Lawyer Destroys Arguments for Game Piracy

[kazork]

I just really, really like free stuff.

But besides this i like how easy it is not having to go to the store. Although i must say that my pirating has gone down several notches since the arrival of steam.
I am crazy for there discounts and i don't even have to go outside.

 

[Robert Ewing]

Well, it's not really a loss for the developers, most pirates wouldn't buy the game anyway, which is unverifiable.

Second, I do wish people would stop calling it stealing. It's not stealing, it's copying and subsequently sharing, and in the case of torrents, it's not even that! It's copying a small section of the wares in question, and then compiling them, and then sharing a small section of ware in question. I wish the publishers would stop trying to take an even higher ground by making it out to sound worse than it actually is, it's not really helping their argument.

I don't agree with the whole 'but the corporations are rich enough already maaaan!' Maybe so, but they are a company, and may I remind you the main purpose of a company is to in fact make money. I also heard an argument that people pirate bad quality games, or games that are no longer sold anymore. Which... Sort of makes me think twice about the well being of the company.

And pirating to get around DRMS? Lul, really bad excuse. Since you can still bypass a DRM with an official copy with other means that I won't go into. You don't need to pirate the entire game to get the DRM off, and i'm pretty sure that even if you DO pirate the game, the DRM will still be on there, so then you'll have to use the method in which you'd use to remove the official versions DRM anyway!

And lastly, you cannot stop piracy. Piracy will change and evolve to get around every firewall, restriction, law, international treaty, super-hero induced bans, and harsh warnings you will ever, EVER devise. Maybe some day you will find a way to combat the mighty torrent formats, or find a way to stop youtube converting or something. But there will always be a way around it! No matter how complex or intricate your restrictions and ways in which you enforce said restrictions get. You can't win. You can try, but you can't. All you're going to achieve is the capture of a few pirates unlucky enough to get caught in the act, and don't know how to format their hard drive.

 

[ResonanceSD]

You can't win. You can try, but you can't. All you're going to achieve is the capture of a few pirates unlucky enough to get caught in the act, and don't know how to format their hard drive.

Pity the industry will hit those pirates with fines which would make Bill Gates cry. Turning pirates into low hanging fruit could actually turn out to be a way for the industry to make even more money. Actually, that's a great idea for a new revenue stream, fining pirates.

 

[Antari]

And I suppose he wants to bring up the entire planet on charges? His arguement is pretty weak. And shows an extreme lack of understanding in how the planet actually works. An idealist living in a pipe dream.

 

[Twilight_guy]

I think we need to add game piracy to the list of "politics" that are discussed in the religion and politics board, it's obvious the short, venomous, and reactionary comments here that there is no discussion value in this topic because its full of people who aren't going to discuss so much as tell you why you're wrong.

Doesn't matter how many degrees you have or how much you know, people who make there decision on this issue won't budge. The only solution is coming up with DRM customers don't see as DRM or don't notice, like Steam, since then they won't complain and developers are protected. Sort of a "don't ask, don't tell" over a subject no one seems to be able to discuss civilly. Course, that requires technical knowledge lawyers don't have, I guess.

 

[peruvianskys]

I don't really care about the debate but people who say, "It's not really a loss because I wouldn't buy it anyway" are simply ignorant of how economics/pricing/sales works. As the man said, companies do not exist to essentially loan you a game until you decide it's worth your time.

People act like somehow game companies owe them demos or increased before-purchase access but game companies owe you nothing. If you don't like that you can't have a demo, then tough, you don't buy the game. If you want to buy a car but they won't let you test drive it first, then you don't buy the car; it's still wrong and illegal to hop the fence and take it for a drive yourself because they didn't offer you the right to do so legally. Their product, their rules - it's how the market works. If you people refused to buy games without demos instead of just illegally taking them then there would be some kind of market incentive to provide early access but as long as people have the delusion that they get to decide what they can and can't do with another's product, that market incentive won't hold.

 

[ResonanceSD]

I don't really care about the debate but people who say, "It's not really a loss because I wouldn't buy it anyway" are simply ignorant of how economics/pricing/sales works. As the man said, companies do not exist to essentially loan you a game until you decide it's worth your time.

People act like somehow game companies owe them demos or increased before-purchase access but game companies owe you nothing. If you don't like that you can't have a demo, then tough, you don't buy the game. If you want to buy a car but they won't let you test drive it first, then you don't buy the car; it's still wrong and illegal to hop the fence and take it for a drive yourself because they didn't offer you the right to do so legally. Their product, their rules - it's how the market works. If you people refused to buy games without demos instead of just illegally taking them then there would be some kind of market incentive to provide early access but as long as people have the delusion that they get to decide what they can and can't do with another's product, that market incentive won't hold.

This. This right here people. I don't know where this guy's been hiding, but what he's said is spot on. The entertainment industry is not in the business of giving out interest free loans on it's IP, or it's money. It does not owe you anything. Stop taking it for granted.

 

[direkiller]

I think the biggest counter to your arguement is the reason why people pirate games. The general reason is not because they are cheap bastards and dont want to pay for the game but because they dont have any money to spend on that game. The reason they dont have any money to spend on that game however is because they already spent their spare cash on other games.

found the paper those news articals are quoting and oddly:
"The main conclusion that can be drawn from the above is that not every
file downloaded does result in one less CD, DVD or game sold. The degree
of substitution is difficult to determine." (that sounds like my point just with proper grammar)
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1609847 (if you want to read)

Your not wrong,page 9 if your wondering, people who pirate music tend to buy more its just its not a counter to what I was saying.

what I was stating was about 3 years of economic theory condensed down into a paragraph. Its right, I sorta tiptoed around why as that would take an essay(page 12-15 if you want a crash econ 101 lesson).


This is slightly off topic:
I did find one paper that basically highlights why we have restrictive DRM in the game industry compared to outer software products
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-5209.2007.00012.x/pdf

 

[Superior Mind]

I've never bought the argument for pirates who download games to 'try before they buy'.

The notion that piracy does not equate to lost sales is just as erroneous. "Piracy might result in an eventual purchase of a game, but in the meantime it means a financial loss for the developer," Purewal said. "Sadly developers are not gamer banks, willing to effectively loan gamers money until we decide we like them enough to pay them."

However I disagree with this argument. Gamers pre-purchase games all the time, what this results in is game companies holding your money interest free long before you actually have a product. Is that any better than pirates downloading first and buying later? Not really, despite it being illegal of course. He argues that game companies aren't willing to effectively loan us money until we like a game enough to pay them - well why do they expect us to loan money to them before they've even given us a product?

Not that I'm arguing for piracy, I just think that this is a weak argument given the circumstances.

Wrong.

If you pre-order, the seller is legally bound to actually deliver the product you ordered (and depending on where you live, is also legally bound to compensate you if the product is unplayable - bugs, online DRM system etc.).

However if you just pirate: where is the legal safeguard for the seller that forces you to later give him the money? Or compensate him (in case of digital distribution) that you bought it at the special-offer super low price event?

?


Pre-ordering is legal, legal in the sense that there are screw over protections and safeguards built into theprocess. Both sides are protected from the other sides douche bag behavior.
You pirating a game leaves no safeguards for the seller that you will actually buy the game at any point.
Hes left hanging in the wind.

They had your pre-order money for month with no interest BECAUSE YOU GAVE IT THEM in good faith and knowing they have to deliver or refund/compensate. You feel safe to pre-order because you know there is a legal system serving your interest as much as theirs.


Piracy is not pre-ordering.
Its not the Dev GIVING you the game in good faith knowing that he will get paid for it later. You just took the game in the cover of anonymity. There is no consent here. No deliberate choice on the part of both parties. No "offer" and no "taker".

No, not wrong. My point was that Prewal's argument was flawed, I'm not saying "piracy equals pre-ordering". The original argument from Prewal was that game developers aren't banks who could absorb the costs before pirates decided to pay them. My point was that if this is the concern then pre-ordering shouldn't be acceptable either.

You're right, the key difference is the obligation game developers have to those who pre-order their products, there is no such obligation for pirates. But Prewal's argument that it was unfair for pirates to expect developers to temporarily absorb the cost - well why is it fine for the consumers to temporarily absorb the cost?

I'm not saying piracy is acceptable, even if the pirates decide to later buy the game, I'm saying the Prewal's apparent game-changing argument is flawed.

 

[Double A]

but in the meantime it means a financial loss for the developer

NO, it does not. That logic is incredibly erroneous.

Yes it does. They worked hard on something, and what would be a paying customer got it without paying for it, depriving the developer or their profit.

I didn't buy Psychonauts till the Steam sale. That doesn't mean Double Fine or even Valve lost money until I bought it, it means they just didn't get any from me for it till the other day.

edit: Note that I'm not a pirate or defending them, but that I'm just showing you the flaw in your argument.

 

[Dastardly]

as opposed to simply telling someone else what they do or do not understand.

Like the whole article you are defending is doing?

1. Elaborate -- where do you feel the article did this?

2. Who said I was defending the article, rather than just defending the anti-piracy stance?

 

[Asehujiko]

as opposed to simply telling someone else what they do or do not understand.

Like the whole article you are defending is doing?

1. Elaborate -- where do you feel the article did this?

2. Who said I was defending the article, rather than just defending the anti-piracy stance?

1. Right there in the title. And about every other line.

2. You implied. And no, I'm not interested in you pedantically nitpicking irrelevant parts of posts until you write yourself into a corner again and brush it off with another "hurr we're discussing totally different things" again and continue on as before.

 

[ResonanceSD]

but in the meantime it means a financial loss for the developer

NO, it does not. That logic is incredibly erroneous.

Yes it does. They worked hard on something, and what would be a paying customer got it without paying for it, depriving the developer or their profit.

I didn't buy Psychonauts till the Steam sale. That doesn't mean Double Fine or even Valve lost money until I bought it, it means they just didn't get any from me for it till the other day.

edit: Note that I'm not a pirate or defending them, but that I'm just showing you the flaw in your argument.

Ah yes, but you BOUGHT the content. You didn't just attain it illegally. People got money for you enjoying their creation.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

but in the meantime it means a financial loss for the developer

NO, it does not. That logic is incredibly erroneous.

Yes it does. They worked hard on something, and what would be a paying customer got it without paying for it, depriving the developer or their profit.

No it's not.
It's potentially a lost sale.
There is a huge difference between something being sure and being just potential.

Saying it's a lost sale would mean that you can prove that every pirate would buy the game if he wasn't able to pirate it. You can't prove it, so it's just potentially a lost sale.

And I'm not saying piracy is good, nor will I argue about it.
I'm arguing that it's not a lost sale.

 

[Sparrow]

Good to know that Escapist doesnt show any bias in their news.

Sometimes escapist is even worse then Fox news with headlines and "information" in article.

...so, you're all for piracy? Correct me if I'm wrong, because that was exactly what your statement sounded like.

but in the meantime it means a financial loss for the developer

NO, it does not. That logic is incredibly erroneous.

As I see it, the two polar notions that piracy is always a lost sale and that piracy is never effectively a financial loss are what is truly lacking logic. The truth is in fact somewhere in the middle.

This is a sentiment I can agree with. If there was no method of piracy, would pirates simply abandon their gaming habits altogether? I doubt it, but at the same time I doubt that barely any of the pirates would purchase games in the same magnitude that they pirate them.