Is piracy bad when you don't have a choice ?
- Thread starter Krelias
- Start date
I'm not talking about flooding the Romanian market with games. It doesn't cost that damn much to distribute copies of a game. Obviously, people in Romania can physically obtain a copy of any game, for instance, so apparently distribution costs are not a problem. The problem is, no one is buying them.
It's not like companies are going to be forced to blow millions of dollars on ad campaigns in 50+ random countries. It will be as it's always been, campaigns in the mega-audience countries, and then trickle mediocre quantities of the games to random countries after the target audiences already made a profit turn-in.
If no one can buy the game in any given area, and they are obtainable, that is a problem. There is nothing be gained, everything is being lost.
All I am suggesting is a simple meeting of consumer demands. It's not hard to do these days, in this electronic age, to figure out the quantity in demand in any given area, and then meeting those demands without much of a risk of overdoing it. The games are distributed by 3rd party sellers anyway, it's not like every country in Asia goes to a mall, expecting to see a large game stock. They just can't put up with the inflated prices from 3rd party sellers in foreign markets, whose games sit on the shelves and collect dust.
It's not like companies are going to be forced to blow millions of dollars on ad campaigns in 50+ random countries. It will be as it's always been, campaigns in the mega-audience countries, and then trickle mediocre quantities of the games to random countries after the target audiences already made a profit turn-in.
If no one can buy the game in any given area, and they are obtainable, that is a problem. There is nothing be gained, everything is being lost.
All I am suggesting is a simple meeting of consumer demands. It's not hard to do these days, in this electronic age, to figure out the quantity in demand in any given area, and then meeting those demands without much of a risk of overdoing it. The games are distributed by 3rd party sellers anyway, it's not like every country in Asia goes to a mall, expecting to see a large game stock. They just can't put up with the inflated prices from 3rd party sellers in foreign markets, whose games sit on the shelves and collect dust.
BURN IN HELL YOU DIRTY PIRATE!!!Aylaine said:I don't have that problem...my issue is getting older games/property by pirating, but having no way of buying the real thing due to limited copies, it being old or other factors. In this case, I pirate a few things, then buy or gift something recent from the same developers to make up for it. Ir's not a perfect system, but their still getting my money.
Moving on from that, if a product is no longer produced then the company isn't making money from it anymore. Legally it falls into a bit of a grey area, but I don't really consider it all that bad. Especially if you then go and buy something else the developers made.
We paid $109 when it was 60 US cents to an Aus dollar. Now it's 90 US cents to the dollar and we're still paying $109.oxiclean said:
In regards to us being "forced" to pay that much, we're not. We can import from a large number of sites if we want to, most of which will offer us prices on par with what the US pays. Of course, the majority choose not to as they'd have to wait for it to arrive as opposed to paying more but taking it home and playing it straight away.
Also, there is no such thing as "morals" in the business world. These businesses do no care about morals, they care about profit and control. Your morals only mean anything to them because at this point in time (lucky for them) it supports their agenda.
Such as, internet companies trying to go cable-style, and turning the internet into a restricted nightmare, filled with sites you have to order à la carte, one by one. -Internet Sports Site Package-, -Games For Windows Site Package Extravaganza-, crazy internet taxes, etc. They will do all this under the guise of your morals and the over-exaggeration of "pirates" and "theft". EA sees its future as one of, if not the only, company who owns the rights to games. Where you will never see a game in your life, and you will only "lease" the property from them, at their discretion at limited use. "OnLive", a "console" that will not require any disc, or property, but will connect online to a company's game database, and you will lease games for limited use and never seem them your entire life.
None of this will be cheaper or any more useful. It's the corporate end-game.
Such as, internet companies trying to go cable-style, and turning the internet into a restricted nightmare, filled with sites you have to order à la carte, one by one. -Internet Sports Site Package-, -Games For Windows Site Package Extravaganza-, crazy internet taxes, etc. They will do all this under the guise of your morals and the over-exaggeration of "pirates" and "theft". EA sees its future as one of, if not the only, company who owns the rights to games. Where you will never see a game in your life, and you will only "lease" the property from them, at their discretion at limited use. "OnLive", a "console" that will not require any disc, or property, but will connect online to a company's game database, and you will lease games for limited use and never seem them your entire life.
None of this will be cheaper or any more useful. It's the corporate end-game.
Than to answer your question, I see no way it harms anyone. Unless the increase in a persons wealth, by gaining something without losing anything, causes a detrimental reaction within the economy.scobie said:
Well the OP actually asked the question in a philosophical way. Honestly asking "is that right or wrong." Nothing wrong with that. It's one or two notables after that that began frothing at the mouth which lowered the maturity level of this thread with the typical "my point of view is right and everyone else is fucking stupid."
The video game = luxury arguement has been made dozens of times, and it's completely valid and true. If you believe stealing is wrong unless necessary to survive, and you believe you don't need video games to live, you "should" believe that stealing video games is wrong under deductive reasoning. Claiming otherwise is just backpedaling under shoddy logic in order to get what you want while simultaneously claiming morality. Ironically, I actually respect more the people who just steal the games honestly than those who steal them while trying to delude themselves and those around them that it's morally fine.
The only variable in this whole thing is that the nature of a video game makes it so that it can be produced illegally without taking one out of production (as the infamous car stealing example would). While this is true, just think about that for a second. If you're one of the people who is won over by that difference, I ask you, do you believe that if someone has an idea that that idea belongs to them? If I spend thousands of hours writing a novel, and it gets put online and illegally downloaded for free, have I not been wronged? Am I not being compensated for my ideas/work despite the fact that no raw physical product has been stolen?
You can say "well I wouldn't have bought the book/video game anyway, so taking it for free doesn't constitute a lost sale." That's a pretty circular logic bs answer in my opinion. I can easily just write that backwards and say "I'm going to take this book/video game for free, therefore I won't need to buy it." Shifting causality in your mind doesn't change the action or morality of said action.
Oh, and harp on inflation all you want, but really all you're saying there is that things cost more than you feel they should. There is absolutely no link to that statement and a justification for stealing something because you feel it costs more than it should. That actually "IS" defeated by the stealing a car example. "I feel cars should be sold for $500. They're more expensive than that, therefore I am justified in stealing one." Now that arguement can be used for stealing food and necessities surely, but no one here's arguing against stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family.
It can be prettied up all you like if it makes one feel better about oneself, but whether you like it or not, it comes back to the absolutely bullshit mentality that so many people erronously have these days - you're entitled something for nothing.
*shrug* I doubt many will read this post anyway due to its length and the fact that I didn't quote anyone in particular, but there it is. I'm open to logical debate though if a pro-piracy individual wants to counter my arguements.
The video game = luxury arguement has been made dozens of times, and it's completely valid and true. If you believe stealing is wrong unless necessary to survive, and you believe you don't need video games to live, you "should" believe that stealing video games is wrong under deductive reasoning. Claiming otherwise is just backpedaling under shoddy logic in order to get what you want while simultaneously claiming morality. Ironically, I actually respect more the people who just steal the games honestly than those who steal them while trying to delude themselves and those around them that it's morally fine.
The only variable in this whole thing is that the nature of a video game makes it so that it can be produced illegally without taking one out of production (as the infamous car stealing example would). While this is true, just think about that for a second. If you're one of the people who is won over by that difference, I ask you, do you believe that if someone has an idea that that idea belongs to them? If I spend thousands of hours writing a novel, and it gets put online and illegally downloaded for free, have I not been wronged? Am I not being compensated for my ideas/work despite the fact that no raw physical product has been stolen?
You can say "well I wouldn't have bought the book/video game anyway, so taking it for free doesn't constitute a lost sale." That's a pretty circular logic bs answer in my opinion. I can easily just write that backwards and say "I'm going to take this book/video game for free, therefore I won't need to buy it." Shifting causality in your mind doesn't change the action or morality of said action.
Oh, and harp on inflation all you want, but really all you're saying there is that things cost more than you feel they should. There is absolutely no link to that statement and a justification for stealing something because you feel it costs more than it should. That actually "IS" defeated by the stealing a car example. "I feel cars should be sold for $500. They're more expensive than that, therefore I am justified in stealing one." Now that arguement can be used for stealing food and necessities surely, but no one here's arguing against stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family.
It can be prettied up all you like if it makes one feel better about oneself, but whether you like it or not, it comes back to the absolutely bullshit mentality that so many people erronously have these days - you're entitled something for nothing.
*shrug* I doubt many will read this post anyway due to its length and the fact that I didn't quote anyone in particular, but there it is. I'm open to logical debate though if a pro-piracy individual wants to counter my arguements.
There is never any situation where you "don't have a choice". Video games are not essential, and you are not justified in stealing them, ever. If you literally have absolutely no possible means of playing video games other than by illegally downloading them, then you don't get to play them.
I'm sorry, but this issue is black-and-white to me.
EDIT:
I'm sorry, but this issue is black-and-white to me.
EDIT:
This (severely clipped) post is basically a more eloquent way of putting it.Ishadus said:
Meh. I don't really think piracy is too bad anyways. A corporation that grosses millions of dollars a year losing 50 dollars is not that big of a deal. A corporation that grosses millions of dollars a year having their game played by somebody who would have never bought it anyways is even less of one. Plus if the people pirating don't think it's wrong, then your morality really doesn't matter, now does it? Maybe if I owned a software company I would feel a lot differently, but as of now they're not stealing anything from me, so it's not my problem.
And here I thought the subject was going to be about piracy as being the only way to get a game, period (like <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.128851-TYPE-MOON-reviews-Tsukihime>out-of-print never-released-outside-Japan games).
To be honest, OP, I do sympathize with you, and I'd certainly turn a blind eye because of that, but I don't know what I could say morally.
To be honest, OP, I do sympathize with you, and I'd certainly turn a blind eye because of that, but I don't know what I could say morally.
Where as you live in a fantasy world, where nothing is being lost when people pirate games (in Romania for instance), you still consider it "morally wrong", no matter what, "just because". You're applying your morals to support a business world where there are no morals to begin with.
Based on some principles and data that you can't verify or prove in any shape or form, that it somehow affects the industry as a whole. By some magic, the Romanian pirate-virus will spread everywhere, and everyone will put their money back into the wallets, and pirates will rule the world!! Games will stop being made, and a dark-age without games will cover the globe.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
Based on some principles and data that you can't verify or prove in any shape or form, that it somehow affects the industry as a whole. By some magic, the Romanian pirate-virus will spread everywhere, and everyone will put their money back into the wallets, and pirates will rule the world!! Games will stop being made, and a dark-age without games will cover the globe.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
Perhaps I'm ignorant, but when a company is no longer producing something and it can be obtained no other way, then doesn't it fall into a category of "shareware" where that is actually, in fact, legal?Aylaine said:I don't have that problem...my issue is getting older games/property by pirating, but having no way of buying the real thing due to limited copies, it being old or other factors. In this case, I pirate a few things, then buy or gift something recent from the same developers to make up for it. Ir's not a perfect system, but their still getting my money.
Although your tenacity to then buy something else from the developer to "make up for it" is, I think, refreshingly noble of you. You have my respect, for what it's worth
I'm not paranoid of corporations, and I have support for many. But you're a bloody fool if you think EA wouldn't want to control the entire game industry with an iron fist, given the chance, and the "moral support" of it's consumers.Dormin111 said:
I'm not asking for much here. I'm simply stating that the products already there to begin with, should be made reasonably obtainable and affordable. Oh my goodness, oh gosh, trust me the market isn't going to crumble and a communist red-storm will not infect corporations everywhere.
It's called healthy criticism of the economy, and consumer-feedback on something I'm directly a part of. Calling that paranoid is patently absurd. What is absurd, is everyone calling people douche-bags who can't afford the inflated price of something, not affordable in any realistic fashion whatsoever.
You always have a choice. Me personally, I don't like it. I mean I won't lie, I have downloaded a few songs illegally at some point or another but I still feel bad. I mean, it's still stealing, and I know I hate it when people take my stuff for free.
In my opinion, you shouldn't do it, as there are plenty of games that I want that I can't afford, but I still don't resort to pirating them.
But your choice man.
In my opinion, you shouldn't do it, as there are plenty of games that I want that I can't afford, but I still don't resort to pirating them.
But your choice man.