Lawyer Destroys Arguments for Game Piracy

[ResonanceSD]

The most prolific demographic of gamers is not 'techies'. Interesting side note, check out who supports sopa. The company I work for supports it, as we are in a industry directly affected by piracy. Its an excellent way to demonstrate how far people will go to protect their entitlements. You know, income they deserve.

I'm not going to sacrifice my fundamental freedoms for their goddamn income.
Get your priorities straight.
Sure, they deserve income.
Not at the cost of everyone's fucking freedom.

Read my followup post. You know, this.

Content creators and distributors are legally entitled to the money made from content. All of it.
Some twerp illegally obtaining said content without paying for it is not entitled to anything at all. Either you're being disingenuous or you seriously don't understand the position that content providers and creators are coming from.

If ruining the greatest invention of the past century feels like too far a step, here's a line from a famous song.

"We do what we must, because we can".

 

[Dastardly]

"OMFG, we are losing millions!" (unverifiable ex-post-facto justification for adding expensive DRM that does little if anything to preventing piracy)

It's definitely unverifiable, I agree. The difference is that what the publishers are doing is completely legal and understandable. They are trying to protect what is theirs. The pirates are trying to take what isn't. The burden of proof, then, rests upon the criminal.

That said, I don't support the claim that every pirated copy equals "One Lost Full-Price Sale." You're right that this is overstating things. It is equally ridiculous when people claim NO pirated copy equals "One Lost Full-Price Sale." If even one person has ever heard this conversation:

Friend A: "I'm going to by Game X. It looks good, heard good things, gonna buy it."
Friend B: "Nah, dude. Here, I've got a torrent, just download it."
Friend A: "Sure, send it on over!"

Then they've witnessed a lost sale.

And if even one pirated copy is a lost sale, the publisher is within their rights to go after the pirate(s). I mean, if someone dipped into your wallet and took $1, would you think, "Aw, heck, it's just a dollar," or would you be focused on, "Bastard went into my wallet!"

There are a few categories of people out there:

1. People who want a game enough to pay full price.
2. People who want the game, but not enough to pay full price.
3. People who don't want the game at all.

Piracy doesn't effect group 3 in the least. They don't want the game, so they're not even downloading it. Piracy's impact on group 1 is probably pretty minor -- most folks don't trust pirated copies, due to Internet Boogeyman myths, or they just want the game legitimately. That said, what person couldn't find a reason to say, "Yeah, I wanted to buy it... but, y'know, money's tight. I needed to spend that $60 on something else." So we lose some of group 1 along the way.

It's group 2 that is the biggest concern. This is the group that pirates like to claim "would never have bought the game anyway." Again, that's easy for someone to claim after they know there's a "free" copy available.

Group 2 is the group that could teach publishers exactly what price point is acceptable. They're the ones that could send the message that results in lower prices. But piracy gets in the way of any message Group 2 might try to send, yelling "FREE FREE!" And sorry, publishers can't compete with free.

There may be a part of group 2 that would have bought the game at 20% off. Another part, at 50%. Another part, in one of those crazy 80% Steam sales or something. And I would venture that even the "least interested" pirate would, if piracy was not a 'thing,' pay at least $1 for a game. My evidence? They were interested enough to obtain and play the game, and that represents greater than "zero dollars" of interest.

The fact is that, if piracy wasn't in the way, publishers would sell all they could to Group 1... and then start trying different things to attract Group 2. They'd be experimenting, offering deals, packages, sales, incentives, you name it. They'd be doing all that innovating the pirates keep whinging about not happening. But as long as piracy is as widespread as it is, publishers know they can't compete with "Free," so they don't throw money down that hole.

Also looking at what we understand about human beings, the old "Most Pirates Buy Games If They End Up Liking Them" bit is laughable. It makes no sense to pay for something that you already have... but it's very easy to claim you would. It's warm-fuzzy to say, "If I had liked it, I would have bought it," but it's oh-so-easy to find some minor flaw and say, "But, y'know, I just didn't like it enough..." every time. Are their outliers? Sure -- there are a few weirdos that actually bought a game after pirating it. There are also a lot of liars who say it just to shut up the anti-piracy people. And there are tons of people who don't claim they have but... well... they know a guy who knew a guy, and surely someone has done it...

Piracy clearly results in lost revenue. That isn't the same as saying every pirated copy is a lost full-price sale. But if I go onto a farm and salt a quarter of the fields, I doubt saying, "Well, there's no guarantee anything would have grown there anyway" is going to make the farmer feel any less cheated out of his crops.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

Wow, just...wow, there are so many things wrong I don't know where to start. Sensationalist hyperbolic headline, no independent research, repetition, so much badness.

defend the crime

I'm calling you out Greg, please point to the section of either the US code or state code that criminalizes downloading a copyrighted work for personal use. In the US copyright infringement is a civil tort, not a criminal offense, if you call it a crime you are lying.

Purewal says there is really no evidence that most pirates have the desire or technical chops to effectively mask their IP addres

It is irrelevant whether or not purported copyright infringers hide their IP address. An IP address is not a person. If that IP address leads to more evidence then fine sue away but the IP address by itself should never be considered as evidence. Unfortunately judges don't know enough technology to throw out cases based solely on IP.

developers are not gamer banks

Thats right they aren't. When a bank loans someone money the bank has less money. When a copyright infringer downloads a copyrighted work the developer has less? What, less ones and zeros? A copy is not a loss, never has been and never will be. And even if it was then used games and rentals are a exponentially greater source of loss than downloads could ever be.

Just when I thought the industry bootlicking couldn't get any worse, an article like this comes up.

 

[ResonanceSD]

Wow, just...wow, there are so many things wrong I don't know where to start. Sensationalist hyperbolic headline, no independent research, repetition, so much badness.

defend the crime

I'm calling you out Greg, please point to the section of either the US code or state code that criminalizes downloading a copyrighted work for personal use. In the US copyright infringement is a civil tort, not a criminal offense, if you call it a crime you are lying.

developers are not gamer banks

Thats right they aren't. When a bank loans someone money the bank has less money. When a copyright infringer downloads a copyrighted work the developer has less? What, less ones and zeros?

The answers: 1) It's still illegal, and it's not a criminal offence, it's still a civil offence. And as such, a crime.

2)They have less money than they should. End of story. They should have $x, they instead have $x - $y. The end.

 

[ResonanceSD]

snip

I'm not a pirate.
I never said I was entitled to their work without paying for it.
Once again, I am not going to sacrifice my freedom of speech so they can have their fucking profit.

If you think profit for corporations is more important than our freedom, then by all means continue to do so.
If so, I am strongly opposed to you and your ideology.
"Oh God, no, they're losing profit!"
That's nothing compared to losing our fucking liberty.

If the video game industry dies to ensure the continued security of our freedoms, so fucking be it.
I'd rather be free and bored than entertained in an Orwellian society.
If you disagree, I think you need to reexamine your priorities.

You can enforce copyright laws without being medieval.
There are ways to catch criminals without going too far and destroying freedom in the process.

Nobody said you were a pirate.

The continued success of media and entertainment providers means that I'll still have a job, huzzah! as such, I'm willing to do whatever it takes to retain said job. You'll note, that everyone who has a financial interest in SOPA, including companies like Nvidia, oddly enough, support it, and everyone who's finances will be impacted as a result of the bill (all of it's detractors) are against it. It's not about freedom, it's about money. We want what is owed to us, nothing more.

 

[hubert]

Edit

 

[ResonanceSD]

The most prolific demographic of gamers is not 'techies'. Interesting side note, check out who supports sopa. The company I work for supports it, as we are in a industry directly affected by piracy. Its an excellent way to demonstrate how far people will go to protect their entitlements. You know, income they deserve.

I'm not going to sacrifice my fundamental freedoms for their goddamn income.
Get your priorities straight.
Sure, they deserve income.
Not at the cost of everyone's fucking freedom.

Read my followup post. You know, this.

Content creators and distributors are legally entitled to the money made from content. All of it.
Some twerp illegally obtaining said content without paying for it is not entitled to anything at all. Either you're being disingenuous or you seriously don't understand the position that content providers and creators are coming from.

If ruining the greatest invention of the past century feels like too far a step, here's a line from a famous song.

"We do what we must, because we can".

Does it truly make any difference wether you bust some pirates or not?
The developers are NOT getting more sales anyways, especially in todays market when you can get really good "indie" games for 2-9$ instead of throwing away 49-60$ at let us say Witcher 2. (Let's face it, The Witcher 2 wasn't really all that good).

I don't know why you're so passionate about the topic. You're not a developer are you? Are you working for IGN? Are you hired to debate piracy?

My point is: The game industry is doing well, really well. Regardless of piracy and even economic recession. There's no need for crying about being "robbed" or standing up for imposing stupid laws just for the hell of it.

Your talk about ruining the "Greatest invention of the past century" is just plain stupid. Games are more innovative and numerous then ever, I don't understand what you're talking about.

Piracy is a problem, but in no way a big enough problem that some would like it to be.
Makes you wonder if all this piracy fuzz is just a smoke screen for a more sinister purpose..
(Tinfoil hat ON)

The greatest innovation of the past century, the internet, is what SOPA will ruin. Not games. I don't know how that flew over your head, but apparently it did. So, Internet. Not games. And no, I don't work for IGN.

 

[hubert]

Edit

 

[ResonanceSD]

The greatest innovation of the past century, the internet, is what SOPA will ruin. Not games. I don't know how that flew over your head, but apparently it did. So, Internet. Not games. And no, I don't work for IGN.

Oh, I'm sorry I must have misinterpreted your sentence completely. I guess I was reading to fast or something... hum...

I was just guessing about the IGN thing since you have their logo as your profile pic. And you were talking about the working in connection to the industry. I guess you don't want to reveal exactly what/where you are working?

But still you seem to be fine with the SOPA if it will stop piracy, even if it will cripple the internet as we know it? Please inform me if I have misunderstood you again.

Oh no, I'm on board with the idea that it's a shit thing to do to everyone, however, I understand and agree with the concept behind it. As I've said before in this very thread, it's being implemented by a bunch of idiots who either don't understand the ramifications, or by a bunch of idiots who do understand the ramifications and don't care. So either way, it's going to be pretty bad. However, as I've (also) said before, and will say again, copyright infringement is bad for any industry affected by it, and as such, industries will (and have done) band together to stop it. It may not work, but I'm sure you'll agree, they got their point across pretty well.

Fuck you.
You'll forgive me if I ask you to go fuck yourself.

Actually, no, I won't. I'm here, stating the industry position, whilst also saying that overall it's a bad thing.

Also, relax. If that isn't feasible, pretend to relax. Actually, continue doing what you're doing.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Steam does kind of slap me in the face. I have to take down the protections I have up of my privacy on my computer just to be able to play the games I paid for because Steam doesn't allow it to access.

 

[hubert]

Edit

 

[ResonanceSD]

Can anybody name any company that has been confirmed ruined by piracy? Shady publisher deals and lack of sales is not proof enough.

I don't think there has been a case of a company completely ruined by piracy. However, that's not really carte blanche to go and say that piracy doesn't really hurt the industry. The fact of the matter is, people created content with the intent to sell it. "They've got enough money" isn't really a defence that flies here.

 

[Stalydan]

Snip

Snip

I only really take issue with dismissing "not a lost sale" and "If they made better games". I'm not going to say that fixing these will bring an end to piracy, but all this I keep hearing about the absurd overpricing some escapist member have to deal with. This coupled with the fact that there ARE a lot of games that, while fun, are NOT worth $60 ("wait until the price drops, then give it a try") certainly contribute. That coupled with postponed regional release dates and outright limited releasing. I had some friends in my last college who pirated and shared a game simply because there was no way to get in America, it was only released in Japan and one of them had a connection.

I feel the same way as you about games that aren't made widely available. Europe is a hard place to get a fair amount of games. To get a game like the original Shin Megami Tensei legally, I'd have to buy a Super Famicom, find a copy of the game, get them shipped to England, buy a number of electrical socket converters (I think), find some way to hook it up to my TV and most importantly: Learn Japanese.

Now I don't know about anyone else here but that's a lot of effort for one game (or two if you count the sequel). So the easier thing to do is emulate a fan translated copy.

And you know what, I enjoyed that game. But here's the problem with that particular series. Atlus doesn't have a European branch or publisher. I have to wait until March to play Catherine. MARCH! Considering how long that game's been out in NA, never mind Japan, that's a long wait. But apart from that, Atlus doesn't even release all their games in Europe. The only Shin Megami Tensei games that we're likely to get are Persona. Persona is great but I'd like Strange Journey or Devil Survivor too.

I honestly think one thing that does encourage piracy is that. Products not being widely available. It's worse for PC when the product is being distributed digitally but not in your country. No, it's not right that the developers "lose a sale" but it's a debatable thing really as the sale was obviously never going to happen if that person couldn't buy it.

I read your entire post. Thanks for reinforcingthe stereotype that gamers are entitled little twerps. Game developers, publishers don't actually, hilariously enough owe you anything. So you had to wait for a game release? People around the world worry about stuff like landmines. Actual problems. You are going to be discriminated, release wise, based on where you live. I'm Australian. Given how much we pay for games and the argument that "its too expeensiiive" as well as the "nation of convicts" trope, we should all be pirates. Yet we aren't, we pay for our games. Why? Because we don't walk the earth assuming that we're entitled to everything we want.

Yeah but you're Australian so- aw crap, you already made the convict joke for me.

And what? You think that what you get is fair? You don't even have an 18+ rating for your country! Your games don't come out for ages despite the fact that they could be in North America and Europe for months and therefore already be available in English language/subtitles. I think you're taking it too easy. You pay through the nose for games that can be months old by the time you get them and sometimes get them censored because the people in charge of your company don't like video games.

Back to your response itself, I don't feel self entitled. I just feel annoyed that I can't get something as easy as other people because I live in a different country, despite the fact it that speaks the same language as another and tend to get pretty similar things maybe three days at the most after the other country.

Why do certain game companies make it so difficult for me to buy their products? I'm not going to pirate them. I have no reason to! If I didn't have the money for games, I certainly wouldn't make it a hobby of mine. The only reason I would have to pirate it would be if it was going to cost me an arm and a leg to buy an overseas (NA because I only speak English and limited German) copy of the game and then not be able to return it if there are any problems. And honestly, I'm not a big import fan. I think I've bought a couple of anime figures and a cosplay from overseas and that's it.

 

[ResonanceSD]

Yeah but you're Australian so- aw crap, you already made the convict joke for me.

And what? You think that what you get is fair? You don't even have an 18+ rating for your country! Your games don't come out for ages despite the fact that they could be in North America and Europe for months and therefore already be available in English language/subtitles. I think you're taking it too easy. You pay through the nose for games that can be months old by the time you get them and sometimes get them censored because the people in charge of your company don't like video games.

Back to your response itself, I don't feel self entitled. I just feel annoyed that I can't get something as easy as other people because I live in a different country, despite the fact it that speaks the same language as another and tend to get pretty similar things maybe three days at the most after the other country.





Why do certain game companies make it so difficult for me to buy their products? I'm not going to pirate them. I have no reason to! If I didn't have the money for games, I certainly wouldn't make it a hobby of mine. The only reason I would have to pirate it would be if it was going to cost me an arm and a leg to buy an overseas (NA because I only speak English and limited German) copy of the game and then not be able to return it if there are any problems. And honestly, I'm not a big import fan. I think I've bought a couple of anime figures and a cosplay from overseas and that's it.

I've never said the way games and gamers are treated by this country's legislative bodies is fair. Or the ways that companies, including valve, treat us with their pricing structures. However, I don't feel that "it's not fair" is a sufficient reason to break international laws. Because it isn't.


D2Drive, Impulse, Steam, etc, etc etc. It's not difficult to get games.

 

[saregos]

It's a demonstration of "Income they feel entitled to". Which is amusing coming from people complaining about the entitlement culture of Pirates.

Content creators and distributors are legally entitled to the money made from content. All of it.

Some twerp illegally obtaining said content without paying for it is not entitled to anything at all. Either you're being disingenuous or you seriously don't understand the position that content providers and creators are coming from.

Or I understand it. And believe it's total fucking bullshit that Disney still owns the rights to or makes money from anything prior to 1985.

Or I understand that Content Distributors (such as the RIAA) don't have any right to attempt to prevent new distribution models being created that bypass them. And yet that's exactly what SOPA attempts to do.

Or I understand that distributors and creators often have vastly divergent interests. And the distributors are the only ones served by SOPA.

Pretending the right to perpetually make money off a work you didn't have anything to do with creating is an entitlement attitude far worse than downloading any game or DVD. Legal or not, it's precisely why copyright law and the copyright industries are immensely disrespected (even, in my case, hated) in current culture.

 

[Crazycat690]

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.

The problem is you assume they WOULD be a paying customer. With or without piracy existing,there is no money that would go to the developer.

It is wrong to call it a lost sale. The sale doesn't exists, would not exist if piracy wasn't a thing.

People who pirate games are people who wanna play games, following me so far? So if piracy wouldn't be an option, they'd actually buy games right? Besides, it's a bad circle of lazyness, or poverty or whatever... If someone doesn't have money for a game once, he thinks "well I'll download it for free just this once!", similar to people who mean to drink only one drink but ends up leaving the bar drunk as a skunk.

Piracy equals lost sales, deal with it.

 

[Stalydan]

Snip

I think you bring up a good point. I did say in an earlier post that you can't lose a sale really because pretty much everyone who pirates a game was never going to buy the game. And obviously the pubs/devs gained one sale from the person who bought the game and uploaded it wherever they did. I know it doesn't compensate for the fact your game was pirated but somebody did buy it.

Piracy will never ruin a company single handedly. It might hurt a games sales a bit but there's always other factors that build into a game being a success or failure. Quality checking of a game (bugs and glitches), pre-release exposure and coverage and reviews always make me decide what I buy and what I pass/rent/borrow from a friend.

I passed on Fallout: New Vegas because of the heavy bugs on release but I may pick up a complete version of it at some point. Hell, I think I also tend to buy less games now despite having more money than I did when I was 13/14 because there aren't as many game demos any more. Seriously, what happened to that practice? Only downloadable titles seem to do that anymore with the trial bit.

Well, I'm rambling now. So yeah. Gonna stop here.