As long as there are software licences, and software does cost prizes that people living in poorer countries simply cannot afford - there will be piracy.Tom Goldman said:Still, the mega-huge number of 774,651 people using a single pirated license is a real world example of how piracy is a huge problem. Something needs to be done about it, but we can't end up living in Orwell's 1984 [http://www.amazon.com/1984-Signet-Classics-George-Orwell/dp/0451524934], so is there any real solution other than the one Avast used here?
... OK, for a moment I was confused here, because the notification I recieved attributed both things you are commenting on to me, where the first clearly is a different person.TechNoFear said:You argue that pirating software is not theft because software is different to physical goods.Garak73 said:2) Fine but call it what it is, a rental..not a purchase. Ever wonder why the software industry still uses the term buy when they clearly don't think you are BUYING the software?
You then complain that software is not sold with the same conditions as physical goods.
You can use and resell licensed software (as per vernor v Autodesk 2009).
You are limited in the number of copies you can make or use at once (just like a physical good as you need extra 'copies' of the physical good to use more than one).
Why exactly is the difference (to the user) of having a 'license' as opposed to 'owning' the software?
Which smaller developer? Please provide a link to the study.CrystalShadow said:Meanwhile, data gathered by a smaller developer led them to the conclusion that a reduction of pirated 1000 pirated copies led to 1 extra sale.
I would dispute the 'conservative' part of your claims here, for reasons I've already explained. (How can 10% be conservative, if one of the few experiments done on the matter suggests 0.1% is a 'realistic' figure?)Generic Gamer said:CrystalShadow said:"it carries the same penalty and involves the same losses to the victim."
See, this is where you lose me. I can agree with most of what you're saying, but this is just outright not true.
...
Franky, you'd have to be somewhat insane to presume that to be true.
And in a way, it makes me wish we could eliminate all piracy overnight for a year, just to prove to all the people that think this that these huge numbers some groups claim as 'lost revenue' are nothing more than wishful thinking.
IP Piracy is not a victimless crime. But to equate it to having the same consequences for the victim as theft is hopelessly naive.
I would say that a large number of these pirated copies are lost sales purely because of the nature of the product. Antivirus isn't something you get on a whim and I would honestly say that without this option close to 90% (spec.) would have bought it. I'm also concerned that this isn't a one off problem because of the follow up supplies of updates.
Actually that last one is an argument I've had on here, but what I mean is if I remark on a large number and I call it 'lost revenue' then I have to explain to people why taking a copy of someone's work without paying is money lost. Of course, that's not the important part of the statement. What astonishes me is that people miss the fact that it's a large number.Zachary Amaranth said:Barring that last one, I'd be pissed if the facts kept getting in the way of my argument, too.
the idea that sharing isn't a crime is stupid and ridiculous, but that wasn't the issue here.
Sorry matey but I'm no troll. Why bother when this community is so bloody hysterical over it anyway? What I am is ?a person with a different opinion to you?.Artlover said:Not when your trolling is the same unprovable self serving opinionated assumption that demands every count of piracy equals a sale that would have been made if it had not been pirated.
Now go back, read my first post and see that I remarked on it being a lot of lost money, NOT on it being a 100% conversion from pirated copies to lost sales. Look up a price for what was pirated and assume...oh let's be really fucking conservative and call it 10%, even though it's probably more like 80% for antivirus. Pop in any price you want and multiply it by 75,000, then tell me honestly that piracy hasn't affected this company badly.
Oh, and remember that these numbers are extremely conservative.
Mmm. It does make you wonder. I don't see the point in upgrading from the free AV program I use, short of the annoying advertising it shows every time it updates itself.Generic Gamer said:It's hard to tell with AV programs because a significant contributor to non lost-sale piracy is people seeing the torrent and thinking "...ehh, fuck it it's worth a download". With this kind of software there isn't that 'fun factor' so I kind of gunned for 10%, at least 1 in 10 people looking for it to dodge paying, but who would pay if they had to sounds reasonable to me.CrystalShadow said:snip
I kind of get why people pirate antivirus software since every AV I've used has made a big thing about how much better the full version is, but if most conventional piracy arguments were to be believed you'd think people would stick with the freeware.
I'm not sure I understand how the "indirect costs" undermine anything. What we're talking about here is whether or not piracy results in lost revenue to the people to whom revenue is due for this game.CrystalShadow said:snip
Not at all. The assertion that a pirated copy is a loss to the revenue of a company relies only on whether or not that pirated copy ends up in the hands of anyone who would have paid that company even a single dollar for that game.So, strictly speaking, the assertion that a pirated copy is a loss to the revenue of the company relies on the assertion that the value of the indirect costs of a pirated copy outweigh those of a legitimate copy.
That last bit of reasoning doesn't work. The 'inconvenient hoops' they have to jump through are no worse than the ones they would need to jump through to get hold of a legitimate copy.dastardly said:I'm not sure I understand how the "indirect costs" undermine anything. What we're talking about here is whether or not piracy results in lost revenue to the people to whom revenue is due for this game.CrystalShadow said:snip
Yes, there are indirect costs, but as neither the customer nor the developer/publisher benefit from those at all, they aren't part of the cost of the game as discussed in terms of how sales/lost sales impact the developer/publisher.
If I download a pirated copy of a game and it fills my hard drive with malware or child porn, one could argue I "got what's coming to me," and that might provide some sense of ethereal "justice." But it doesn't do anything to correct the loss of revenue to the publisher.
When we're talking about whether an act is criminal or not, or whether or not something is stealing, we've got to look into defining the crime based on the actions and benefits of the criminal. But when we're looking at repairing the damage done by the crime, that's not solved simply by punishing the pirate with some viruses.
Not at all. The assertion that a pirated copy is a loss to the revenue of a company relies only on whether or not that pirated copy ends up in the hands of anyone who would have paid that company even a single dollar for that game.So, strictly speaking, the assertion that a pirated copy is a loss to the revenue of the company relies on the assertion that the value of the indirect costs of a pirated copy outweigh those of a legitimate copy.
And, actually, the fact that there are these "indirect costs" to the pirate means that they, in fact, have to demonstrate even more desire to have that game, if they are willing to endure all the inconvenience of searching, downloading, and risking malware. This means that their actual interest level in the product is even farther from zero than we originally believed. A person that actually had $0 interest in the game wouldn't even go through those inconvenient hoops for a product they weren't interested in.
When we're talking about whether an act is criminal or not, or whether or not something is stealing, we've got to look into defining the crime based on the actions and benefits of the criminal.[/i]
That definition is impossible to work with, because laws and crimes are never defined around the benefits to the criminal, but around the losses the criminal's acts have caused to others. (not necessarily the direct victim, if there even is one.)
If nothing is lost, it's difficult to speak of a crime having happened. So how can you work on a definition of crime focused so myopically on the gains of the supposed criminal, rather than the losses involved to others?
Theft and piracy are similar, but a basic equation of loss works out differently;
In theft, the loss to the victim, by definition is greater or equal to the gain of the perpetrator.
In piracy, the same comparison will show the loss to the victim is less or equal to the gains by the purpetrator.
But this can be said of legitimate transactions too. While the goal of such transactions is that the gain to one party equals the loss to the other, the reality is often less than perfect.
Anyway, your insistence of defining a crime only in terms of what the criminal gains from it makes it impossible to determine why anything is a crime to begin with.
If I steal someone's TV, I've now gained a TV.
So? What does that matter?
I didn't have a TV, now I do?
Why would that be a crime?
See a problem here?
Because this is how your description of crime sounds. And then you expect that to make sense somehow in it's own right?
Laws don't appear out of thin air. Theft isn't a crime for the sake of it being a crime.
It's a crime that relates to the interaction between the loss of one party, and the gain of another.
How about vandalism? A vandal doesn't technically even gain anything from their act at all.
But, if they didn't gain anything, how can that be a crime using your reasoning?
It's a crime because they've caused harm to someone. NOT because they've gained anything out of doing so.
Similarly, you're trying to argue that because someone pirated something, it must have a non-zero value to them.
And because it has a non-zero value, they must have been willing to pay for it, at least a little.
But that's demonstrably not true. The monetary value of any given product cannot be said to be >$0 just because someone was willing to take the effort to get it for free. Monetary value =/= value in general.
Which you even seem to tacitly believe yourself by arguing about the relevance of my bringing 'indirect' costs into an argument.
The whole point of indirect costs was precisely to mention the things that have no monetary value, but still matter in making a decision.
But, meanwhile, you're defining crime in terms of gains to the criminal, while using an argument that relies entirely on loss to the victim.
Attempting to assign a monetary value to a pirated copy of a product, after all, is attempting to assign a value in terms of 'lost revenue'.
And if losses to the victim aren't relevant in discussing a crime, then how can that be of any significance?
But, in the end, what causes all this mess remains copyright law.
Arguing about lost revenue for Intellectual property is entirely pre-conditioned on the existence of copyright laws in the first place.
No copyright laws = No ability to sell Intellectual Property.
Intellectual property has no implicit value, because copying it has no implicit cost.
ALL meaningful costs involved in copying Intellectual Property, are costs derived from legal protection.
They are inseparable.
And therein lies the problem.
Because anything that relies 100% on legal protection to be profitable, has a vested interest in manipulating the legal system to make it even more profitable.
That means you have to be extremely vigilant to ensure the people that profit from the system aren't exploiting it at the expense of everyone else, while at the same time ensuring that the lack of anything other than legal protection isn't causing exploitation by everyone just because they can.
And of course, you also find yourself having to watch out for people in the middle trying to screw over both sides.
(Publishing companies come to mind, who have at times seemed to be trying to manipulate the situation such that neither the consumers, nor creators of intellectual property actually benefit from anything.)
It's a messed up situation, but it isn't going away any time soon.
Not while all the other resources on the planet still have to be rationed out carefully, at least.
Such a pity.
Well, as far as I know it doesn't say "Thou shalt not pirate software." anywhere in the Bible... It does in the legal codes of a lot of countries though...thethingthatlurks said:If even the Palpatine ************ in Vatican City pirates, who are we to judge? He's infallible you know, hence pirating is OK as per catholic doctrine. Woohoo, new headline: "Church OKs piracy!"
Still, aren't there enough free anti-virus programs out there? Is there really any need to pirate this stuff?
And what point, exactly, is it that you're trying to make? That's what isn't very clear here--you're talking in ever-widening loops that seem like the might be encircling a point implicitly, but we'd save a lot of time and space if you'd just be out with that point explicitly.CrystalShadow said:In any event, I was making a point about the costs that ARE NOT things usually given a financial value, even though they are costs in a strict, economic sense.
And that from this perspective, even if the monetary costs were the same in both cases, pirated software could still end up being better 'value' to someone because of such indirect costs. (Or not. It's hard to predict such things.)
But that's just it. It's not "all or nothing." That's a forced, false dichotomy used by pirates and pirate-sympathizers as a way of "proving" that piracy doesn't result in lost sales. "If they were going to buy it, they would have bought it, but they didn't, so that proves they wouldn't have." You see the circular logic, right?Any one person that pirates anything either would have paid for it, or they would not there is no middle ground, when discussing an individual person; It's all or nothing.
The data that's been collected (and covered extensively in several other threads around here) makes it pretty clear that once the pirated copy is made available, sales drop off pretty sharply. But when DRM is in place that delays the release of the pirated copy, the game benefits from more sales. That, in turn, makes it clear that plenty of people would buy a game if there were no pirated copy available.And because I'm not a believer in enforcing laws for their own sake.
And, I also believe most of life is filled with moral grey areas that cannot adequately be forced to fit into rules and laws, that by their very nature cannot be ambiguous.
You're overstating the point, here. It's certainly not impossible to work with. The penalty on someone for "attempted murder" is just as bad as for "murder," though they name it differently for technical purposes. Why? Because the murderer shouldn't get a break just because they screwed up the crime. If it's proven they intended to kill this person (thus securing a guilty verdict for "attempted murder"), they're punished as though they killed the person--at least in the legal systems with which I'm familiar.That definition is impossible to work with, because laws and crimes are never defined around the benefits to the criminal, but around the losses the criminal's acts have caused to others. (not necessarily the direct victim, if there even is one.)
Not "only." "Also." It's an important component to defining a crime. After all, killing someone results in a loss of life... but we have many different classifications based on what the criminal's intended gain was (if any). It's not solely based on what the victim lost (his life).Anyway, your insistence of defining a crime only in terms of what the criminal gains from it makes it impossible to determine why anything is a crime to begin with.
You're deliberately omitting facts. You stole someone's TV. That means "You've now gained a TV by circumventing the means by which you would legally obtain that TV."If I steal someone's TV, I've now gained a TV.
So? What does that matter?
I didn't have a TV, now I do?
Why would that be a crime?
Actually, no. You're oversimplifying and misapplying my argument.Similarly, you're trying to argue that because someone pirated something, it must have a non-zero value to them.
And because it has a non-zero value, they must have been willing to pay for it, at least a little.
But that's demonstrably not true. The monetary value of any given product cannot be said to be >$0 just because someone was willing to take the effort to get it for free. Monetary value =/= value in general.
No, that was just me trying to make sense of why you were bringing any of this into the discussion. I don't see any reason to think that a significant number of people have ever refused to buy a game because they didn't want to pay for the gas to get to the store. It's simply not statistically worth weighing, and to insinuate it is... well, that would only be deliberately trying to derail the discussion into the outlandish in an attempt to discredit the original premise by proxy (ie, strawman).Which you even seem to tacitly believe yourself by arguing about the relevance of my bringing 'indirect' costs into an argument.
The whole point of indirect costs was precisely to mention the things that have no monetary value, but still matter in making a decision.
No, I'm saying we use both. Not one or the other. I've made the argument that, in many cases, the gain/methods/actions of the criminal are just as important in defining the crime (and sometimes far more important) than the loss sustained by the victim.But, meanwhile, you're defining crime in terms of gains to the criminal, while using an argument that relies entirely on loss to the victim.
In the case of entertainment, the legal system is squarely on the side of the entertainers because it's not a necessary product. If they decide to charge insane prices or put padlocks on the box for which you have to buy a separate key, it's their product and their choice. They're selling an item that they created. Of course copyright law is on their side--they hold the RIGHT to COPY it.No copyright laws = No ability to sell Intellectual Property.
Intellectual property has no implicit value, because copying it has no implicit cost.
ALL meaningful costs involved in copying Intellectual Property, are costs derived from legal protection.
They are inseparable.
And therein lies the problem.
Because anything that relies 100% on legal protection to be profitable, has a vested interest in manipulating the legal system to make it even more profitable.
That means you have to be extremely vigilant to ensure the people that profit from the system aren't exploiting it at the expense of everyone else, while at the same time ensuring that the lack of anything other than legal protection isn't causing exploitation by everyone just because they can.
And of course, you also find yourself having to watch out for people in the middle trying to screw over both sides.
(Publishing companies come to mind, who have at times seemed to be trying to manipulate the situation such that neither the consumers, nor creators of intellectual property actually benefit from anything.)
It's a messed up situation, but it isn't going away any time soon.
Not while all the other resources on the planet still have to be rationed out carefully, at least.
Such a pity.
Piracy isn't theft, but it is most definitely a crime. And one so widespread its penalty (and for good reason sort of) carries a greater cost than most thefts would.Generic Gamer said:"piracy isn't theft...no lost sale...sharing isn't a crime" etc.
Calling it theft is misrepresenting the crime, pure and simple, like those that reterm "abortionists" into "baby murderers".Wikipedia said:Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property-
It comes from this report;CrystalShadow said:As to the figures, they're apparently down to experiments run by a game company called Reflexive games.
Buy software?Azaraxzealot said:it is kind of madness considering buying a PC is already at least 500 dollars out of your pocket and then there's the monitor, the keyboard, the speakers, the mouseIrridium said:Well people could just not pirate. But that would mean they'd have to buy things. Which is just madness!
yeah, and if you're gonna pay for ALL your software, you're looking at over 1500 dollars just to get started
I have to apologise here, because I think I've gotten caught up in a bit of a problem I can run into sometimes.dastardly said:And what point, exactly, is it that you're trying to make? That's what isn't very clear here--you're talking in ever-widening loops that seem like the might be encircling a point implicitly, but we'd save a lot of time and space if you'd just be out with that point explicitly.CrystalShadow said:In any event, I was making a point about the costs that ARE NOT things usually given a financial value, even though they are costs in a strict, economic sense.
And that from this perspective, even if the monetary costs were the same in both cases, pirated software could still end up being better 'value' to someone because of such indirect costs. (Or not. It's hard to predict such things.)
If both sides have these indirect, non-financial costs, then it's a wash--why should they even enter the discussion? They're just background noise, with absolutely no significance to the discussion or any of the points contained therein.
But that's just it. It's not "all or nothing." That's a forced, false dichotomy used by pirates and pirate-sympathizers as a way of "proving" that piracy doesn't result in lost sales. "If they were going to buy it, they would have bought it, but they didn't, so that proves they wouldn't have." You see the circular logic, right?Any one person that pirates anything either would have paid for it, or they would not there is no middle ground, when discussing an individual person; It's all or nothing.
Just because someone doesn't want to buy it at full price doesn't mean they're not interested at all in the product. They might be willing to pay $20 when the price comes down over time. But the introduction of an illegal, free option is the force that interrupts that process.
It's like someone claiming a tire goes flat because it was never inflated. No, someone poked a hole that let the air out (path of least resistance, and all), and without that hole it's likely the air would have stayed in at least a little bit longer. Saying someone pirated it because they weren't interested in it, besides being nonsensical, similarly ignores that someone poked a big gaping hole in the system.
So, just because each pirated copy doesn't automatically mean a loss of a guaranteed-full-price sale doesn't mean it's not creating a loss of some portion, representing what that person would have paid. It's specifically not all or nothing.
The data that's been collected (and covered extensively in several other threads around here) makes it pretty clear that once the pirated copy is made available, sales drop off pretty sharply. But when DRM is in place that delays the release of the pirated copy, the game benefits from more sales. That, in turn, makes it clear that plenty of people would buy a game if there were no pirated copy available.And because I'm not a believer in enforcing laws for their own sake.
And, I also believe most of life is filled with moral grey areas that cannot adequately be forced to fit into rules and laws, that by their very nature cannot be ambiguous.
That gives these companies, who are pretty careful with their money, enough reason to believe that it does represent a big enough loss to fight for. This isn't a moral grey area, though. Morally, taking something that belongs to someone else without permission is wrong. It doesn't matter if you're stealing to feed your starving children--you're stealing from someone else's now-starving children for all you know.
You're overstating the point, here. It's certainly not impossible to work with. The penalty on someone for "attempted murder" is just as bad as for "murder," though they name it differently for technical purposes. Why? Because the murderer shouldn't get a break just because they screwed up the crime. If it's proven they intended to kill this person (thus securing a guilty verdict for "attempted murder"), they're punished as though they killed the person--at least in the legal systems with which I'm familiar.That definition is impossible to work with, because laws and crimes are never defined around the benefits to the criminal, but around the losses the criminal's acts have caused to others. (not necessarily the direct victim, if there even is one.)
For theft, however, it's clear to me that it's not just "wrong if someone loses something." That's the tired old justification for piracy--"Oh, he still has his copy, so I haven't taken anything." Also the same justification for counterfeiting money, by the way.
Not "only." "Also." It's an important component to defining a crime. After all, killing someone results in a loss of life... but we have many different classifications based on what the criminal's intended gain was (if any). It's not solely based on what the victim lost (his life).Anyway, your insistence of defining a crime only in terms of what the criminal gains from it makes it impossible to determine why anything is a crime to begin with.
You're deliberately omitting facts. You stole someone's TV. That means "You've now gained a TV by circumventing the means by which you would legally obtain that TV."If I steal someone's TV, I've now gained a TV.
So? What does that matter?
I didn't have a TV, now I do?
Why would that be a crime?
Maybe you stole it from a store and not a person. Technically, no one 'lost' a TV, right? No one owned it yet (save perhaps the store). And hey, there's no guarantee they'd have ever sold that TV anyway--it might have just sat on display for years. So, if you base the definition of the crime solely on what the victim lost, you can weasel out of any crime.
Actually, no. You're oversimplifying and misapplying my argument.Similarly, you're trying to argue that because someone pirated something, it must have a non-zero value to them.
And because it has a non-zero value, they must have been willing to pay for it, at least a little.
But that's demonstrably not true. The monetary value of any given product cannot be said to be >$0 just because someone was willing to take the effort to get it for free. Monetary value =/= value in general.
If a person is willing to find and download the game, for the purposes of playing it, this demonstrates they want the game. As such, those that say people only pirate games they weren't interested in make no sense--if they weren't interested in it, they wouldn't be playing it. They clearly want the game.
Now, they just don't want it badly enough to pay full price for it. That's clear. But it doesn't mean they wouldn't have paid something. They've demonstrated interest in the product, which means there's just cause to believe they would have paid something. Most people, if not interested, choose to both pay nothing and thus receive nothing. Because my example above is dealing with people behaving within the law. I refer to the offending party as "pirates" only because it's faster than typing "would-be pirates."
But in a law-abiding system, people who don't have any monetary interest in the game don't play it. This only changes with the introduction of a "free" alternative. Now people have a strong motivator against paying, regardless of how much they'd have been willing to pay.
Before the introduction of that copy, they'd have been able to sell to anyone in the $59+ crowd, and the others might have waited varying amounts of time until the price dropped. But since there's a free option, everyone has a reason to avoid it--even the people in the $59+ club.
My point above was simply to point out how circular the reasoning is when pirate-sympathizers argue that people pirate games in which they have no interest in paying... but it's not because of the "paying." Rather they argue it's the "game" part they have no interest in, if you can believe that. That would be like me (a guy) stealing crates of tampons, for which I have no use. Why would I do it? I wouldn't. If I steal something, barring severe mental issues, it's because I value it.
Oh, and taking something without paying for it? That's called stealing in most circles. We give different types of stealing fancy names like "fraud" or "burglary," but it's stealing. And that definition (taking something without paying for it) is based on the actions of the criminal, rather than the loss of the victim.
No, that was just me trying to make sense of why you were bringing any of this into the discussion. I don't see any reason to think that a significant number of people have ever refused to buy a game because they didn't want to pay for the gas to get to the store. It's simply not statistically worth weighing, and to insinuate it is... well, that would only be deliberately trying to derail the discussion into the outlandish in an attempt to discredit the original premise by proxy (ie, strawman).Which you even seem to tacitly believe yourself by arguing about the relevance of my bringing 'indirect' costs into an argument.
The whole point of indirect costs was precisely to mention the things that have no monetary value, but still matter in making a decision.
No, I'm saying we use both. Not one or the other. I've made the argument that, in many cases, the gain/methods/actions of the criminal are just as important in defining the crime (and sometimes far more important) than the loss sustained by the victim.But, meanwhile, you're defining crime in terms of gains to the criminal, while using an argument that relies entirely on loss to the victim.
In the case of entertainment, the legal system is squarely on the side of the entertainers because it's not a necessary product. If they decide to charge insane prices or put padlocks on the box for which you have to buy a separate key, it's their product and their choice. They're selling an item that they created. Of course copyright law is on their side--they hold the RIGHT to COPY it.No copyright laws = No ability to sell Intellectual Property.
Intellectual property has no implicit value, because copying it has no implicit cost.
ALL meaningful costs involved in copying Intellectual Property, are costs derived from legal protection.
They are inseparable.
And therein lies the problem.
Because anything that relies 100% on legal protection to be profitable, has a vested interest in manipulating the legal system to make it even more profitable.
That means you have to be extremely vigilant to ensure the people that profit from the system aren't exploiting it at the expense of everyone else, while at the same time ensuring that the lack of anything other than legal protection isn't causing exploitation by everyone just because they can.
And of course, you also find yourself having to watch out for people in the middle trying to screw over both sides.
(Publishing companies come to mind, who have at times seemed to be trying to manipulate the situation such that neither the consumers, nor creators of intellectual property actually benefit from anything.)
It's a messed up situation, but it isn't going away any time soon.
Not while all the other resources on the planet still have to be rationed out carefully, at least.
Such a pity.
Yes, companies have a reason to exploit the law to make more money. But in this case? All they want to do is close a loophole. They're not asking to raise the price, or to force consumers to pay twice for the same game against their will, or any other exploitative nonsense.
The only grey area comes in terms of how many lost sales a particular copy represents, and how far along the "distribution chain" this particular pirate was--basically, how much did HIS actions cost in lost revenue. Yeah, that's a hard area in which to fight, because it relies on the unprovable.
But I haven't been trying to affix a price tag to that. I'm simply debunking the idea that a lot of people around here push--"Not every pirated copy means a lost sale." Not every copy means a lost full price sale, no. But I believe that most pirated copies mean someone that would have paid something got away with paying nothing because the free copy was available faster than the reduced-price copies a few months later.
I think we've really said all that can be said on this whole matter anyhow. This thread has provided data that shows piracy spreads like wildfire, and that people are using it to get products they want (as evidenced by using a pirated license when there are free options available). People want it, but they are getting it for free before companies are able to find out how much they would have paid. And that's a problem.
Oh, I can definitely agree that those areas of intellectual property laws can get pretty hazy, and usually constitute someone trying to make a quick buck for very little work. Of course, I know that there are legalities surrounding things like trademarks to prevent people just sitting on them, without using them, in hopes of someone stepping into the trap.CrystalShadow said:snip
I think that you should be able to exercise monopolistic control over a product because you created it. I just think the only place in which someone could make a case is if you were in control of the whole supply of an essential good. Basically, as long as you don't have a "captive audience" (which means they must have the product, for which they must pay you), what right is there to tell someone they can't control it?You make a point about entertainment, but the laws aren't specific to entertainment. Copyright covers a lot more than that, and regardless, I reject the notion that you should be permitted to exercise monopolistic control over a product just because it is a non-essential one.
I have to absolutely agree . . . even more-so on the basis that the majority of people's complaints about what has spurned piracy are 95% of the time unfounded or uneducated.Dastardly said:Help me out here and tell me I'm not crazy for thinking that this exact method of dealing with piracy, if applied to games, would result in all the "horrible DRM" issues that pirates have claimed caused game piracy?
I mean... antivirus software requires regular updates from the internet, so you'd have to regularly connect (and verify your license) in order to get this necessary updates and maintain decent functionality. And, if you've got a pirated copy, they are able to manipulate the program such that you can no longer use what is on your computer.
Having to be connected to the internet? Regular copy verification? Requiring DLC to keep basic function? Intruding on and manipulating files on your computer? We accept it from antivirus stuff because that's how it works... but isn't this the exact behavior people said games would die if they used?
Pirates can't have it both ways. The pirate-apologists can't seem to get a story straight. They're running about praising the DRM techniques they just got done screaming about. Am I losing my mind here?