Lawyer Destroys Arguments for Game Piracy

[samsonguy920]

Most games today come out for console. Console games are able to be rented at plenty of places. If you feel the desire to try a game, then maybe it will be a better argument at why not renting it to try it out. Using piracy as an excuse to just try out a game is nothing but an excuse. Not only are you doing something that is wrong, but you are also putting yourself at risk dealing with people who might find it funny to include a bit of malware in the game to screw up your system. They have no reason to give you good business. Their business can go to vapor at any time if they smell the FBI or such sniffing at their door.

I do not stand for piracy. It's illegal and it shows no respect for the people who put work into a long project. Every time a thread like this comes up, I read nothing but weak excuses in the defense of pirating games, and nothing to truly justify the actions. There is nothing to justify the actions.
I also do not stand for draconian actions on the parts of publishers and developers in some weak effort to deter piracy. It only hurts legitimate customers who do pay money for the product, and does nothing to discourage pirates. Their excuses are just as weak because when it comes down to it, most pirated games are the fault of the publisher. When one of their own employees screws up and leaves a game that just went gold on a networked server, and the next day it is suddenly exposed to the world, whose fault is that? When an employee walks out the front door with a copy of the game weeks before it is released and then distributes it that night over the web, whose fault is that? For one, when people feel motivated to walk out the door with a product with no compensation for the company, that is a strong sign that it must really suck to work there. When people don't feel motivated to do their job right and leave the game where it can be ripped off, that is a strong sign that the job environment really sucks.
But let's don't lay the blame on the company, they are awesome for providing virtualware to the world. Let's work harder to make it harder on the customers, and lay it all on pirates and hackers.

Piracy sucks, but in an ideal world, software pirates would still be around. Why? Because it is a challenge. That I can't hold against anyone. The responsibility of those who want to sell games and make a profit off of it is to make the challenge for pirates and hackers more difficult. DRM and laws like SOPA? That's just being lazy and will do nobody any good in the end. Maybe if those who support piracy felt there was more of a challenge, maybe then we can actually hear a legitimate reason why we should. Of course, maybe if the companies actually did it right by then, there wouldn't even be ability to make a weak excuse.

 

[Stalydan]

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.

If only I was talking about Steam but here's the thing. I like Steam. Steam (imo) is reasonably priced compared to retail. Steam tends to make most of its game library available internationally.

Now games like Shin Megami Tensei (that aren't Persona, thankfully it is unlike the games that I'm about to list) whether it be Strange Journey and the Devil Survivor series aren't available for download (not yet anyway. Let's see how the 3DS develops) because they're on the DS. But they're also not available in Europe either. They cost a fair amount to import too. Again, I don't encourage piracy but sometimes it's just something that will naturally happen. Tell somebody they can't have something and it's the one thing they want the most.

Shit happens like this. I can't give any advice to stop piracy completely but I know for certain that making a product more widely available, you've got more chance of it selling.

 

[samsonguy920]

anyone who thinks that the government is passing SOPA to stop piracy is already deluding themselves.

I have no doubt the congressmen supporting SOPA think it is to stop piracy. It is a fair assessment by now how much intelligence sits in that building.
But to those who have yet to catch up, here's the skinny: SOPA will make it possible for the megacorporations like Sony, Viacom, Vivendi, and others to restrict internet traffic to just the sites they own directly. No more third party places like Amazon or Bing. If people want their latest Metallica album, Battlefield game, or Star Wars Superdeluxecollector Edition BluRay with 3D, then they will have to go directly to the source.
Except for those in the know like hackers and pirates who can just go past DNS blocks. But after a while those sites blocked will be shut down anyway.
Not like the hackers or pirates are going to pay for what they get. They are just trying it out.

 

[esperandote]

That isn't news. What is his stance on used games?

 

[Atmos Duality]

Piracy topic...a useless endeavor, but I had a few minutes to kill so...
The usual points, summarized, and commented.

"Piracy is theft"

Economics disproves this.
For one thing, Video Games are NOT "Private Goods", they're "Natural Monopoly" goods.

"Theft" doesn't work the same way, and I'm not just being pedantic. If I steal a car, I satisfy my demand for a car, and create a new demand of equal proportion in the car's former owner (assuming they want their car back or a replacement car, which I'd consider the dominant responses).

If I copy a game, I satisfy my demand for that game, but I DO NOT CREATE proportionate demand elsewhere. Instead, I've inflated the Supply of that game by 1 unit, which lowers the value of that game according to the laws of Supply and Demand.

(And if I steal a car, for all practical purposes, it doesn't let me go into the business of creating copies of that car at no cost.)

Taken to the global market-level, piracy can actually be FAR WORSE than theft, because it creates an endless supply which the developers/publishers cannot easily compete with once established.

"Demo-pirates" (Try-before-buy)

Yeah, they exist. By statistical law, they must. But do they comprise a significant part of the piracy-market? There's no way to prove that for each game, and this argument is thus too nebulous to mean anything.

"DRM sucks"

This is the other side of the "Piracy-Coin". DRM effectively punishes 100% of the legitimate customers, and doesn't really bother the pirates much.

DRM is a reaction to Piracy, which in turn, reacts to DRM.
It's now a digital arms-race, with the legitimate customers being caught in the crossfire.

Yet, if a significant portion of legit customers turned to piracy, the DRM would stop, but so would the supply of games.
On the other hand, if DRM becomes too tight-fisted/impractical, legitimate customers will stop buying, again with the same results.

The irony is that there is no justification for piracy here (nor ridiculous DRM, but that's another topic), because the pirates NEED legitimate customers more than the legitimate customers need pirates. If the customers disappear, then so does the market, and the pirates are out of their games.

"The games suck too much. If they made better games, they wouldn't get pirated as often."

A nonsensical argument. By that logic, shovelware should be the most pirated software in gaming history, because it has the lowest quality and thus inspires the least amount of consumer confidence.

A popular, PROVEN title would make the most sense to pirate, if anything. That way the pirate knows they're getting a relatively high quality production.

 

[NinjaMan1001]

The notion that someone will pay for a product they got for free after they have 'tried it out' is naive. Its such a tired excuse, either from liars or the willfully ignorant.

As much as I like to have faith in my fellow man I know that for every righteous individual who might have pirated-then-payed there are many more who will never buy the game once they played though it. I makes no sense. Even more so for people who "Have no money to buy the games at full price." Why pay for a product after they already just played it?

 

[MasterV]

The solution to piracy should come from publishers offering better ways for customers to enjoy their games, not suing willy-nilly. "If we can reduce piracy through the means of technology and via the market, then that's got to be better than getting lawyers involved," he said. He applauds platforms like Steam that are a form of DRM which don't slap paying customers in the face.

Well, hello there Valve fanboyism. It took you long enough to come out of the closet but you didn't disappoint.

How about, instead of spending money on DRM schemes and cheap tricks like DLC (not saying DLC is bad in itself, but a lot of it is), publishers spend the money on the actual development of a title so that they make the game truly interesting and engaging...what's the word? Ah yes.

GREAT

instead of just mediocre. It always amuses me how manchildren like that "lawyer" and other in the gaming press like to flaunt sales numbers from GREAT games (Skyrim, Arkham City, MW3 and others come to mind)but always fail to include that these games achieved those numbers INSTEAD of piracy.

But it is truly difficult for such a mature medium like videogames to admit it's own mediocrity. Thus, everything is at fault these days. Be it piracy, second-hand gaming and everything EXCEPT the quality of the games themselves.

 

[Vrach]

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."

Oh right, because piracy advocates claim that developers are willing to effectively loan gamers products (I'm not sure what torrent gives you money O.O ). The lack of their willingness comes from the same thing that their heavy handed anti-piracy campaigns do, which is greed. No one is discussion their willingness - they're discussing their capability.

 

[Bedewyr]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games

You'll probably notice that the list isn't 100% accurate (Super Mario Bros and World count their bundles with consoles as well as Super Mario Bros. 25th Anniversary Bundles Red Wii + DS)

but, Super Mario Bros 3 was the best selling video game of all time with the movie "The Wizard" backng in, massive marketing and the overall bringing gaming into the limelight as a legitimate hobby (at the time). Interestingly enough it took Super Mario Brothers 3 5 years to reach it's milestone of 18 million copies sold.

By that same mark Call of Duty : Modern Duplicate 2, 3 and Black Ops all sold in less than a 3 year span over or close to 30 million copies for what is essentially the same game.

These numbers also don't include all of the DLC purchased for these games which generated extra revenue.

If you'll notice the numbers for the top grossing games in terms of sales stays pretty much the same year after year after year after year. (though you should also note that as we move closer to the current generation there are usually far more top grossing titles, roughly 4 or 5, amounting in ~20 million more copies of games being sold and just that much more revenue flowing into developers and publishers coffers)

What can you deduce from this about pirates and piracy.

1) Pirates will not buy a game if they cannot pirate it

(cartridges were extremely costly to pirate and for the most part were simply unavailable to do so yet sales do not indicate pirates buying copies as the sales stay pretty much the same)

2) People who don't pirate generally don't start to pirate for no reason

(when CD's came along to replace cartridges and were much much cheaper and easier in orders of magnitude to pirate sales numbers continued to not drop)

3) Pirates will always exist but, don't necessarily hurt your industry

(Sales numbers haven't dropped in the slightest and have actually increased across platforms as the games industry is seeing more revenue and sales than it ever has before but, costs of production, DLC, Digital Distribution, have allowed the gaming industry other avenues to keep costs down, while generating higher profits and more revenue.)

The notion that someone will pay for a product they got for free after they have 'tried it out' is naive. Its such a tired excuse, either from liars or the willfully ignorant.

As much as I like to have faith in my fellow man I know that for every righteous individual who might have pirated-then-payed there are many more who will never buy the game once they played though it. I makes no sense. Even more so for people who "Have no money to buy the games at full price." Why pay for a product after they already just played it?

Just a point on this but, people used to Rent games for a dollar a day back when I was a kid. You'd spend a buck, play the game for a bit see if it was worth it and then buy it based on that. for myself I'd love to be able to rent a game again but, can't due to the local Blockbuster and Rogers and Microplay and Megapower and.. well you get the idea closing down due to not being able to use an online pass in a rental or those fees being increasingly punishing (10 dollars for 2 nights for instances), or 3 install only DRMs, or any other myriad of bullshit that has basically hampered any try before you buy.

 

[Sovvolf]

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.

Surely you don't support SOPA, look I can get behind the idea of it too, the concept. To have further power to stop pirating sites ect. However as you've stated, its been written by idiots and due to the writing it'll give any company the ability to drag down any review or any bit of footage they feel like. Sites like this will be heavily hampered, many of internet critics will be out of work.

Look I'd like to have something up to help the industry too. To help companies the money they deserve for their product however at what cost? The internet (which is quite a large part of todays world) taken out. Peoples freedom destroyed, sites like IGN, Gamespot, Youtube, TGWTG ect just gone or severely hampered. The internet isn't going to be a fun place with it.

I'd get behind it but I feel it needs vetoing, sent back to the drawing board, written with more clarity and with more focus and then try again.

 

[ResonanceSD]

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.

Surely you don't support SOPA, look I can get behind the idea of it too, the concept. To have further power to stop pirating sites ect. However as you've stated, its been written by idiots and due to the writing it'll give any company the ability to drag down any review or any bit of footage they feel like. Sites like this will be heavily hampered, many of internet critics will be out of work.

Look I'd like to have something up to help the industry too. To help companies the money they deserve for their product however at what cost? The internet (which is quite a large part of todays world) taken out. Peoples freedom destroyed, sites like IGN, Gamespot, Youtube, TGWTG ect just gone or severely hampered. The internet isn't going to be a fun place with it.

I'd get behind it but I feel it needs vetoing, sent back to the drawing board, written with more clarity and with more focus and then try again.

Yeah, pretty much my feelings. I support the spirit of the law, but the letter will allow and directly cause the entire internet to fuck up. Which would be a Bad Thing. In it's current form, the bill is just stupid. However, with significant changes which don't allow ISPs to just go "right, you're offline, infringing domain", I'd be able to actually voice support. At present, I'm just toeing the company line, as loudly as I can. As you might have noticed. And as I said. directly. In the post you quoted.

 

[Sovvolf]

At present, I'm just toeing the company line, as loudly as I can. As you might have noticed. And as I said. directly. In the post you quoted.

I apologize, just seemed quite ambiguous. Guess your stuck between a rock and a hard stone with the looks of things. Sadly I'm unable to do anything about the bill, being a Brit I can't veto against it (least I don't think so) and while it won't change our laws in Briton, it will still drastically affect us along with the rest of the world.

 

[ResonanceSD]

At present, I'm just toeing the company line, as loudly as I can. As you might have noticed. And as I said. directly. In the post you quoted.

I apologize, just seemed quite ambiguous. Guess your stuck between a rock and a hard stone with the looks of things. Sadly I'm unable to do anything about the bill, being a Brit I can't veto against it (least I don't think so) and while it won't change our laws in Briton, it will still drastically affect us along with the rest of the world.

It will have a direct impact on the British legal system due to the fact that international "test cases" as a basis for law in other countries is getting bigger. Spain just launched something that's being touted as a trial run of SOPA.

 

[Epona]

The big elephant in the room is this: Digital goods have little value BECAUSE they can be copied infinitely at little cost.

 

[Sovvolf]

At present, I'm just toeing the company line, as loudly as I can. As you might have noticed. And as I said. directly. In the post you quoted.

I apologize, just seemed quite ambiguous. Guess your stuck between a rock and a hard stone with the looks of things. Sadly I'm unable to do anything about the bill, being a Brit I can't veto against it (least I don't think so) and while it won't change our laws in Briton, it will still drastically affect us along with the rest of the world.

It will have a direct impact on the British legal system due to the fact that international "test cases" as a basis for law in other countries is getting bigger. Spain just launched something that's being touted as a trial run of SOPA.

Well its good to know that one Country can change the laws of others at their will. I'll sleep pleasantly tonight knowing that fact. Would have thought fair use rights would have made this bill forfeit. Guess its time to say good buy to the internet soon enough. Though last I checked its been delayed for a while so I guess we can enjoy our short period of internet freedom while it lasts.

 

[hubert]

Edit

 

[JCBFGD]

-snip

How can downloading a game that has the option of being given away for free be theft? If the Humble Indie Bundle shows anything, piracy gives a chance to make money even if some people don't buy the game.

I'm not sure what you mean...if a game is given away for free by the devs/publishers, with the option of donating to support it, that's clearly not piracy; you're paying the set price of $0.00. Now, if you pay $0.00 for a game (by pirating, or other less-than-legal methods), when the set price is $49.99, you've just stolen. You've acquired a service/product by not paying for it. That's called theft, at least in most countries I know of.

 

[the clockmaker]

"CD Projekt's DRM-less Witcher 2 being pirated more than it was purchased"

What does that tell you, boys and girls?

It tells us that when faced with a choice between PAYING to have malware installed on your PC, or taking a free copy someone ran through the virus-checker, people will take the one that doesn't have malware.

DRM encourages Piracy.

I'm pretty sure that you read that statement wrong.

If DRM encourages piracy and
The witcher 2 had no DRM ie is DRM less therefore
The witcher 2 should not have been as pirated as DRM heavy titles

The Witcher 2 was heavily pirated which leads us, boys and girls back to the point that while DRM does suck, it is just another in the long long long line of flimsy defences that pirates throw up to justify their receiving a product/service without paying for it.

A self entitled consumer base encourages piracy.

only that it has been debunked as a myth that witcher2 would have been pirated that often. it turned out they counted connections in torrent networks as downloads, not the actual number of finished downloads. due to the structure of p2p networks that number is of course many, many times higher.
the real numbers are pretty much like any AAA title, be it with or without DRM. DRM doesn't stop anyone, it might slow things down for a few days maybe. most downloads come with cracks already packaged into the game nowadays.

To all, sorry, I was going by the post that I was quoting. I still stand by this though

A self entitled consumer base encourages piracy.

 

[chuckman1]

This will get us nowhere.
Don't you all realize there's no black and white only grey?
Piracy has negatives and positives like everything on Earth.
There is no absolute good or absolute evil.
Piracy can cause lost sales, it can also cause a game to become more popular.
Piracy is not truly good or evil, just in the middle.