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

[XDravond]

Summary at the end.

Piracy is more or less rampant at this point, right? I mean the games industry is throwing out numbers that suggest almost as many people are stealing the games as buying them. Pretty much everyone I know pirates like a ************, and most of them aren't even all that savvy.

As someone who actually pays for my games, I can't fucking stand the pirates. I hate their bullshit arguments, none of which can really stand up to this simple chain of logic:

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.

You can hate the publishers all you want, and you can feel totally justified in stealing from them. But you will never be justified in stealing from me. End of story. Whatever other arguments you might concoct will never sidestep this one simple truth: paying customers subsidize the entertainment of the freeloaders, and that is entirely wrong.

But it's never that simple, is it? Even in my utter certainty that pirates are a bunch of assholes, I can't help wondering about the relationship between the rise of piracy and the stagnation (and frequent termination) of American employment income.

A recent study showed that fully half of all Americans live at or below 200% of the poverty line (commonly referred to as "low income"). 20% of New Yorkers fall below even the poverty line. These are staggering figures, and yet the mood in this country isn't exactly toxic. Yes, there's Occupy, but that didn't exactly touch off a revolution. We've got third-world levels of wealthy disparity in America, but people aren't burning down mansions. Why not?

The answer, IMO, is that even the nearly poor enjoy a relatively decent standard of living, and a big part of that quality of life is easy access to plenty of entertainment. No, you don't have a big house or a swimming pool or a fancy car. But you do have a relatively affordable HD TV and all the games, music, and movies you can pirate. All that entertainment serves as distraction from the fairly obvious truth: we're not a wealthy nation anymore. Not as concerns our average citizen, anyways.

Enter SOPA, PIPA, DMA, etc. The government is trying its damnest to crack down on piracy because they see nothing but lost dollars (taxable revenue) in every download. This is certainly folly - ***but not for the reasons your average forum-going pirate suggests***. Typically, a self-righteous pirate asshole will say something along the lines of "w/e, I wasn't going to buy it anyways". This might even be true, but I don't believe such people contribute even a significant fraction to our total piracy.

I think the vast majority of piracy, at home and abroad, is committed by people who cannot otherwise afford the product.

Do these people deserve the product when they cannot pay for it? Short answer: no. Long answer: revolution.

If the government could snap its fingers and eliminate all piracy tomorrow, what would happen? Well you'd have tens of millions of former pirates, poor people who simply couldn't afford to pay for games, music, and movies, sitting on their fucking hands as they finally realize how poor they've actually become. Sure, they never had the house/car/pool, but they were watching and playing the same shit as everyone else - and it was enough. Now, though, in our hypothetical world free of piracy?

Summary: I think there's at least an off chance that piracy, as a whole, might be a critical form of wealth redistribution, and its elimination might have drastic and unforeseen consequences for the United States and the world.

Ok let's see here.
To me it's not "stealing" it is the very similar (but different) "not giving the "right" party any revenue". It's very similar but the "right party" wouldn't seen that money/revenue if the "pirate" wouldn't downloaded it anyway. Does this make it right to copy a work without permission? No, but pleas stop call it "stealing" because it isn't theoretically.

(When the IP owners screams "stealing","robbing",etc makes me not taking them serious.)

SOPA/PIPA/and so on. Please if you are going to "crack down" on piracy, please do not bunch up physical goods as drugs etc with copying of data bits. They need different debates because they are diffrent problems and need different solution.

And what makes you think that the "poor" would do anything about their situation if they feel even worse?
What could these "unforeseen" consequences for the wealth redistribution be? A more equal world? Better understanding of what makes a "decent" life? The rest of the world becomes richer? Amercians needs to adjust to the rest of the world (instead of the opposite like now)? USA goes broke? (oh wait that's a reality already... And the big "poor" media companies are going with huge positive number..)


I do not condone pirating (of data, physical goods are something different and as I explained it needs to be separated from the debate to it's own.) but I have a hard time seeing it as one of the "huge" things that needs fixing by restricting everyone including the innocent. I do not see it as worth "ridiculous fines", prison etc

And finally please do not call people assholes just because they are doing something you don't think is right, it lowers the standards of a good debate to name-calling.(And you could left the fucks and shit out to, if you want me to take you more serious anyway)

 

[Xanthious]

You committed an illegal act, that's the point here, and you deprived the company of a potential sale (and leave your friend out of this, it's not the same. When you pirate, you steal from a company, not a friend). Sure, you might not have bought the game anyway, but you still committed an illegal act, did you not?
The CD you stole (if a theft) from a company might not have been sold at all, ever, yet you still stole it, did you not?

Illegal? Yes. But if your only claim is they are both illegal that isn't enough similarities to claim they are the same thing.

If I were totally unable or unwilling to spend money on a specific game/cd/movie what has the company been deprived of if I were to pirate it? It's been established there was no chance of me buying the item so they haven't been deprived of the money from a sale. If I pirate it they certainly are not out the cost of any physical goods like a CD or box. Where is the loss on their end if there would be no sale if not for piracy? There is no loss on their end.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

No but you are losing out on what the industry could be doing if it got paid for every copy that got pirated. Maybe it wouldn't be at the mercy of massive publishers for example. Maybe every game wouldn't be clogged up by annoying DRM because their investors wouldn't be concerned over losing money.

You means like COD 78 or FIFA 2052? In the hypothetical case, that people bought every game they tried, noone would bother to make better games for that reason.

The reason why Publishers churn out 'safe bets' is because they think gaming is a risky investment because of things like piracy.

snip.

Hence why I said , and quoted Ms Kreos earlier in the thread, about changing copyright law to match the new technology. You can't prove that everyone who pirates can't afford what they are pirating, I suspect at least 40% of them can (arbitrary guess) and the very action of pirating causes investors to be put off digital media especially in today's economy.

I'm not saying underprivileged people don't exist but saying that piracy isn't damaging to the industry and isn't the main cause of DRM (whether it's effective against pirates or not) is ridiculous.

 

[getoffmycloud]

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.

What he is trying to say is that because he is purchasing the product its his money that goes into the next game that the developer/publisher releases that they just go and pirate again and if everyone stopped paying for games then they wouldn't be able to pirate games anymore because there wouldn't be any made

 

[lacktheknack]

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.

Let me pick apart your analogy.

Ideal:
>producer makes fifty pairs of sunglasses
>fifty people buy sunglasses
>producer takes revenue, produces a hundred more sunglasses

OP's take:
>producer makes fifty pairs of sunglasses
>thirty people buy sunglasses, twenty people steal them
>producer takes revenue, fires several employees and makes fifty more sunglasses that are cheaper quality, due to lost revenue (and accounting for unchanging costs of production, that's a reasonable drop in production)

Worst Case Scenario:
>producer makes fifty pairs of sunglasses
>everyone goes off and buys orange juice and sweaters instead of sunglasses, fifty people steal them
>producer goes bankrupt

Notice how none of them have the same outcome. Also notice how they affect the honest consumer.

"But pirates don't steal!"

A. Technicalities can go screw themselves, you still acquired software ENTIRELY MEANT FOR PURCHASE without paying anyone.

B.
OP's take:
>producer makes fifty pairs of sunglasses
>thirty people buy sunglasses, fifty people use a cloning device to get free sunglasses
(if the producer isn't aware of the plan)
>producer takes revenue, fires several employees and makes thirty more sunglasses due to lack of interest
(if the producer is aware of the plan)
>producer takes revenue, fires several employees and makes fifty more sunglasses of cheaper quality (why put lots of effort into something if people are just going to take it?)

Worst Case Scenario
>producer makes fifty pairs of sunglasses
>eighty people use a cloning device to get free sunglasses
>producer goes bankrupt

Conclusion: Sure, companies aren't going bankrupt thanks to honest business, but pirates are only causing problems. MAJOR problems. And if pirates become too prevalent, then maybe the loss of revenue is enough to shut down the company, which could very well be seen as stealing from the consumer on a grand scale.

It's a bit worrying how many people don't get how economics work and how EVERY SINGLE VARIABLE affects the consumer one way or another.

 

[Realitycrash]

You committed an illegal act, that's the point here, and you deprived the company of a potential sale (and leave your friend out of this, it's not the same. When you pirate, you steal from a company, not a friend). Sure, you might not have bought the game anyway, but you still committed an illegal act, did you not?
The CD you stole (if a theft) from a company might not have been sold at all, ever, yet you still stole it, did you not?

Illegal? Yes. But if your only claim is they are both illegal that isn't enough similarities to claim they are the same thing.

But if I were totally unable or unwilling to spend money on a specific game/cd/movie what has the company been deprived of if I were to pirate it? It's been established there was no chance of me buying the item so they haven't been deprived of the money from a sale. If I pirate it they certainly are not out the cost of any physical goods like a CD or box. Where is the loss on their end if there would be no sale if not for piracy? There is no loss on their end.

In my mind, it isn't bad because they haven't LOST anything, it's bad because they ask you not to do it, and you go (not "you" as in you per se, ofc, but "you" as in the pirate) go "fuck you, I'm taking it anyway!".
They haven't lost money, they haven't lost a thing, since you weren't going to buy it anyway, but they clearly say "if you like our stuff, support it! If not, let it be." The pirate ignores this and think "hey, they aren't losing a sale, so it's alrigth!". No, it isn't alright, because you are violating someone elses (the companies/the artists/whatever) wishes, and THAT's what is wrong with it. That's why it is equally bad in both cases (except that when you physically steam from a company/artist/whatever, you do of course steal a product that cost money to produce, but this is once again concerning the consequence, and not the act itself).

If you think that it is the consequences that determine if an act is bad or not, then no, it isn't the same. If you, like me, think it is the act itself, then they are equally wrong.

 

[Zen Toombs]

-snippity snip-

Interesting. I still don't think that piracy is okay, but think that it is plausible that the result of entirely shutting down internet piracy could result in revolution for the reasons you described.

Thanks for your thoughts!

 

[Bostur]

Let me pick apart your analogy.

Ideal:
>producer makes fifty pairs of sunglasses
>fifty people buy sunglasses
>producer takes revenue, produces a hundred more sunglasses

OP's take:
>producer makes fifty pairs of sunglasses
>thirty people buy sunglasses, twenty people steal them
>producer takes revenue, fires several employees and makes fifty more sunglasses that are cheaper quality, due to lost revenue (and accounting for unchanging costs of production, that's a reasonable drop in production)

Worst Case Scenario:
>producer makes fifty pairs of sunglasses
>everyone goes off and buys orange juice and sweaters instead of sunglasses, fifty people steal them
>producer goes bankrupt

How about these scenarios:

Producer makes 50 copies of a game.
30 people buy them, 20 people use illegal copies.
Producer loses 20 sales

Producer makes 50 copies of a game.
30 people buy them, 20 people spend their money on something else without getting illegal copies.
Producer loses 20 sales.

While the last scenario sounds more moral, the end result for the producer is exactly the same. Thats the difference between physical theft and copyright infringement. There is not a 1:1 relation between the copies used and the loss.

My guess is that if we managed to completely prevent any pirating, we would go from the first scenario to the second.

 

[lacktheknack]

Let me pick apart your analogy.

Ideal:
>producer makes fifty pairs of sunglasses
>fifty people buy sunglasses
>producer takes revenue, produces a hundred more sunglasses

OP's take:
>producer makes fifty pairs of sunglasses
>thirty people buy sunglasses, twenty people steal them
>producer takes revenue, fires several employees and makes fifty more sunglasses that are cheaper quality, due to lost revenue (and accounting for unchanging costs of production, that's a reasonable drop in production)

Worst Case Scenario:
>producer makes fifty pairs of sunglasses
>everyone goes off and buys orange juice and sweaters instead of sunglasses, fifty people steal them
>producer goes bankrupt

How about these scenarios:

Producer makes 50 copies of a game.
30 people buy them, 20 people use illegal copies.
Producer loses 20 sales

Producer makes 50 copies of a game.
30 people buy them, 20 people spend their money on something else without getting illegal copies.
Producer loses 20 sales.

While the last scenario sounds more moral, the end result for the producer is exactly the same. Thats the difference between physical theft and copyright infringement. There is not a 1:1 relation between the copies used and the loss.

My guess is that if we managed to completely prevent any pirating, we would go from the first scenario to the second.

The second scenario would sell closer to 35 copies. That makes the change worth it. (And yes it would! I know MANY people who have the money AND the interest, but just no ethics!)

 

[AnotherAvatar]

Summary at the end.

Piracy is more or less rampant at this point, right? I mean the games industry is throwing out numbers that suggest almost as many people are stealing the games as buying them. Pretty much everyone I know pirates like a ************, and most of them aren't even all that savvy.

As someone who actually pays for my games, I can't fucking stand the pirates. I hate their bullshit arguments, none of which can really stand up to this simple chain of logic:

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.

You can hate the publishers all you want, and you can feel totally justified in stealing from them. But you will never be justified in stealing from me. End of story. Whatever other arguments you might concoct will never sidestep this one simple truth: paying customers subsidize the entertainment of the freeloaders, and that is entirely wrong.

But it's never that simple, is it? Even in my utter certainty that pirates are a bunch of assholes, I can't help wondering about the relationship between the rise of piracy and the stagnation (and frequent termination) of American employment income.

A recent study showed that fully half of all Americans live at or below 200% of the poverty line (commonly referred to as "low income"). 20% of New Yorkers fall below even the poverty line. These are staggering figures, and yet the mood in this country isn't exactly toxic. Yes, there's Occupy, but that didn't exactly touch off a revolution. We've got third-world levels of wealthy disparity in America, but people aren't burning down mansions. Why not?

The answer, IMO, is that even the nearly poor enjoy a relatively decent standard of living, and a big part of that quality of life is easy access to plenty of entertainment. No, you don't have a big house or a swimming pool or a fancy car. But you do have a relatively affordable HD TV and all the games, music, and movies you can pirate. All that entertainment serves as distraction from the fairly obvious truth: we're not a wealthy nation anymore. Not as concerns our average citizen, anyways.

Enter SOPA, PIPA, DMA, etc. The government is trying its damnest to crack down on piracy because they see nothing but lost dollars (taxable revenue) in every download. This is certainly folly - ***but not for the reasons your average forum-going pirate suggests***. Typically, a self-righteous pirate asshole will say something along the lines of "w/e, I wasn't going to buy it anyways". This might even be true, but I don't believe such people contribute even a significant fraction to our total piracy.

I think the vast majority of piracy, at home and abroad, is committed by people who cannot otherwise afford the product.

Do these people deserve the product when they cannot pay for it? Short answer: no. Long answer: revolution.

If the government could snap its fingers and eliminate all piracy tomorrow, what would happen? Well you'd have tens of millions of former pirates, poor people who simply couldn't afford to pay for games, music, and movies, sitting on their fucking hands as they finally realize how poor they've actually become. Sure, they never had the house/car/pool, but they were watching and playing the same shit as everyone else - and it was enough. Now, though, in our hypothetical world free of piracy?

Summary: I think there's at least an off chance that piracy, as a whole, might be a critical form of wealth redistribution, and its elimination might have drastic and unforeseen consequences for the United States and the world.

I really don't like your "Stealing from me" point as that's like saying when I check out a book from the library I'm stealing from everyone who bought the book...

However your final point is correct, file sharing is a form of wealth redistribution, and without it the lower class would have even less.

In some ways this would be good, as a revolution would come on a lot quicker without a distracted public... I don't know, I feel mixed about your point. I view file sharing as something good for not only our society, as any shared art is, but also good for the art it spreads around and in a way challenges, because with the piracy option I feel like only the high quality bits sell (and those advertised like crazy, because sheeple love brainwashing).

My big pro-file sharing thing relates to music, because I'm not only a fan of music who spends thousands of dollars every year to go to festivals and concerts, I'm also a musician who both DJ's and produces. I can't help but picture how much taking file sharing out of the equation would change the scene for the worse for both the musicians and the fans, while only benefiting the publishers, who are the one's really making the money on sales these days.

You see, I wouldn't go to as many concerts and music festivals if I also had to spend large sums of cash on even just hearing the songs, and I certainly wouldn't be so willing to try new bands, and I know for a fact from conversation with other fans that they wouldn't either. What this would mean is that while the publishers will get more money from sales, the artists, who typically make their money from touring these days would end up struggling to continue as attendance rates for shows and festivals drop.

Plus... A real artist doesn't need to be a millionaire, I personally just want a lot of people to hear my stuff, which file sharing enables, and maybe make enough to live from just performing. In fact, I don't think anyone needs or deserves to be a millionaire in our current economic state, and to do so is just a sign of greed and ignorance of those suffering around you.

But that's the disgusting part of the American mindset isn't it? Everyone thinks they could become a millionaire at any second (in my opinion due to media brainwashing) and as such they never realize how fucking poor they really are, and always side with the rich.

I guess I just wish people would start looking at file sharing more from a charitable view-point. Instead you get crazy statements about how "YOU'RE STEALING FROM ME!!!"

If I stole your car tonight, but I only stole a copy, and your car was still sitting there in the same state for you in the morning while I'm driving my copy to wherever I need, would you hold it against me?

How about if an old homeless woman who sort of reminds you of your grandma made a copy of your house so she could sleep in it for free during winter? Would that upset you?

 

[peruvianskys]

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.

Yeah, this. It's like buying a sports car and complaining that you can't afford the tires to go on it. If your PC can run the modern games that are so often pirated, then you've spent enough to demonstrate that you have a large amount of disposable income.

 

[Savagezion]

Summary at the end.

Piracy is more or less rampant at this point, right? I mean the games industry is throwing out numbers that suggest almost as many people are stealing the games as buying them. Pretty much everyone I know pirates like a ************, and most of them aren't even all that savvy.

As someone who actually pays for my games, I can't fucking stand the pirates. I hate their bullshit arguments, none of which can really stand up to this simple chain of logic:

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.

That is broken logic though as you are clearly stating that someone who pirates doesn't buy games at all, ever. As well, that they have disposable income that they are choosing to spend on something else.

If Bob has a budget of $2000 per year to spend on luxuries, and he spends $1200 a year on gaming (because he also likes going to the movies and dining out on occasion) but pirates a few games, how does that make him worse than Jim who has $1500 a month to spend on luxuries and spends $1000 of that on gaming but does not pirate? Or even someone with the exact same figures or more. The fact is, Bob is out of money to spend on luxuries. No sale will take place beyond this point. It just won't.
THAT is why a pirated copy isn't necessarily a lost sale. A man with no money and no game is actually worse for the industry than a man with no money and a free copy of the game. The man with no game might forget about that game when the next big hyped thing comes around and he wants to be part of that. The best the man with no game can do is talk about how he wants the game but can't afford it. (Bring to light how expensive games are.) The man with the game can not only keep it at the forefront of his mind but also spread word of how good it is.

But it's never that simple, is it? Even in my utter certainty that pirates are a bunch of assholes, I can't help wondering about the relationship between the rise of piracy and the stagnation (and frequent termination) of American employment income.

A recent study showed that fully half of all Americans live at or below 200% of the poverty line (commonly referred to as "low income"). 20% of New Yorkers fall below even the poverty line. These are staggering figures, and yet the mood in this country isn't exactly toxic. Yes, there's Occupy, but that didn't exactly touch off a revolution. We've got third-world levels of wealthy disparity in America, but people aren't burning down mansions. Why not?

The answer, IMO, is that even the nearly poor enjoy a relatively decent standard of living, and a big part of that quality of life is easy access to plenty of entertainment. No, you don't have a big house or a swimming pool or a fancy car. But you do have a relatively affordable HD TV and all the games, music, and movies you can pirate. All that entertainment serves as distraction from the fairly obvious truth: we're not a wealthy nation anymore. Not as concerns our average citizen, anyways.

And yet the gaming industry is growing in a net worth of billions per year despite the spike in piracy. If piracy is increasing, and the net worth of the entire industry is increasing at the same time, its pretty clear piracy is NOT "killing the industry". The games industry is expected to surpass Hollywood by 2020 and that is an industry that pays 1 guy $20 million+ to play a part in a movie.

Enter SOPA, PIPA, DMA, etc. The government is trying its damnest to crack down on piracy because they see nothing but lost dollars (taxable revenue) in every download. This is certainly folly - ***but not for the reasons your average forum-going pirate suggests***. Typically, a self-righteous pirate asshole will say something along the lines of "w/e, I wasn't going to buy it anyways". This might even be true, but I don't believe such people contribute even a significant fraction to our total piracy.

I think the vast majority of piracy, at home and abroad, is committed by people who cannot otherwise afford the product.

Thus "they weren't going to buy it anyways". Whether they could or not is irrelevant.

If the government could snap its fingers and eliminate all piracy tomorrow, what would happen?

Prices of copyrighted material would see a 20% increase in price. Also, I would wonder why they didn't snap their fingers and make more globally stable jobs within their economy become available instead. That is a waste of a wish.

Summary: I think there's at least an off chance that piracy, as a whole, might be a critical form of wealth redistribution, and its elimination might have drastic and unforeseen consequences for the United States and the world.

First off, didn't you just say there was a huge disparity between income classes? How is wealth redistribution a bad thing then? Also, it isn't wealth redistribution, no real money is in piracy for you. (Not to say you can't profit from it, but no real wealth is in piracy) As well, it is more like class redistribution and the only people who would give a shit about that are elitist rich pricks who take pride in knowing they have something you don't, or better yet, can't afford.

 

[Vegosiux]

No but you are losing out on what the industry could be doing if it got paid for every copy that got pirated. Maybe it wouldn't be at the mercy of massive publishers for example. Maybe every game wouldn't be clogged up by annoying DRM because their investors wouldn't be concerned over losing money.

Even assuming every pirated copy is a lost sale, most of the games I am disappointed in are disappointing not because of lack of funding but because of silly decisions as in shoehorning MP into a SP franchise, rushing the game so it's "finished" (as if) for christmas sales, and the like.

As for DRM? It may as well not be there, because it doesn't help against pirates. At all. So there's another waste of money.

Again, I'm not defending piracy, but the devs and publishers could do so many things that are in no way related to piracy and war thereon to improve their sales.

Piracy is a dark spot on gaming, but making a boogeyman and scapegoat out of it is plain retarded.

It's no surprise that games that are done well, by developers who treat the customers well, who offer good customer support and hear the feedback, sell well.

 

[Bostur]

The second scenario would sell closer to 35 copies. That makes the change worth it. (And yes it would! I know MANY people who have the money AND the interest, but just no ethics!)

In practice it probably will. The exact numbers are of course hard to guess. But even if the second scenario sells 35 copies, it's still a far shot from the optimal 50 copies that some people claim would be the effect without piracy.

If we assume 35 copies, thats also 15 copies that could have been used but never will be, that costs absolutely nothing to make. Thats also a big loss, not for the publisher but for society as a whole.

 

[Epona]

I can't fucking stand the pirates.

I don't think it's healthy, especially in this economy, for gamers to be hating on pirates because they care so much about the bottom line of some company that they don't receive a paycheck from. For example, do you hate Wal Mart shoplifters as much as you hate video game pirates? Why not?

I do, since Walmart has explicitly stated that shoplifting is such a problem for them that they had to raise prices to compensate a while back.

So you are worried about Wal Marts bottom line too?

 

[TheDooD]

Its a good idea. Reminds me of a society built around



Surely that ended well, right?

On the whole "I wasnt going to buy it anyway" line not being credible. Seriously piracy never equals a lost sale. Its so simple. If you reduced piracy down to a zero sum, all those people who are pirating the software today, would simply migrate to Renting from gamefly, blockbuster, (local outlet) etc, borrowing from a friend, purchasing a used copy, possibly direct theft and the last alternative is waiting for the price to be reduced down to a realistically affordable amount. All of those situations, save for the last one, boils down to the same thing. The publishers STILL dont see any additional profits from the elimination of piracy.

So knowing that the ends will never justify the means because the solution will never have any sort of impact on the problem, is it logical to justify any sort of defensive action to try to put a stop to it? Is it a good idea to give up your rights along with the rights of those around you because you have it in your mind that putting a stop to piracy is "doing the right thing"?

Realize some important factors.

If you completely eliminate piracy, the publishers will view the increase in revenue as an irrelevant blip, continuing to rail on how the used market is killing them.

If you completely eliminate piracy any additional revenues actually generated for the publisher will NEVER make it into the hands of those who are pouring their blood sweat and tears into the product.

The video game industry has for a while now been one of the largest media industries. However, its also an industry that refuses to publicize how much money they make. The reason for this is because by doing so would allow every slack jawed yokel to grab a calculator and comprehend that when your making enough profit to cover the cost of the game that you developed as well as funding the sequel for it and then still enough to reinvest back into shareholders pockets, then cries of "piracy/used market is killing us" would start to fall on deaf ears and simply carry no weight.

There is an infinitely more devastating effect at play here. Using litigation to stomp on the rights of people justified by corporate greed. Corporations are not people. It is the governments responsibility to protect the people from all threats foreign and domestic. That includes threats made by the corporations we helped to build up.

Im not saying our corporations are inherently evil. They simply do what they are designed to do which is make money in any way possible. Sort of like the economic circle of life. You NEED corporations. But you also need something in place that keeps them from destroying everything they touch. The problem is that they have been left unchecked for far too long and have gotten to the point that they have become a swarm of locusts and when exactly has an oversized swarm of locusts ever been considered to be a good thing? And oddly enough the tables get turned and you realize that the corporations are the real parasites, and they are feasting on the people.

Damn you pretty much hit the nail on the head. Corporations are crying wolf just because something else finally is bringing a kinda of balance to their bullshit. They love to lie to, overcharge, rip off, nickel and dime loyal honest costumers. Now the internet which is offering all they really want for free and sometimes better quality control. It's pretty much making the corporations show their real colors because they're afraid that the common folk that don't know any better are gonna learn that those fuckers don't really deserve another dime of their money anymore.

Edit:
Pretty much the internet has allowed access to unlimited entertainment and knowledge to anybody that can connect to it. Which when you think about it is pretty utopian. Yet of course you have the bad eggs in the world that don't want others to have such abilities.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

No but you are losing out on what the industry could be doing if it got paid for every copy that got pirated. Maybe it wouldn't be at the mercy of massive publishers for example. Maybe every game wouldn't be clogged up by annoying DRM because their investors wouldn't be concerned over losing money.

Even assuming every pirated copy is a lost sale, most of the games I am disappointed in are disappointing not because of lack of funding but because of silly decisions as in shoehorning MP into a SP franchise, rushing the game so it's "finished" (as if) for christmas sales, and the like.

As for DRM? It may as well not be there, because it doesn't help against pirates. At all. So there's another waste of money.

Again, I'm not defending piracy, but the devs and publishers could do so many things that are in no way related to piracy and war thereon to improve their sales.

Piracy is a dark spot on gaming, but making a boogeyman and scapegoat out of it is plain retarded.

Piracy causes DRM whether it helps against it or not and when faced with concerned investors publishers are going to have to reassure those investors somehow.
Why do you think the gaming industry is so obsessed with getting the maximum money out of initial sales that they will race for a christmas release or shoehorn in multiplayer.

Because they see gaming as a risky investment...I wonder why.