth getting for free. At some point, time rather than money becomes what you end up paying the bulk of the cost with.

 

[Tom_Rhodes]

If companies actually took the time to create a work that was worth spending money on, more people would support it. With the drek that mass music/movies/games are nowadays, it's no wonder that the entertainment industry is so pirate worthy. They need less "copy protection" and more spending time and money on something good.

This is an excuse for piracy that just rings like laziness to me. There have been many great things that have come out over the past few years, and they have been pirated just like the rest of the crap out there. And if they were so terrible, why even bother pirating them? If someone wished to play/read/watch/listen to whatever media something came in, then there really is no pirating excuse. If someone doesn't like my work, then don't buy it, but that doesn't mean you get to download it freely just because. The logic between hating something but downloading it anyway don't really mesh with each other.

 

[Lord_Jaroh]

This is an excuse for piracy that just rings like laziness to me. There have been many great things that have come out over the past few years, and they have been pirated just like the rest of the crap out there. And if they were so terrible, why even bother pirating them? If someone wished to play/read/watch/listen to whatever media something came in, then there really is no pirating excuse. If someone doesn't like my work, then don't buy it, but that doesn't mean you get to download it freely just because. The logic between hating something but downloading it anyway don't really mesh with each other.

It's laziness to test drive a car before buying it? Trying a book from the library? Borrowing a movie from a friend? That's what I do with games. If I enjoy it enough, I'll purchase it, to show my support for the company. If I don't enjoy it, I will delete, as I obviously don't like it, and would rather not pay for it. I use "pirating" much like I use a library: if I like a book, I'll buy it. But I'm not about to go and buy a bunch of books willy-nilly because I hope they will be good. The difference here is that there is no "library" for movies, games and music, when there should be.

 

[TomBeraha]

It's laziness to test drive a car before buying it? Trying a book from the library? Borrowing a movie from a friend? That's what I do with games. If I enjoy it enough, I'll purchase it, to show my support for the company. If I don't enjoy it, I will delete, as I obviously don't like it, and would rather not pay for it. I use "pirating" much like I use a library: if I like a book, I'll buy it. But I'm not about to go and buy a bunch of books willy-nilly because I hope they will be good. The difference here is that there is no "library" for movies, games and music, when there should be.

Then do you download games that have demos?


But in general, my stance is this - stolen copies of games are not a good thing. They may or may not hurt the industry, I don't care, It's still wrong to take something for free if the developer has made a product and is selling it for a price. If the price is not acceptable to you, don't buy. But don't think that it gives you a moral high ground in stealing it. The punishments for this stealing feel extremely out of balance with the crime at the moment. The gaming industry hasn't tried to hunt down end users though. They haven't treated their customers like criminals yet. (Starforce aside, there are few cases that would meet my argument) You get a lot worse copy protection and DRM on Microsoft Windows itself than on the games you install on a computer running it.

So - in summary - Punishments for piracy as a whole = the wrong punishments. Piracy itself = bad. No argument about harm or lack thereof will change that it's still wrong. I don't believe that authors are forced to put their books in libraries, nor are you required to let someone test drive a car, it's just shown through the market that it's a better way to make a sale, and I think the industry gets that, and demos are an effective method of achieving it.

 

[Lord_Jaroh]

I usually do try a demo before resorting to downloading. However, many times a demo will consist of "look at our pretty cgi movies" and "here is what it looks like to play our game" without letting you actually playing the game yourself. Those I will download to get the "full effect" so to speak. Often, I end up deleting them as the game ended up being something I didn't want.

Another reason I will download a game is if I can't find it to buy. Now, I'm not talking about new releases, but rather old games that I remember playing and wanted to get. I had to do that with Seven Kingdoms. I had initially bought it years ago, but lost the disk in my many moves. I tried to find it to buy, as I wanted the game years later, and I remembered it fondly. I couldn't so I downloaded it. I did buy the second sequel based on the strength of the first one, and found it lacking. I still play the first one to this day.

Another game I downloaded was Warlords Battlecry III after a friend showed it too me. I also tried to find that one to buy to no avail, so I had to resort to downloading.

There are many games out there that I'm sure many people would like to buy, but cannot find due to very tiny computer sections in stores and those sections only containing the new hot games (which are relatively quickly replaced by others). Those older games are very hard, if not impossible to buy and so downloading is a persons only means to get them. Sure it's wrong, and I would love to be able to support the game by purchasing it, but when I am given no option to support the company what can I do?

Now I do buy the games I like and want to support. I have a small collection of games that I have bought (Diablo II, Starcraft, Titan Quest, Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2, Oblivion, Kotor 1 and 2, Seven Kingdoms 2, Guildwars, Dungeon Siege 1 and 2 and a couple of MMOs), and a far smaller one of games that I have "stolen" (Freelancer, Warlords Battlecry 2 and 3, Seven Kingdoms). I do see myself buying a couple of games in the future that I am eagerly awaiting (namely Spore and Hellgate: London), but if I hear about a game I wouldn't mind trying out to see if I'll like it, I'll give it a go and see if it's worth it.

Is it wrong, sure, I'll admit that I am in the wrong, but are the makers also not in the wrong for producing glitchy, buggy, laggy, or otherwise screwed up games without taking the time to finish them jsut to get a quick buck? I think so. The companies that I enjoy the games get my money, and the companies that screw up don't, and I delete their games as I found I never wanted them anyway. I don't keep games I don't buy, as I don't end up liking them, ergo the person is losing out on me being a sucker and spending $50 on a lemon, while they laugh at the gullible masses.

Here's a newsflash for the game companies out there: If you make games worth buying, people will support you, and be happy to do so. If you make drek, don't blame your poor sales on "pirating". That can only be blamed on your own incompetance.

 

[Capo Taco]

Cheeze_Pavilion, you're completely right. A pirater who wouldn't have bought, isn't depriving the game seller directly. If we lived in a world that's only filled with goodminded, conscious people, we could end the discussion right there.

You know, I like to go skating (on rollerblades). In fact, I'm a bit fanatic, I frequently go shopping on skates, go through the train station to my train on skates, heck, I even walk stairs on my skates. I have carefully observe if my skates do any damage to the surfaces I skate on and although I like to pick up speed, I'm mindful of other people. I have never hit or fallen on anybody.

The people in the library have asked me not to skate in there anymore. Although they see, yes, I don't damage or inconvenience anyone, allowing me to skate in there means allowing others to skate in there. And not everyone is mindful.

Now you said this already with pirates profiting or pirates not profiting from what they do. But if you use the same argument you use for 'zero-impact pirates' for game developers, then why would they care if someone profits of the illegal use or not?

The 'people who wouldn't have bought it anyways' argument sounds right, until you start to factor in that this behaviour is copied by less conscious people that may have had the money to buy it.

To take it further, it's pretty much possible by now to spend ALL your time on pirated games, never replaying a single game, without ever paying for a game. (With maybe a part time job to finance living costs). That person wouldn't have the finances to pay for games. However, if piracy were impossible, this (simplified) lifestyle would be impossible and a pure game nut would maybe instead go for a full time job and buy games, whereas a high school kid might deliver newspapers to finance his hobby.

The behaviour of "I pirate, because I wouldn't have bought anyways" doesn't hold up, because it also increases "I pirate for other reasons".

 

[Dom Camus]

The behaviour of "I pirate, because I wouldn't have bought anyways" doesn't hold up, because it also increases "I pirate for other reasons".

Assuming that's true, that still leaves the question of whether it matters.

Going through the list of games I've rated really highly in the past, they seem to have a good track record of making money. This being the case, I'm inclined to conclude piracy is not a big problem.

Sure, people like Ragnar Tornquist are convinced by the idea that "piracy is a serious threat to the industry". But really I've yet to see evidence from anywhere. The industry seems really healthy to me. Those companies that have folded in recent years have mostly done so thanks to the rapidly increasing cost of developing a AAA title and difficulties with retail outlets.

My guess is that pirates are a strawman. Yes, they exist. Yes, they cost developers some revenue. Personally I doubt it's significant.

 

[Capo Taco]

Good point.

 

[Tom_Rhodes]

I like that I've started debate, which I won't jump in again just quite yet.

I will say this about "misdemeanor" piracy however: With enough misdemeanor shoplifters, a store gets put out of business (realizing the difference between physical and intangible property).

 

[Capo Taco]

When you do something as public as skate in a library, you skate in front of everyone and everyone knows you're skating. Gaming is a semi-private affair where basically unless someone tells you it's pirated software, you have no idea.

The internet is no less public than a library and although in general you'd have to search, it's not that uncommon, especially for gaming forum frequenters, to come across various comments about downloading and pirating games. Through torrents and peer2peer networks, anyone who's pirating actually makes it easer for others to get the same downloads.

The 'time playing games' is, I admit, a fairly extreme hypothetical situation. My point was that just because some people are unable to afford games, pirating still hurts, because there might be a future where that person is able to afford games and would have bought said game. I imagine it's quite rare for someone to first pirate a game and then later buy it (although I have done so on occassion when games come out later in Europe)

In fact, I *hope* companies that put out games that can't hold a person's attention long enough that they don't feel compelled to go pirate more games *do* go out of business, and make some room for people who put out quality product!

Not all games are about replayability. There are games that have a transitional value, where you come out slightly different than you went in.

 

[Bongo Bill]

I recently used my humble and shamelessly self-promoting blog [http://frontal-lobe.net/?p=60] to examine issues like this from a strictly economic perspective. The long and short of it is that, since the Internet came around, music has become something that fulfills all the economic definitions of a public good, and movies and the like aren't far behind. If you want to make money selling information-based goods these days, you'll have to find some way to make the stuff excludable again. DRM of the type we've seen so far is obviously not cutting it. Perhaps the entire business model needs to be changed. Perhaps some kind of arts endowment should be created or expanded.

Games are a slightly different issue, since with a game, it is possible to mix the game and the copy protection. Since the game and the copy protection both have to be executable, you can set it up so you can run one without the other. Music and movies, on the other hand, are just data, so from a technological perspective, once you get the data out the copy protection is worthless.

 

[Tom_Rhodes]

I think to realize the difference between intangible and physical property, you have to think of 'digital shoplifters' as people who come in with some kind of reader that scanned the code off the products, leaving the products both in the store and in the same physical condition as before the incident. Isn't that a world away from a 'physical shoplifter' who takes the product out of the store forcing the store to re-order, to pay twice as much in investment to make one sale?

That was my point about trespassing vs. stealing: how could a store ever go out of business from enough trespassers who cause no damages?

Suppose those hypothetical "trespassers" are not just scanning the code, but actually can duplicate whatever product is in the store at essentially zero cost. This was what I pretty much meant. Granted, nothing is being stolen in the traditional sense (i.e., deprivation of one person's property without payment or barter), but the result is the same. If, say, half the usual foot traffic for that store came in and did that instead of buying the products, it would bankrupt the store and then the manufacturers and designers by having a significantly reduced income.

Except, of course, this would be complicated. Simplify it further: the "trespassers" wouldn't even have to leave their house, just duplicate items from home at essentially zero cost. If enough people get together to do that, then whatever value those items had eventually reduces to almost nothing.

The means are different, the ends are the same. Except instead of a store with its merchandise missing, its filled with boxes that no one wants because they already have them.

As for word use, I don't know what terminology to use that's appropriate. But no one ever questions the use of "He stole my idea!" even though that's something intangible. *shrug*