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

[Vigormortis]

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.

I'm sorry, but all I'm reading here is "they're still successful, so it's okay to steal from them". That is by far one of the weakest excuses I've heard so far in defense of piracy. It's so bad it just HAS to be some kind of joke. A trolling attempt perhaps.

Also, as I've said many times, just because you can't afford the game doesn't give you the right to just take it. We could argue until the end of time about whether or not the devs actually lost a sale, it doesn't matter. You're still defending theft. Simple as.

Besides, and it might just be my own experience, but at LEAST 95% of the people I've met over the years that openly admit to pirating (and some that don't admit) pirate software simply because they don't want to pay for it, not because they can't.

And even if you can't, that doesn't give you a "right" to the software. You probably can't afford a luxury sports car, but that doesn't give you the "right" to just walk into a dealership and drive away with one.

 

[Savagezion]

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 :/

According to the "lost sale" argument, people are opting out of spending billions per year. Yet the economy is not seeing that money surface anywhere else. Other industries are not seeing an increase in spending to account for that. All industries are suffering right now. (Or claiming to, the games industry is actually growing fast) The government now owns (30%?) of GM due to a bailout. Tons of people have been foreclosed on in the past few years. Where are these billions of dollars people are saving from pirating? This argument is especially ridiculous if you assume a pirate only pirates their games and never buys.

That argument assume billions of dollars that don't exist.

 

[ElPatron]

1. Games don't exist without someone paying for them.
2. I pay for games.
3. You don't.
4. My honest business provides free games for you.
5. That's bullshit.

I haven't bought games recently, in a "boycott everyone" move. I seriously think boycotts are stupid, and no games released in the last 2 years actually made me rush to the store - so I just haven't bought anything.

Basically I have been playing older games and F2P games. EDIT: I also get some free games with magazines. This month there is a free World in Conflict Complete Edition so I might not miss this one.

Sometimes I just borrow. I am considering buying some games for my 360, but used.

I am ruining the industry as much as a pirate, then.

 

[Alterego-X]

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.

I'm sorry, but all I'm reading here is "they're still successful, so it's okay to steal from them". That is by far one of the weakest excuses I've heard so far in defense of piracy. It's so bad it just HAS to be some kind of joke. A trolling attempt perhaps.

Also, as I've said many times, just because you can't afford the game doesn't give you the right to just take it. We could argue until the end of time about whether or not the devs actually lost a sale, it doesn't matter. You're still defending theft. Simple as.

And with that stance, how can you justify Fair Use?

You are copying a character in your avatar, copyrighted by Bill Watterson and Universal Press Syndicate, without, I assume, paying anything for him. That is theft. Or is it?

 

[kurupt87]

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?"

Because most people that are anti piracy are arrogant, entitled undeserving children who have had everything handed to them by their parents. They haven't grown up and have never had to work for anything, often having had parents who put them through University.

If they're slightly older they'll tend to have a job that pays them well enough, gives some satisfaction and is broadly respectable by society. They won't have a job that pays fuck all and which society tells us as being staffed by the worst, most useless people.

Wee, we can both be cuntishly dismissive, fun game eh?

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 :/

The only people that imagine that piracy has a big impact are those that swallow the story that it's piracy that causes games high prices. Piracy is used by companies to justify their high prices, it doesn't cause them.

Think economic politics.

It's like the Tories saying that the banking crisis happened because of Labour, rather than the truth which is that the banking crisis happened under Labour. It would have happened if it had been the Tories in power, the Lib Dems or the fucking Green Party. They just use it to further their own aims (Labour would be doing the same thing if the situation were reversed). Stupid people believe them.

The companies do the same thing, they see this piracy thing and realise they can use it to justify their ridiculous prices.

 

[Epona]

... 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?

I didn't say that piracy isn't real, just that piracy stats from publishers are made up. Like when CDP put out that people pirated Witcher 2 4.5 million times and then real stats came out for the top 10 pirated games of 2011 (from a torrent site) and Witcher 2 wasn't even on it.

DRM is about control. They want to control how you use the game. They want to ensure that you can't loan it to a friend, resell it or even let your wife play the game. For you, the consumer, DRM=Digital Restrictions Management. For them, DRM=Digital Rights Management.

DRM doesn't stop piracy, it's not about piracy. It's about controlling how honest customers use the game.

 

[kurupt87]

Actually, his analogy is surprisingly accurate. Paying customers are the ones who pay for pirated games, meaning that the people who suffer do to pirates are paying customers. Think of it like this. 6 million copies of game x are played, 3 million are payed for. Company still needs to cecoup x price, so the cost of the game needs to be twice as expensive with piracy as without, ergo the paying customers pay twice the amount, effectively meaning that half the cost of the game is stolen from them by pirates. It's not a perfect analogy, but it is accurate.

Yes, that would perfectly explain all the video game developers going bust and the video game industry itself shrinking into ignominy...

Ah but wait, the video game industry is bigger than Hollywood? It's still growing? Even in the midst of a recession this industry still grows?

...

 

[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?

I didn't say that piracy isn't real, just that piracy stats from publishers are made up. Like when CDP put out that people pirated Witcher 2 4.5 million times and then real stats came out for the top 10 pirated games of 2011 (from a torrent site) and Witcher 2 wasn't even on it.

DRM is about control. They want to control how you use the game. They want to ensure that you can't loan it to a friend, resell it or even let your wife play the game. For you, the consumer, DRM=Digital Restrictions Management. For them, DRM=Digital Rights Management.

DRM doesn't stop piracy, it's not about piracy. It's about controlling how honest customers use the game.

I think that lending it out is a fair thing for them to try and prevent, because, like piracy, it costs them sales. Bear in mind that while these guys are greedy, they aren't actually evil as such...

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Actually, his analogy is surprisingly accurate. Paying customers are the ones who pay for pirated games, meaning that the people who suffer do to pirates are paying customers. Think of it like this. 6 million copies of game x are played, 3 million are payed for. Company still needs to cecoup x price, so the cost of the game needs to be twice as expensive with piracy as without, ergo the paying customers pay twice the amount, effectively meaning that half the cost of the game is stolen from them by pirates. It's not a perfect analogy, but it is accurate.

Yes, that would perfectly explain all the video game developers going bust and the video game industry itself shrinking into ignominy...

Ah but wait, the video game industry is bigger than Hollywood? It's still growing? Even in the midst of a recession this industry still grows?

...

I'm sure all the people stealing from it doesn't help. If those people paid for their games it could be so much better and the games could be so much better. You can justify it to yourself all you want with conspiracy theories and ideas that we are all rich people looking down on you but at the end of the day I'm from a working class family, I'm not rich and I save up and pay for my games. Why don't you.

 

[Lord Revan 117]

I miss the days when pirates would sail the ocean, with parrots on thier shoulders stealing booty, wearing those funny hats with thier hook hands. What happened to those days?

 

[Alterego-X]

Actually, his analogy is surprisingly accurate. Paying customers are the ones who pay for pirated games, meaning that the people who suffer do to pirates are paying customers. Think of it like this. 6 million copies of game x are played, 3 million are payed for. Company still needs to cecoup x price, so the cost of the game needs to be twice as expensive with piracy as without, ergo the paying customers pay twice the amount, effectively meaning that half the cost of the game is stolen from them by pirates. It's not a perfect analogy, but it is accurate.

Yes, that would perfectly explain all the video game developers going bust and the video game industry itself shrinking into ignominy...

Ah but wait, the video game industry is bigger than Hollywood? It's still growing? Even in the midst of a recession this industry still grows?

...

I'm sure all the people stealing from it doesn't help. If those people paid for their games it could be so much better and the games could be so much better.

Actually, there is no proof for that.

For one thing, piracy increases the audience, the bigger audience increases word of mouth and media buzz, and media buzz means winning more audiences, some of which will be paying customers.

After all, the Escapist will get hits from pirates, the Old Media will reference games based on how familiar the audince is with it not how many paid for it, and kids at school will be discussing the game that most of them played, not what most of them bought.

So even if some pirates wouldn't have paid for the game anyways, while some would have, without piracy, there are also some buyers who wouldn't have heard about the game without piracy.

Which force is bigger, no one can tell, but the fact that the industry is healthy, is a good sign.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Actually, his analogy is surprisingly accurate. Paying customers are the ones who pay for pirated games, meaning that the people who suffer do to pirates are paying customers. Think of it like this. 6 million copies of game x are played, 3 million are payed for. Company still needs to cecoup x price, so the cost of the game needs to be twice as expensive with piracy as without, ergo the paying customers pay twice the amount, effectively meaning that half the cost of the game is stolen from them by pirates. It's not a perfect analogy, but it is accurate.

Yes, that would perfectly explain all the video game developers going bust and the video game industry itself shrinking into ignominy...

Ah but wait, the video game industry is bigger than Hollywood? It's still growing? Even in the midst of a recession this industry still grows?

...

I'm sure all the people stealing from it doesn't help. If those people paid for their games it could be so much better and the games could be so much better. You can justify it to yourself all you want with conspiracy theories and ideas that we are all rich people looking down on you but at the end of the day I'm from a working class family and I pay for my games. Why don't you.

Why must you insist on using the term stealing to describe copyright infringement? The two are completely different, they're not interchangeable at all.

Because I'm pretty sure the games dev's losing their jobs because people don't pay for their products see it as exactly that.

 

[Epona]

... 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?

I didn't say that piracy isn't real, just that piracy stats from publishers are made up. Like when CDP put out that people pirated Witcher 2 4.5 million times and then real stats came out for the top 10 pirated games of 2011 (from a torrent site) and Witcher 2 wasn't even on it.

DRM is about control. They want to control how you use the game. They want to ensure that you can't loan it to a friend, resell it or even let your wife play the game. For you, the consumer, DRM=Digital Restrictions Management. For them, DRM=Digital Rights Management.

DRM doesn't stop piracy, it's not about piracy. It's about controlling how honest customers use the game.

I think that lending it out is a fair thing for them to try and prevent, because, like piracy, it costs them sales. Bear in mind that while these guys are greedy, they aren't actually evil as such...

I think you're wrong. Loaning out a DVD is fine, loaning out a CD is fine and loaning out a video game used to be fine and should still be.

If you are taking the view that anything that costs them sales is wrong, then you are too far out there for me to converse with.

 

[Alterego-X]

Why must you insist on using the term stealing to describe copyright infringement? The two are completely different, they're not interchangeable at all.

Because I'm pretty sure the games dev's losing their jobs because people don't pay for their products see it as exactly that.

You can't find a single person who lost their job because of piracy.

But even if you could, their feelings about legal definitions are not relevant.

If I lose my job because of the economic recession, and I feel that it's like I was finished off, that doesn't justify you to go around saying that mass layoffs at the economic recession are a genocide.

 

[kurupt87]

Actually, his analogy is surprisingly accurate. Paying customers are the ones who pay for pirated games, meaning that the people who suffer do to pirates are paying customers. Think of it like this. 6 million copies of game x are played, 3 million are payed for. Company still needs to cecoup x price, so the cost of the game needs to be twice as expensive with piracy as without, ergo the paying customers pay twice the amount, effectively meaning that half the cost of the game is stolen from them by pirates. It's not a perfect analogy, but it is accurate.

Yes, that would perfectly explain all the video game developers going bust and the video game industry itself shrinking into ignominy...

Ah but wait, the video game industry is bigger than Hollywood? It's still growing? Even in the midst of a recession this industry still grows?

...

I'm sure all the people stealing from it doesn't help. If those people paid for their games it could be so much better and the games could be so much better. You can justify it to yourself all you want with conspiracy theories and ideas that we are all rich people looking down on you but at the end of the day I'm from a working class family, I'm not rich and I save up and pay for my games. Why don't you.

Are you saying politics and smart business is a conspiracy theory? Maybe you really are that young but not everyone wants the best for you, they want the best for themselves and those they represent.