A potentially original take on piracy? Probably not, but interesting.

[Bostur]

I think most of you are missing the point of his post. The piracy stuff is just setting the stage for his point. Bostur got it but I don't know how many others. As long as the general populace wants comfort. They really don't care how the government is run as long as they can have a comfortable way of living. They could be living in a Monarchy, Dictatorship, or a Republic but it doesn't matter as long as they have food, shelter, and entertainment. That's kind of how the USA is right now and has been in the past especially before becomming a superpower, it's on a sharp economical decline but as long as the people have something to do they won't mind. But take away something that they are used to and then there are people who are suddenly poor and working a deadend job, or no job at all, and with nothing to do but remind themselves of their situation. Many people don't understand PIPA/SOPA so a few companies and representitives think they can get away with it before they do. Sadly a lot of people dismiss the internet as "a thing nerdy kids play", yes those words have been said and somehow managed not to visiously stab them, so their entertainment is television and movies. So only a portion of the population will get up in arms about this legislation while the other part will have no idea why they're so pissed off before they go back to the newest season of American Idol, Survivor, and bullshit news (take your pick, there isn't one left on the air with their integrity intact).

It does seem like the point missed most of the posters. ;-) I wonder how many people actually read the original post.

 

[Kroxile]

1. Piracy is NOT Theft
2. People who have the hardware but cannot afford the software do exist
3. a pirated game does NOT necessarily mean a lost sale.
4. The poor, downtrodden devs are doing just fine and make more money in a month than the average US citizen makes in 5 years.
5. The gaming industry has managed to grow exponentially in a hard economy.
6. The industry is NOT hurting in the slightest. (see 5)

Just thought I'd drop some truth and cold hard facts on an ignorant community.

Enjoy.

 

[michael87cn]

Was the game you purchased the one that was cracked and uploaded as a torrent? No? Then they didn't it steal from you.

This is the sort of analogy you're trying to make: You buy a pair of sunglasses. Right after you pay for your sunglasses, somebody shoplifts a pair. That person didn't steal the sunglasses from you, they stole it from the store. It would have made no difference if you had bought orange juice or a nice sweater instead of the sunglasses. They stole the sunglasses, and the sunglasses belonged to the store. End of story.

Except for the fact that these sunglasses are magical, and have no form or substance. They exist as data on a computer and can potentially exist as easily on 10 billion computers as they can on 1, with no extra cost as they can be duplicated and replicated for nothing (as they are not made of materal but rather electrical signals in a machine).

Does this poor analogy still hold water, seeing as how you could fill the entire universe with the sunglasses?

Oh yeah, and what's your opinion on Libraries? Do they cause lost sales on books or promote them? I mean, OMG FREE STUFFS!

 

[Robert Ewing]

Was the game you purchased the one that was cracked and uploaded as a torrent? No? Then they didn't it steal from you.

This is the sort of analogy you're trying to make: You buy a pair of sunglasses. Right after you pay for your sunglasses, somebody shoplifts a pair. That person didn't steal the sunglasses from you, they stole it from the store. It would have made no difference if you had bought orange juice or a nice sweater instead of the sunglasses. They stole the sunglasses, and the sunglasses belonged to the store. End of story.

Very good argument. And even if it was the one uploaded, it wouldn't really be stealing, it would be copying. OP would still have his copy of the game, completely untouched.

 

[Vegosiux]

It doesn't matter if you call it stealing or copyright infringement, or try to win the argument based on semantics. That's just moving the goalposts, and you know it.

I'm not moving the goalposts, and it is not my fault that people don't like where the rule makers put them.

I understand that the word "stealing" has that "buzzword" kick to it, and "infringement" doesn't. I understand "GET THE THIEF!" sounds better than "GET THE EMBEZZLER!" or "INFRINGER!" Still doesn't make them the same thing.

You can steal a game without pirating it (steal a physical copy). You can pirate it without stealing it (buy it but then download it as well cause you want a NRFB physical copy). They are not the same. If they were the same, one would not be possible without the other. But either one is possible without the other, so they are not the same. How hard is that to understand? That's not even semantics, it's basic deduction, for Pete's sake.

And for the N-th time, when I say "Piracy is not the same as theft" I do not mean "Piracy is not a bad thing", so quit trying to paint me as the bad guy here, m'kay? Piracy is bad and should be punished, that's not even up for discussion. But it is not the same thing as theft. It simply isn't. Just like "homicide" and "murder" are two different things. Or "joyride" and "GTA".

I mean, but okay, I suppose tax fraud is (grand, depending on the amount) theft too then, but then why the hell do we have different terms for the same thing? Just so the lawyers can argue in the court?

 

[kurupt87]

snip

Someone who hasn't got disposable income isn't automatically required to ''steal'' the luxury items they can't afford. I would really like an ipad but I can't afford one. Doesn't mean I just walk into a shop and take it.

Nothing has been stolen. To steal something there must be a victim who has had something taken from them.

Theft: Person A has item i, person B does not. Person B takes item i from A. A no longer has i whereas B now does.

Piracy: Person X has item v, person Y does not. Person Y copies person X's v. Person X and Y now have v.

Also, in the case of someone with no money they can't buy the product. There is no lost sale.

There are no victims, there are only winners. Morally, that seems pretty clear cut good to me.

A quote from a wise man;

There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.

IP law is Jurassic, it is old. It needs to be updated, it is no longer valid in the digital age.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

snip

Yay self justification. No matter what convoluted reasoning you use to justify it to yourself it's still copying and using something that you have no right to and that doesn't belong to you and that you would have had to pay for otherwise.

I suspect most people who pirate can afford what they are pirating and if they can't why do they think they have some sort of right to it for free?

I couldn't afford most of the games I wanted this year so I waited for the steam sale and still missed out on getting AC Revelations because it was too expensive, I will have to wait for that.

No victims? What about the people who slaved away (often not getting paid for massive overtime) to make the games pirates just take for free or the honest gamers who pay for pirates continued entertainment?

 

[kurupt87]

snip

Yay self justification. No matter what convoluted reasoning you use to justify it to yourself it's still copying and using something that you have no right to and that doesn't belong to you and that you would have had to pay for otherwise.

I suspect most people who pirate can afford what they are pirating and if they can't why do they think they have some sort of right to it for free?

I couldn't afford most of the games I wanted this year so I waited for the steam sale and still missed out on getting AC Revelations because it was too expensive, I will have to wait for that.

Assumptions assumptions, they'll bite you on the arse you know.

I don't pirate, at least not in any meaningful way.

Just like you, I only pirate when it suits me. Reading a family member or friends book, watching a DVD of theirs without them, listening to their music, watching their TV without them, recording a video or borrowing a game. Are you going to tell me you haven't done any of those? If you do I'll then tell you to go away, I don't talk to hypocritical liars.

My point being, everyone is a pirate. IP law needs to be changed.

---

Tell me which of these is better;

A person who is happy.
A person who is unhappy.

 

[ms_sunlight]

I really can't buy the whole "can't afford the product" if those people have the hardware to play this games. If you can afford a TV + console or a PC strong enough to play the games than you can also afford the games.

Really? I routinely give my old PCs/laptops (gaming PCs/laptops mind you) to families with school age children who otherwise couldn't afford one of their own. Most of my friends do the same thing. These families can't afford games period.

This. You can get a second hand reconditioned PC quite inexpensively (under £100) or you can get a hand-me-down. There are charities that specialise in recycling donated kit to poor households. When offices buy new boxes, they often donate the old ones.

Some schools and colleges even give free netbooks and other kit to students these days, because they realise that otherwise the students can't do the coursework.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

snip

Yay self justification. No matter what convoluted reasoning you use to justify it to yourself it's still copying and using something that you have no right to and that doesn't belong to you and that you would have had to pay for otherwise.

I suspect most people who pirate can afford what they are pirating and if they can't why do they think they have some sort of right to it for free?

I couldn't afford most of the games I wanted this year so I waited for the steam sale and still missed out on getting AC Revelations because it was too expensive, I will have to wait for that.

Assumptions assumptions, they'll bite you on the arse you know.

I don't pirate, at least not in any meaningful way.

Just like you, I only pirate when it suits me. Reading a family member or friends book, watching a DVD of theirs without them, listening to their music, watching their TV without them, recording a video or borrowing a game. Are you going to tell me you haven't done any of those? If you do I'll then tell you to go away, I don't talk to hypocritical liars.

My point being, everyone is a pirate. IP law needs to be changed.

---

Tell me which of these is better;

A person who is happy.
A person who is unhappy.

The thing is all of those things are allowable under fair use and is a completely different thing and you already know they are. You are also completely assuming all pirates can't afford what they pirate...

Getting an Ipad or a new car would make me happy, again doesn't mean I just go and take it and make people lose their jobs because they haven't sold enough.

 

[Something Amyss]

Just like you, I only pirate when it suits me. Reading a family member or friends book, watching a DVD of theirs without them, listening to their music, watching their TV without them, recording a video or borrowing a game. Are you going to tell me you haven't done any of those? If you do I'll then tell you to go away, I don't talk to hypocritical liars.

My point being, everyone is a pirate. IP law needs to be changed.

If you don't know what piracy is, don't make up examples. The above don't qualify. Attempting to force "hypocrisy" and "piracy" on people is really poor form.

 

[kurupt87]

snip

Yay self justification. No matter what convoluted reasoning you use to justify it to yourself it's still copying and using something that you have no right to and that doesn't belong to you and that you would have had to pay for otherwise.

I suspect most people who pirate can afford what they are pirating and if they can't why do they think they have some sort of right to it for free?

I couldn't afford most of the games I wanted this year so I waited for the steam sale and still missed out on getting AC Revelations because it was too expensive, I will have to wait for that.

Assumptions assumptions, they'll bite you on the arse you know.

I don't pirate, at least not in any meaningful way.

Just like you, I only pirate when it suits me. Reading a family member or friends book, watching a DVD of theirs without them, listening to their music, watching their TV without them, recording a video or borrowing a game. Are you going to tell me you haven't done any of those? If you do I'll then tell you to go away, I don't talk to hypocritical liars.

My point being, everyone is a pirate. IP law needs to be changed.

---

Tell me which of these is better;

A person who is happy.
A person who is unhappy.

The thing is all of those things are allowable under fair use and is a completely different thing and you already know they are. You are also completely assuming all pirates can't afford what they pirate...

Getting an Ipad or a new car would make me happy, again doesn't mean I just go and take it and make people lose their jobs because they haven't sold enough.

For crying out loud, water is wet...

The examples you give necessarily involve denying someone else the item and the associated sale. If you have that iPad or car, someone else who can buy it can't. That is not the case when talking about a digital file.

Just like you, I only pirate when it suits me. Reading a family member or friends book, watching a DVD of theirs without them, listening to their music, watching their TV without them, recording a video or borrowing a game. Are you going to tell me you haven't done any of those? If you do I'll then tell you to go away, I don't talk to hypocritical liars.

My point being, everyone is a pirate. IP law needs to be changed.

If you don't know what piracy is, don't make up examples. The above don't qualify. Attempting to force "hypocrisy" and "piracy" on people is really poor form.

Both of you, grow up. There is no difference between the examples I gave and the piracy you're against. It is just that the examples I gave are unenforceable, so the companies have no choice but to allow them. That is the only difference.

 

[Alterego-X]

The thing is all of those things are allowable under fair use and is a completely different thing and you already know they are. You are also completely assuming all pirates can't afford what they pirate...

Getting an Ipad or a new car would make me happy, again doesn't mean I just go and take it and make people lose their jobs because they haven't sold enough.

Actually, no, that's not Fair Use. It's legal, too, but Fair Use is something else, about creators being allowed to use reasonably small pieces of someone else's work.

But anyways, WHY would Fair use be OK? Because it's legal? In practice, you are still using someone else's intellectual property without paying them, except that it's called "fair".

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

The examples you give necessarily involve denying someone else the item and the associated sale. If you have that iPad or car, someone else who can buy it can't. That is not the case when talking about a digital file.

[

You are denying the games developer the money they have lost from that sale. Removing that money from circulation means that it can't be put into future games and also investors are less likely to put their money into risky game ideas or new developers because of loss of revenue to pirates, real or imagined.

How can you think that it isn't harmful to the industry :/

 

[ThreeWords]

snip

It strikes me that you said that some people, while living at or below the poverty line, are kept happy by access to free entertainment. And that they own HD TVs.

In my opinion, if you can afford a TV, you aren't in poverty.

 

[ThreeWords]

... most of the anti-piracy stats coming from industry insiders is made up to justify more DRM....

If the piracy isn't real, why do they want more DRM?

 

[Alterego-X]

The examples you give necessarily involve denying someone else the item and the associated sale. If you have that iPad or car, someone else who can buy it can't. That is not the case when talking about a digital file.

[

You are denying the games developer the money they have lost from that sale. Removing that money from circulation means that it can't be put into future games and also investors are less likely to put their money into risky game ideas or new developers because of loss of revenue to pirates, real or imagined.

How can you think that it isn't harmful to the industry :/

And where is that money that they lost from the sales? Do you think that pirates are hiding huge piles of money under their mattresses, that they spared by piracy? Even if many pirates aren't literally broke to the point of being physically unable to buy a single game, they don't have extra money, either.

That money is already in the economy, supporting other industries. The only problem would be if they would be growing at the cost of media industries collapsing, but that's not the case, the media industries are larger than ever as well, even with piracy.

 

[Vigormortis]

The examples you give necessarily involve denying someone else the item and the associated sale. If you have that iPad or car, someone else who can buy it can't. That is not the case when talking about a digital file.

[

You are denying the games developer the money they have lost from that sale. Removing that money from circulation means that it can't be put into future games and also investors are less likely to put their money into risky game ideas or new developers because of loss of revenue to pirates, real or imagined.

How can you think that it isn't harmful to the industry :/

Because most people that defend software piracy are whiny, self-entitled children (mentally) who truly believe they have a "right" to entertainment. That they have a "right" to own whatever they want. Being able to pay for it is just a perk for those that made the object/service in question.

There are some cases where "piracy" can be acceptable. And I use that term very lightly as it doesn't really apply to what I'm going to talk about.

For example, if you're creating a cracked backup of a game you already own (and don't plan to give out copies). That's fine.

Or, if you're looking for a game you can no longer buy, not because you can't afford it, and your only option is a community made crack or work around. Fine. That's understandable. Provided someone doesn't still own the rights to it.

But that's almost never the case. What you'll find instead is that most pirates, especially those that defend the act, will often pirate the most recent, AAA game titles or the newest releases of some new software application. (photoshop, for example)

It's like watching a bank robber try to talk his way out of jail time by saying, "Well, I need money. It's my right. So I just took it. No one's getting hurt. It's not like the bank, it's employees, or the members of the bank lost any money. So where's the harm? They can just print more money, right?"