An instance of piracy being okay?

[Lawyer105]

The developers see the additional $20 on the initial sale of the product.

The rest is basic economics.

No, they don't. How can you fail to understand this. It's not rocket science.

Assuming they don't charge more for EVERY item sold (which would cost them sales volume), the only way they can charge more for versions that can be resold is by having controls over the versions that can't be resold.

Oh wait... they tried that sort of stuff already. It's called DRM and it doesn't work!

That's why they can't have resale versions that sell for more, and that's why they're not going to see $20 upfront.

The industry has plenty of finance and business geniuses floating around. If it was as simple as you proposed, they'd already be doing it!

Wake up.

 

[Dexiro]

My girlfriend found a copy of Morrowind recently, and has been talking about it near constantly---it's been years since I played it and thinking about it again, I've started to look into getting a copy for myself on PC (I used to have the xbox version). It's not at my local Gamestop, or Babbages, whatever, and the copy online I've found isn't the GOTY edition.

I realized something.

Of all the places I can purchase this game, not one benefits the developers at all. If all the copies circulated are used, only gamestop or whoever's on ebay gets any money.

It would be like scavenging a super-duper-mart instead of buying from raiders, just getting the torrent. :/

Am I just a jaded pirate?

Their are copies of Morrowind all over the internet. Hell you can even get the GOTY edition off Steam if you don't mind digital copies.

 

[Indecipherable]

The developers see the additional $20 on the initial sale of the product.

The rest is basic economics.

No, they don't. How can you fail to understand this. It's not rocket science.

Assuming they don't charge more for EVERY item sold (which would cost them sales volume), the only way they can charge more for versions that can be resold is by having controls over the versions that can't be resold.

Oh wait... they tried that sort of stuff already. It's called DRM and it doesn't work!

That's why they can't have resale versions that sell for more, and that's why they're not going to see $20 upfront.

The industry has plenty of finance and business geniuses floating around. If it was as simple as you proposed, they'd already be doing it!

Wake up.

Except if there's a viable secondary market they can sell for more. The rest is basically you saying that you don't understand and that DRM doesn't work which is irrelevant.

Again, this is pretty basic economics here.

I will propose this in very basic terms.

Here is a book. You like it, and it is worth $100 to you. You know that this book can be resold (a secondary market) for $20 second hand. If you are clever, you'll realise that it is worth buying for anything less than $120 dollars. For any amount less than $120, you get to pocket the difference as additional benefit.

 

[Ewyx]

Piracy. Is. Illegal.

So.fucking.what.

This is the worst argument ever. Laws are a product of lobbies and people, and people make mistakes, not to mention many laws (especially IP laws) are created to serve companies and hinder people.

 

[Merkavar]

you say the developers of the game get no money from your purchase. but what about the shop that sells it too you. dont they deserve their money.

and basically there is no time when piracy is ok.

 

[Lawyer105]

Except if there's a viable secondary market they can sell for more. The rest is basically you saying that you don't understand and that DRM doesn't work which is irrelevant.

Again, this is pretty basic economics here.

The existence of a secondary market is irrelevant.

If they sell the resale version for more, they have to be able to stop you reselling the non-resale version. Otherwise everybody buys and resells the non-resale, cheaper version. Since they can't stop people reselling the non-resale version, nobody is going to buy the more expensive resale version.

Quite clearly, it's you that doesn't understand what's going on here. Activate brain, please. It's clearly in stand-by mode.

 

[Indecipherable]

Except if there's a viable secondary market they can sell for more. The rest is basically you saying that you don't understand and that DRM doesn't work which is irrelevant.

Again, this is pretty basic economics here.

The existence of a secondary market is irrelevant.

If they sell the resale version for more, they have to be able to stop you reselling the non-resale version. Otherwise everybody buys and resells the non-resale, cheaper version. Since they can't stop people reselling the non-resale version, nobody is going to buy the more expensive resale version.

Quite clearly, it's you that doesn't understand what's going on here. Activate brain, please. It's clearly in stand-by mode.

Sorry but I cannot debate this point further, other than to simply make the false appeal to the fact that I am 3 years into an economics degree and everything you say is just... shudderingly wow bad.

 

[Lawyer105]

Sorry but I cannot debate this point further, other than to simply make the false appeal to the fact that I am 3 years into an economics degree and everything you say is just... shudderingly wow bad.

Then I hope you're not wasting your money, because you clearly don't get it.

As it happens, I've completed a 4-year accounting degree, qualified as a chartered accountant, and have been working in finance for nearly 11 years now.

Your ideas are broken. And I've commented in the other thread as well, so you can see it there.

 

[Indecipherable]

There's a reason why Economists mock Accountants and this is why

 

[Speakercone]

Sorry but I paid for my first key, you aren't going to cheat me out of another $100 Microsoft.

From their point of view they'd sold you the Vauxhall and you tried to drive the Audi off the forecourt.

Not quite, it would be like they'd sold you a Vauxhall Vectra and you drove a different Vectra off the forecourt. Identical except for the plates.

 

[baconsarnie]

To those saying 'the law is the law' consider this:
Dying is illegal in the Houses of Parliament.
The eating of Mince pies on Christmas day is illegal.
In York it is perfectly legal to shoot a Scotsman with a crossbow upon seeing one, except for on Sundays. However any Scotsman caught drunk or with a weapon can still be shot on a Sunday, except with a bow and arrow.
Similarly in Chester it is legal to shoot a Welsh person with a crossbow, as long as it is within the city walls and is done after midnight.
In Chester, Welsh people aren?t allowed to enter the city grounds before sunrise and from staying after sunset.

 

[Dejawesp]

1st: You tell your friends to try it out, and generate revenue for the game studio.
2nd: You purchase the expansion/DLC/part 2 of the game, and generate further revenue.

If you hadn't pirated the game, the studio would have none of that. Note that I am NOT condoning piracy and I pay for everything on my computer, but there are ways that it can work in the favor of the game studios themselves.

Because that never happens. You pirate the game. See that the game is great. Hand your friends a copy of the pirated version of the game so they can try it as well and they share it with their friends

Then when expansions and DLCs are released you pirate those as well.
Weren't you around during the mid 90's cd swapping?


That pirates somehow help the gaming industry by distributing their software for free is such a delusional pipe dream I nearly vomit all over it when I hear it.

 

[Dejawesp]

Why do people say these things?

Piracy. Is. Illegal.

Doesn't matter what moral label you try to attach to it to justify it, that one fact isn't changing.

surely the moral label is important, it is what defines law in the first place

Law is still the law.

But law does not equal morality. For example, it's illegal to buy alcohol in New York on Sunday before noon. Does this mean that buying alcohol is immoral before noon and then suddenly becomes moral? Piracy being illegal doesn't invalidate this thread's question.

How can piracy not be immoral? A company spends hundreds of millions of dollars with the sole purpose of making a product that they can then profit off of. You then take that product, copy it and distribute it for free without any of the production costs.

If you want to talk about the difference between law and morals then there's plenty of areas like prostitution where you aren't being an entitled twat stealing other peoples hard work

"Its fine to have sex for money as long as you videotape it" There's your law hypocrisy. You can have that one for free. Run along now.

 

[Rauten]

Because that never happens.

Funny. So all those games I bought after pirating them don't exist? Huh.
And some of the games some of my friends bought don't exist either, apparently.

Weird.

 

[Dejawesp]

Because that never happens.

Funny. So all those games I bought after pirating them don't exist? Huh.
And some of the games some of my friends bought don't exist either, apparently.

Weird.

Even if you would be telling the truth you would not justify piracy.

 

[StBishop]

Actually I think I quite proved above that having a secondary market gives more money to the producer.

I must have missed that bit. how does the producer charging more to compensate for retail theivery equate to the secondary market benefiting the primary?

A pre-owned sale does not equate to a 1:1 loss because the person purchasing it was not prepared to pay the full value (else they would have when it came out).

Because shit never goes on sale when it's not selling well... Oh, wait.

But pricing concerns are recognised as a legitimate defense in cases of copyright violation... Damn, nope.

Resale is just glorified bootlegging. It benefits nobody but the retailer.

People are prepared to pay more for a game when they know they can resell it on the secondary market.

Some are yes. And they're already paying that amount right now.

Some people are not, so increasing the price is just going to piss them off. Some people don't give half a fuck what the resale value is because many gamers never trade their games at all and some only resell because the game is shit, in which case they didn't buy it with the intention of reselling, they're only reselling because getting $20 is better than throwing it in the bin.

 

[Fetzenfisch]

If you buy a game used, the developers already got their money for that copy. The seller isnt using it anymore, you are now, its not that there are more legit users than before. The whole debate about reselling is theft or something is the biggest pile of bullshit that was produced the last years. And people are actually falling for that one. I should start a career as manager and start the same shit with used cars, ill make millions for the companies.

 

[Temah]

I think at a push it can be 'okay' if you have no other choice, e.g. Mother 3 but even then, not a good idea to publicise it.

 

[Rauten]

Because that never happens.

Funny. So all those games I bought after pirating them don't exist? Huh.
And some of the games some of my friends bought don't exist either, apparently.

Weird.

Even if you would be telling the truth you would not justify piracy.

Not trying to justify piracy. Just trying to bring some reality to the thread.

BTW, I can take pictures of my Supercard SD standing besides my original copy of FF Tactics Advance and The World Ends With You // pirate Killer 7 and original Killer 7 // pirate Fatal Frame 3 & original Project Zero 3 (it's called Project Zero in Europe, dunno why) // picture of my pirate Civilization Revolution, and link to my Steam account containing Civ4&5 originals.

If you need proof, that is.

There are more I pirated for PC, then bought, but I can't get any proof of those.

Again, not trying to justify piracy. But it gets rather tiresome to see constant, so-called arguments that are pretty much "AGRGRHAGSAJHF PIRATES NEVER BUY GAMES ASJHFIPAYIOFHAIGFHASIF".
Just trying to shed some light on it. Piracy isn't black&white, there are more shades of gray than most people realize.

 

[Lawyer105]

There's a reason why Economists mock Accountants and this is why

There's a difference between accountants and chartered accountants. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that given how limited your knowledge and experience seem to be.

And since the economists in your other thread are mocking your understanding of the situation, I feel quite justified in pointing out (again!) that you're totally wrong, and your insults only prove your own stupidity.

You're giving your university a bad name...

Funny. So all those games I bought after pirating them don't exist? Huh.
And some of the games some of my friends bought don't exist either, apparently.

Weird.

I'd argue that you're the exception that proves the rule here, to be honest. BTW - thanks for contributing. I totally support the kind of piracy that actually results in sold games!

That said, I don't really think trying it out for a couple of hours before you buy should be considered piracy. I'll quite happily pirate something that doesn't have a decent demo - but the rule is that if I'm still playing it three hours later (and haven't uninstalled because it's a piece of BS shovelware crap), it becomes a purchase.