Defending the Villain

[Sean Sands]

Defending the Villain

Piracy is a hard topic to discuss reasonably and rationally in a public forum. It is a polarizing issue, revealing deep divides between consumers of all media forms, and an even deeper divide between the public and the industries at large that find themselves under siege.

Permalink

 

[Cousin_IT]

Im in simular position where the only reason I dont download movies/games/music is because of the legal consequences. Something im happily reminded everytime I watch a DVD in all its melodramatic style that epitomises the media industries response to piracy which these two clips (eeek copyright infringement ) parody excellently: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS-PemhvXHc & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRVHUbrbEUA&feature=related

I dont "illegally" download movies (at least not to harddrive) or games, & download music only occasionally & usually only because its not easily available retail. I dont feel like im some sort of evil industry crippling criminal when I download a Song. It feels more like putting a couple extra sweets in ur pick n mix bag after you weigh & pay for it; or paying for a child ticket instead of an adult. Its not strictly legal, but I dont feel like im part of an industry destroying crimewave for doing it; & I resent the media & idustry portrayls of me being as such.

When I do download/watch stuff for free, its usually because of how much more convienient it is. I dont sit down & say "hmmm Im going to bring down Comedy Central today" when I watch the latest South Park episode online. But since the UK is only at Season 6 on DVD, if the industry expects me to wait upto 5 years from TV premier to being able to buy it, I feel no guilt in watching it online inbetween that time. Even less so when the programme im watching cannot be physically bought (e.g. Have I Got News For You episodes); or id have to spend £100s to compile a collection of things id only watch/use once (meaning I wouldnt buy if it wasnt available for free, something "the Industry" really doesnt seem to get as a concept).

That said, theres no denying that to a degree Piracy has an effect on the media industries & is used as an income generator by some criminal organisations (& always has). But its not the "big bad guy" that its made out to be. Independant movie & music retailers are going out of business because of Itunes, Amazon & Tesco more than Limewire. EMI & others are losing money & talent because of their own incompotence & inability to adapt to a changing market, not because of Piratebay. Current UK legislation plans intending to force ISP providers to moniter all clients traffic for evidense of illegal downloading is the latest escalation in response to a problem blown whollely out of proportion by those who are losing out to a changing market arena.

Hopefully itl all go the way the reactionary hype surrounding VHS & music cassette recorders went & just blow over & move on. But Im not holding my breath.

 

[wild_quinine]

I have been - and remain - fundamentally opposed to piracy, recognizing that the action of consuming media without paying for it is as clearly illegal as any other form of theft.

Whilst your article generally rings true, this line constitutes an absolute failure to appreciate the debate you are participating in.

As you say, at one time you didn't pirate media based on ethical considerations. You thought that it was like theft. However, in most countries, it is not 'as clearly illegal as any other form of theft'.

1) It is not clearly piracy to make copies of media.

It is piracy if you sell or distribute them. Otherwise it is just copyright infringement.

2) It is not clearly as illegal as any other form of theft.

This cannot be held to be clear, there is a large and consistent debate over the fact. I think you would find that there are very few people in jail or with criminal records for copyright infringement, so I doubt that the even the most stringent legal evidence would provide any support for the claim.

3) It is not even clearly illegal.

Copyright infringement in, for example, the UK is not clearly a criminal offence.

4) It is CLEARLY NOT theft.

Most damning of all...

PLEASE stop calling copyright infringment theft. It can be CAREFULLY compared to theft, but it simply is not. The distinctions between copyright infringement and theft must be maintained, or we lose a platform on which to discuss the subject.

I think that what you meant, was probably that 'piracy' is as 'clearly MORALLY WRONG as any [other] form of theft'.

But, as you continue to expunge, that may no longer be the case. It is true enough that two wrongs don't make a right. But when the choice is paying extortion money or paying no money at all, it probably ceases to be a morally clear debate.

 

[fmsmoothie]

People who argue for piracy usually say it gets in the way of legitimate customers. But I have yet to have that happen to me since I stopped pirating games. I dare say it's made the experience, of playing games, better.

Why? I don't have to worry about viruses when going and getting the latest crack and hope that the new patch wont make me register. I have yet to experience a game I've bought backfire with its protection. Pirates are against protection sure, but why? So they don't have to wait a few days for it to be cracked and uploaded online? If it didnt cause them any trouble they wouldn't even bring it into the argument, even under the guise that it is a hassle for consumers.

Copyright infringement is theft. You use/listen/play/take something you didn't pay for its theft. Just because no one "sees" you do it doesn't mean it's ok, and you shouldn't get punished for it if found out about later.

The idea that copyright infringement isn't theft, or criminal is inane. Might as well do away with patents since copyright infringement isn't illegal we should be able to "borrow" all intellectual property.

Other then the argument that it causes trouble, which is in my case not true, they have nothing to back up why they do what they do.

 

[Nugoo]

Thank you, wild_quinine, your points are valid.

I admit to pirating games. For the most part, I can't afford to buy all the games I play, and I'm not willing to go without playing them. I admit it's immoral and illegal. On the other hand, I bought Neverwinter Nights after downloading it because of how good a game it was.

@fmsmoothie, I don't think anyone is arguing that copyright infringement is not illegal, but it is not the same as theft. Theft leaves someone without something, copyright infringement merely results in not buying something that you may not have bought anyway. The reason nobody likes thieves isn't because they don't pay for what they get, it's because they take what they get from people who did pay, who no longer have it. I can also give you several examples of a non-pirated product being inferior to a pirated product:

Civilization III: The v1.29f patch introduced copy protection that was not there before the patch, and, as a result, the game CD doesn't have whatever it needs to pass the copy protection. That patch effectively breaks the game.

Neverwinter Nights 2: The game often fails to load because the CD drive fails to locate the copy protection on the disc. It also never loads after opening Process Explorer, which is a completely legitimate program.

The other thing is that the only reason most games need the disc in the drive is for copy protection. All the game data is on the hard drive. That's why NoCD cracks can be applied to almost any game. One of the things I love the most about GalCivII is that you don't need the CD. In fact it has no copy protection, so you don't even need the CD key to install the game, and you can burn a backup disc in case you lose the original.

 

[fix-the-spade]

3) It is not even clearly illegal.

Copyright infringement in, for example, the UK is not clearly a criminal offence.
.

Erm, copyright infringement is clearly illegal in the UK. It's classed as a civil offence, so the Police can't arrest or charge you. But the owner of the copyright can sue you for (potentially) unlimited damages and the removal of whatever broke copyright.
Ignoring any court ruling makes it a criminal offence, which can get you sent to jail. Repeat offending can also bump it up to a criminal charge.

Piracy (copyright infringment + distribution and or sale of/purchase of/manufacture of said goods) is a criminal offence and can carry a jail term.

 

[fmsmoothie]

If you use a full product, w/o paying for it that's theft. The excuse that you wouldn't have paid for it anyway isn't anything but an excuse. You don't pay for it you shouldn't be allowed the experience.

And I know the only reason you need CD is because they make it so. Maybe copy protection isn't the right solution, instead they need to target the people distributing the stuff. But thats far more ineffective then putting something on the game itself to at least trip up people. Since you have places like TBP that are in countries with massive gray area where the internet is concerned.

No CD cracks, can be used for legitimate products, but lets not be naive and say thats what its used for in the majority of cases.

If there was no way to get free full games without paying for them I don't doubt that more people would buy games they normally wouldn't because they have the option of not. Look at COD 4, the amount of people playing that game online w/o paying for it is a clear indicator in my mind of how unwilling people have become to pay for good games. If you have a game thats won multiple game of the year awards and theres still so many people unwilling to pay for it, it's easy to see why no one wants to put games on the pc anymore, or at least before they put them on the console. If the trend continues all that's going to be left on the pc are pay-to-play MMORPGs.

 

[Nugoo]

First of all, there's a difference between unwilling and unable. I don't have a single pirated game that I would have bought if I couldn't get them for free. Second, just because a person will download a game over buying it, doesn't mean that person would buy the game if they couldn't download it. I think the choice is usually between playing for free and not playing, rather than between playing for free and paying.

Also, I'm not aware of a single modern game that you can play pirated copies of online. How do you know that the people playing COD 4 haven't paid for it?

 

[JakubK666]

Looking at the prices of some games or the way distributor treats us.Piracy can be a form of a cold, painful slap to their faces.Personally I don't pirate...mostly.

Only some mp3's and sometimes an SP game(They're getting to big to honestly bother).I'm sorry but I am not willing to pay £30-£40(waaay overprice compared to US prices) for a game with a half-assed story and gameplay, which solely relies on "teh hardorez multi experience!" in order to be popular.

@Nugoo

He was probably talking about hamachi servers etc. because unlike TF2 or CSS I haven't heard of a way to make "normal" cracked CoD4 servers.And these networks aren't as big as they appear.

And imo Piracy does more for the game sales than you may think.People who download torrents usually have a more casual approach to the game and probably wouldn't buy it in first place.But I know a couple of cases(including me & TF2) where people downloaded the game, loved it and bought the original version just for the sake of having it.

 

[Nugoo]

I think the choice is usually between playing for free and not playing, rather than between playing for free and paying.

In which case the only ethical choice is not playing. As the consumer, you are perfectly within your rights to decide that you are not paying the requested price for the product.

You are not, however, within your rights to make up your own price (free), and then play. You either pay what the seller is asking, or you do without. It has nothing to do with theft, it has to do with you being an arrogant prick, not respecting the time and devotion people put into their creations. Just because you can't see the software developer doesn't mean they're worth less of your respect and working time (as indicated by paying) than the plumber who comes over to fix your pipes. Sure, you might have been willing to go with that dripping faucet anyway, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't pay the guy.

You don't like paying for games? Fine, don't. Play free games. Play demos. Refuse to purchase things that don't have demos and let the creators know. But don't play games, refuse to pay, and then think "Yeah, well, I wouldn't have paid for that anyway". If you wouldn't have paid, you shouldn't have played. And if you do, at least understand what an ass you're being to the creator, and understand why some people think you're just a selfish little prick.

No ad hominem attacks, please. I may be arrogant and selfish, but 'little prick' is over the line. (And inaccurate )

My piracy is certainly not indicative of disrespect towards the creators of the game; I'm in the process of getting a degree in software engineering with the intent of becoming a game programmer. I've got no lack of respect for those people. In fact, that may be what motivates my piracy. In some cases, like with Portal, it's comparable to sneaking into a concert in order to see your favorite band. It may not be directly good for the artists, but it's not because I want them to suffer. Not to mention that it gets them good word of mouth advertising.

In regards to the ethics of playing for free over not paying, how, exactly is it worse to enjoy the fruit of someone's labour for free, rather than be unable to experience it? Either way they aren't getting my money, but my way, they get not only free advertising from me, but also a loyal customer once I get enough money to actually buy games.

Finally, a slight logical quibble: If I am willing to go with a dripping faucet, it does mean that I shouldn't pay the plumber.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

My piracy is certainly not indicative of disrespect towards the creators of the game; I'm in the process of getting a degree in software engineering with the intent of becoming a game programmer.

In regards to the ethics of playing for free over not paying, how, exactly is it worse to enjoy the fruit of someone's labour for free, rather than be unable to experience it? Either way they aren't getting my money, but my way, they get not only free advertising from me, but also a loyal customer once I get enough money to actually buy games.

The irony is staggering.

You want to get in the industry, and yet hold a stance that getting paid for your efforts is entirely voluntary? On the basis of your reasoning, you have no grounds to complain when Soulless Software Studios (a subsidiary of Omni Consumer Products) yoinks your code and stuffs it into their own servers gratis. After all, you should get lots of free resume fluffing out of having your code incorporated into OCP's library.

-- Steve

 

[Nugoo]

My piracy is certainly not indicative of disrespect towards the creators of the game; I'm in the process of getting a degree in software engineering with the intent of becoming a game programmer.

In regards to the ethics of playing for free over not paying, how, exactly is it worse to enjoy the fruit of someone's labour for free, rather than be unable to experience it? Either way they aren't getting my money, but my way, they get not only free advertising from me, but also a loyal customer once I get enough money to actually buy games.

The irony is staggering.

You want to get in the industry, and yet hold a stance that getting paid for your efforts is entirely voluntary? On the basis of your reasoning, you have no grounds to complain when Soulless Software Studios (a subsidiary of Omni Consumer Products) yoinks your code and stuffs it into their own servers gratis. After all, you should get lots of free resume fluffing out of having your code incorporated into OCP's library.

-- Steve

There is a large difference between taking someone's code and using it at home, and taking someone's code and selling it as your own. If your saying that Soulless Software Studios (hereafter referred to as SSS) is only using my code, and not selling it, then you may not have noticed that I am arguing for the ethics of using for free instead of not using, as opposed to using for free instead of paying. SSS is probably able to afford my software, but if they weren't going to buy it anyway, it's no skin off my back. On the other hand, if SSS is a subsidiary of the new grassroots startup, Omni Consumer Products, and can't, in fact, pay for my software, then I would not hold it against them if they used it for free, especially if they notified their customers that they were using my product.

But yes, I do believe in getting paid for my efforts on a voluntary basis (Assuming I'm working solo). Call me an idealist or naive or even a socialist (I am all of these things), but I think if my product is good enough, people will buy it. Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails are both taking this approach. I understand there are differences between those bands and a small company producing software, or even a small band, but they serve as a proof of concept. Hell, look at open-source projects, like Linux or Firefox.

Finally, I'm getting into the field for the love of making games, not for the money.

 

[Andy Chalk]

In regards to the ethics of playing for free over not paying, how, exactly is it worse to enjoy the fruit of someone's labour for free, rather than be unable to experience it? Either way they aren't getting my money, but my way, they get not only free advertising from me, but also a loyal customer once I get enough money to actually buy games.

This is one of the most common arguments used by people who participate in piracy, and also one of the weakest and most insulting because it is so absolutely inane. I've had this conversation too many times with too many people who refused to acknowledge even the possibility that they may be off base, so I won't waste much time on it here except to say that I find your attitude deeply offensive.

Good luck on figuring out how to pay the rent with the love of making games, by the way.

 

[Nugoo]

That's a load of bull. Your piracy is essentially you telling the developer "Don't give up your day-job, because I'm not going to help you put food on the table so that you can program these things full time." It is complete disrespect, and you getting a degree in the field does not change that in any way.

No, what motivates your piracy is that you value your personal entertainment time as having a higher worth than their time spent developing the things that entertain you.

This is you arguing with me about my motivations. There is nothing I can say to that except that you are wrong.

No, it's because you don't actually give a damn about them or think about the consequences of your action. If you sneak into a concert, you're taking up space that could have gone to a paying customer, and making the experience that much less enjoyable for everyone else by over-crowding the place. If a paying fan then later decides that while it was okay, he didn't like getting his toes stepped on and stops paying, the bands' income, aka time to create their music, has been directly affected by your selfishness.

I already admitted that my presence at this hypothetical concert would be worse than the presence of a paying customer. I am arguing that it's still better than an empty seat.

Like you're providing that over and above those who actually value the group enough to spend some of their earned leisure dollars on the group. "Yeah, you should see these guys.. they were great! Really worth the money" "How much was it?" "Oh, I didn't pay.." "So.. worth nothing then?"

Yeah, 'cause when someone tells me they snuck into a concert to watch the band, I think to myself, "That band must be so bad that my friend was unwilling to buy a ticket", not, "That band must so good that my friend was willing to sneak into the show".

The exact same logic could be used to justify theft. Nice thinking. However, even if we assume you meant, "..when there is no material loss.", it's worse because it is disrespectful of the maker. If everybody held the same attitude as you, these people would not be able to create for their living, meaning they'd be doing something else for their living, meaning they'd be creating less. It's worse because you are, in effect, sponging off of the rest of us who do support these people. If you had, at the very least, the self-decency and honesty to sit outside the store and just plain beg people for money, people would then get the choice whether to support your entertainment.

I did mean"...when there is no material loss", thank you for your assumption. First, I don't think disrespecting the maker of a product is worse than actually removing someone else's property from their possession, but that, I guess, is a matter of opinion. Second, my view is only that it is morally acceptable to pirate when you are incapable of purchasing. Even if everyone had the same view as I do, no company would have less profit because everyone who has bought a game was clearly capable of buying the game. As for people having the choice to support my piracy, bittorrent requires plenty of seeds, so I guess some people do.

No they don't. You've already said, you bought Neverwinter Nights because it was such a good game. You didn't say, "I've started buying all the Bioware stuff because they put out such great games." If you had, you'd at least be slightly less of a hypocrite in your point, but you've already admitted that you don't actually have any loyalty to the game designers, you just will eventually decide that maybe you've sponged enough off of one game to justify your deigning to support the creators a little bit. Bravo. And guess what, they don't really need free advertising from a nobody who can't even bring themselves to cough up the money from 3-4 hours work (assuming you're working a crap job) to pay for a game that took probably hundreds of man-hours. They can get that kind of advertising from paying customers, and it's worth more because those people actually.. you know.. paid.

While I didn't explicitly state that I bought more Bioware games after Neverwinter Nights, you may have noticed my complaint about Neverwinter Nights 2, which I did buy because of how much I loved the original. I have also been looking for the Bladur's Gate games, again, based on my experience with Neverwinter Nights. Second, when did I say that I had not loyalty to game designers? Third, I have never cared if a recommendation came from a pirate or someone who bought the game, as long as they had played it.

No.. it doesn't matter if you're willing to go with it. It's if you do go with it. That's the difference. If you have the plumber in and he fixes it, then whether or not you were willing to go with the dripping is completely irrelevant. Similar to games. Whether you're willing or not to go without the game has no bearing on whether you should pay. What matters is if you do or do not go without the game. Ideally a game creator will be high-minded enough to have the attitude you do and offer the game on a "pay after you play" basis, but that's the creator's decision to make, not yours -- just one of those little side benefits they get from actually doing the work to make the game as opposed to sitting on their ass downloading someone else's game.

What you choose to do with your product, or what Radiohead or Nine Inch Nails choose to do is irrelevant. They're the creators, they can choose to do what they wish. And while it's great that they're going the way they have, this doesn't in any way invalidate the decisions of those authors who choose to go some other way. The key point is, as the consumer, you agree to *their* terms (which you may even be able to negotiate with them), or you do not use their product. Anything less really is being a little prick.

You're right, I misunderstood your plumber metaphor. The rest of these two paragraphs is largely correct as well, but I still fail to see how choosing not to buy the game is better for the creator than pirating it. Also, that last sentence was completely uncalled for; I have been more than civil in my response to you.

 

[Nugoo]

In regards to the ethics of playing for free over not paying, how, exactly is it worse to enjoy the fruit of someone's labour for free, rather than be unable to experience it? Either way they aren't getting my money, but my way, they get not only free advertising from me, but also a loyal customer once I get enough money to actually buy games.

This is one of the most common arguments used by people who participate in piracy, and also one of the weakest and most insulting because it is so absolutely inane. I've had this conversation too many times with too many people who refused to acknowledge even the possibility that they may be off base, so I won't waste much time on it here except to say that I find your attitude deeply offensive.

Good luck on figuring out how to pay the rent with the love of making games, by the way.

Well, I'm relatively new to the internet, so I'd like to hear what's so bad about this argument.

And thanks for the luck, I expect I'll need it.

EDIT: GAAAH! Sorry about the double-post!

 

[Nugoo]

Let's see if I can explain this.. because your argument of not paying for the game is complete hogwash.

We already know you have extra time. We know this because you evidently have time to play the games you pirate. So, instead of sitting on your ass with this extra time, you could go mow a few people's lawns and make the money to pay for the game. Thus we see that your argument of "I don't have the money to pay for it" is simply you, as I said, valuing your leisure time over the time and effort of the people who created the thing you're actually spending your leisure time with. Real nice.

So the only argument you have left then is "I don't want to pay what the creator is asking," at which point the creator, seeing a bunch of people who can't even be bothered to mow a few lawns to support his creating, might rightfully go, "Screw this for a lark, I'm hungry, I'll go make accounting software or something for people who appreciate my work."

I guess you're right. If I was truly a passionate gamer, I would spend all my free time trying to make enough money to buy games. But you should know that even when I do buy a game with the money that I worked for, I'm not saying that the time I spent working was worth all the time put into developing the game, I'm just saying that the time I spent working was worth the retail price of the game (This is true of anyone who buys a game), which is worth considerably less than all of the time put into the game by the developers. At worst, when I pirate a game, I'm saying that I think my leisure time is worth less than, say, $49.99 CAD.

Incidentally, the last sentence is completely called for. I didn't call you a little prick, I said enganging in a certain course of behavior, one which is entirely your choice to do or not, is evidence of someone being said prick. Don't like the label? Don't engage in the behavior.

I'm saying the label is inappropriate. Try cheapskate, anti-capitalist, or some other term related to the behavior.