Lawyer Destroys Arguments for Game Piracy

[Something Amyss]

Back when you had to sit at a tape deck and hit record and play at the same time so you could record from one tape to the other, we didn't call it "liberation of information" we called it copying, everyone knew you weren't supposed to do it but they did anyway and people were honest about their intent.

Actually, a lot of copying was kosher, even when the recording industry was running those "taping off the radio is STEALING!" ads.

We called it copying, they called it stealing. The technologies went to court, most famously the BETAMAX suit. They were told we had "fair use" rights.

Besides, Steal This Book was published in 1971. By that point, there had already long been a mentality that you are describing, even if not in those exact words. This applied to music ("Music should be free!"), physical property (as described in Hoffman's book as the "Pig Empire," where it was okay to steal from said "empire"), etc.

I don't know where you're getting your revisionist ideas from.

"Everyone" did not know better, even if you take a very hyperbolic view of "everyone." Similarly, there was a "liberation of information" style philosophy during pretty much any time where you could actually viably duplicate.

 

[Furrama]

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

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

You were a potential customer that now has no real reason to buy. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? Why buy the book when you can read it at the library? Sure, one could say that at least with physical books you can ensure that your copy will last longer and you can use it whenever you want, but that doesn't even fly with games. You have it for as long as you can transfer its data to a new platform that will run it, so why buy it after you've already taken it without pay? Support? That's not how this particular system works.

If you buy a game from a studio or company that you didn't like after you paid for it do not endorse them anymore, forthwith, from now on, really and truly, unless you get hear-tell that they've cleaned up their act. We have the internet and really good trusted reviews from credible sources now, there is no excuse to "sneak into the movie theater".

You took something you didn't pay for- the licence to play the game, not the game data itself. If you do this you personally deprive the licence holder. If you weren't going to buy it at all then you are adding to a culture of theft and making it okay for those who would have bought.

 

[Lyri]

snip

I'm done with the argument and will henceforth no longer be posting because you're inclined to drag the intent of the post further into the reaches of obscurity.

I disagree strongly against your viewpoint and it saddens me that individuals like yourself fight for the liberation and freedom of information, which stands for nothing more than free entertainment.
People work three jobs and still find time to sell themselves for money in order to put basics out on a table for their family. Yet here you are trying to argue that luxuries such as digital entertainment should be free for everybody, you need perspective.

 

[LilithSlave]

Funny, things like that make "intellectual property" seem even more silly. I don't see how poverty is an argument against poverty. If anything, media creators do not deserve the luxury of forcing people to be unable to copy their work legally. We have people starving, but legal measured need to be taken so that someone's song isn't listened to someone without the money or initial interest. Are people who work three jobs and still barely afford to feed their kids, not allowed to play video games or have to choose between eating and video games?

The only perspective this puts me into is that intellectual property seems even sillier. It's a "luxury" that is the most basic of human luxuries and that all humans aspire to and pressure others into.

Also, "entertainment" is a funny term. People of course fight to survive, but a human's meaning in life is whatever they love. Humans are defined by whatever it is they love in life, aesthetically, sexually, morally, things generally related to video games. Studies courses even force people often to listen to music or read books, fiction, "entertainment", even. Because they are relevant articles of culture. Usually schools will contain Charles Dickens and some other "luxury" entertainment, because luxury entertainment is surprisingly important. Someday, too, video games will hopefully be a part of that. I wouldn't be surprised to see Chrono Trigger in the classrooms a hundred or so years from now.

Of course the same is the case with all other media we go on about piracy about. The piracy of books, the piracy of video, the piracy of audio. All because this supposedly hurts the creation of new media. Which, while silly to say that musicians have a say in whomever listens to their music and can restrict in any way, even if it was helpful to the creation. There's simply no evidence I've seen that it does. I've seen no evidence that as piracy has risen, music creation, video game creation, novel creation, and the like, have gone down. If anything, they seem to have have risen hugely. Almost like an interconnected matrix of bacteria feeding and supporting each other.

Over 10,000 songs are probably created a day. A lot of them for free. Heck, speaking of that matrix, I bet just My Little Pony fans create over a dozen fair-use or completely original songs each day.

Permission culture itself just isn't actually nearly as productive to there being more music, more live-action, more animation, more games, as collaborative and sharing culture.

 

[ResonanceSD]

piracy apologist

what you seem to not understand is how business works. A guy develops something with the intent to sell it. People buy it. If they dont want to pay for it they don't get to have it. Obtaining it without paying for it is illegal. Your "open source is growing all the time maaan" is completely off the point, as Open source stuff was NEVER MEANT TO BE SOLD.

People like you are why I want SOPA to be passed. Hell, it might even give you a leg to stand on.

"Everyone" did not know better, even if you take a very hyperbolic view of "everyone." Similarly, there was a "liberation of information" style philosophy during pretty much any time where you could actually viably duplicate.

You can viably duplicate digital information. However, what we're discussing here is the illegal copyright infringement perpetuated daily, by millions, of intellectual property. If you want it, you pay for it. If not, you don't get it. It's as simple as that. No one creates content and puts it in a marketplace in order for it to be obtained by millions of freeloaders illegally.

SOPA: We do what we must, because we can.






Also, both of you epitomise the entitlement culture of gamers. Entertainment is a luxury. Not a right. Get that into your heads.

 

[LilithSlave]

It's true that a lot of people make this sort of stuff to make a profit. That doesn't mean that everyone deserves to have their intentions written into law and that doing otherwise is violating their rights or stealing.

If you want it, you pay for it. If not, you don't get it. It's as simple as that. Get that into your heads.

Oh my goodness, who needs logic? If you order people around and tell people what they can and cannot do you must surely be right!

I can play that game, too. If you put your media out there, you don't get to decide who gets to partake in it. Don't like people copying it? Don't like people pirating it? Too bad, you aren't morally justified in deciding who gets to partake in it. It's as simple as that.

 

[ResonanceSD]

It's true that a lot of people make this sort of stuff to make a profit. That doesn't mean that everyone deserves to have their intentions written into law and that doing otherwise is violating their rights or stealing.

And because of those wonderful people, the industry gets a bona-fide excuse to destroy the internet! Thanks people! Glad to have you on board. To everyone else, clear out the deadbeats who violate copyrights, then you might have a platform to defend rather than "not all of us are bad".


Also many props for completely ignoring everyone tearing apart your arguments.

 

[LilithSlave]

They don't have any excuse.

And I've responded to everyone's "arguments" against me just fine. Nothing so much as even attempts to refute claims most of the time other than just spouting irrelevant stuff for the sake of argument like claiming that piracy is wrong because it is illegal.

If you have an argument against me, you should make it yourself, instead of just trying to puff up the name of other users.

 

[Flac00]

edit: Also, it's not theft and it's simply incorrect to call it such.

Ok then, the definition of theft then:
An unlawful taking of property (this is from Marian Webster).
Is a game the property of the company that made it? Yes, as according to law (or at least US law), it is.
Is taking a product that costs money for free without the consent of the owner in any way (including from a third party) unlawful? Yes.
So...therefore, piracy of games is theft. Not hard to figure out.

Technically the game is copied, not taken.

Sooooo, then its copy write infringement. Still illegal and morally wrong. Either way you can't claim that this isn't immoral and illegal action.

 

[ResonanceSD]

edit: Also, it's not theft and it's simply incorrect to call it such.

Ok then, the definition of theft then:
An unlawful taking of property (this is from Marian Webster).
Is a game the property of the company that made it? Yes, as according to law (or at least US law), it is.
Is taking a product that costs money for free without the consent of the owner in any way (including from a third party) unlawful? Yes.
So...therefore, piracy of games is theft. Not hard to figure out.

Technically the game is copied, not taken.

Sooooo, then its copy write infringement. Still illegal and morally wrong. Either way you can't claim that this isn't immoral and illegal action.

But how else will they sleep at night? If it's not theft, IT MUST BE FINE!!!1 Once all this ridiculous rationalising of the problem stops, we might be able to have a proper discourse. Until then, and as long as the industry sees piracy going on, stuff like SOPA gets to continue. And why? Because the lawmakers have been persuaded to pass it. If that means that the online companies against it don't have the nous to be able to convince people to their way of thinking, so be it. As long as the industry is acting within the law, they'll be able to do anything they like. Especially when pirates make excuses as to why they're infringing copyrights.

 

[Ad-Man-Gamer]

I left this in another comment, but I think I'll leave it here.

In terms of finite goods.

Buy: 1-1+1=1 (Person is compensated and can replace the goods)
Steal:1-1=0 (Person is not compensated and can not replace the goods)

In terms of infinite goods.

Buy: ∞-1+1=∞
Steal: ∞-1=∞

Selling digital content at its technical level brakes the monitory system at its core need for scarcity. This is why their are IP laws, its to try and create a false scarcity on a potentially infinite concept.

In terms of infinite goods with restriction.

Buy: "1" -1+1= "1"
Steal: "1" -1= "0"

Even though there is a perceived loss, the only thing that is imposing it is the restriction.

 

[ResonanceSD]

I left this in another comment, but I think I'll leave it here.

In terms of finite goods.

Buy: 1-1+1=1 (Person is compensated and can replace the goods)
Steal:1-1=0 (Person is not compensated and can not replace the goods)

In terms of infinite goods.

Buy: ∞-1+1=∞
Steal: ∞-1=∞

Selling digital content at its technical level brakes the monitory system at its core need for scarcity. This is why their are IP laws, its to try and create a false scarcity on a potentially infinite concept.

In terms of infinite goods with restriction.

Buy: "1" -1+1= "1"
Steal: "1" -1= "0"

Even though there is a perceived loss, the only thing that is imposing it is the restriction.

Content creators want to be paid. oddly enough, people can't eat idealism.

 

[yundex]

They don't have any excuse.

And I've responded to everyone's "arguments" against me just fine. Nothing so much as even attempts to refute claims most of the time other than just spouting irrelevant stuff for the sake of argument like claiming that piracy is wrong because it is illegal.

If you have an argument against me, you should make it yourself, instead of just trying to puff up the name of other users.

I want my next child to come from you, right now. Brb, making heart shapes with your name in it.

 

[ResonanceSD]

It's true that a lot of people make this sort of stuff to make a profit. That doesn't mean that everyone deserves to have their intentions written into law and that doing otherwise is violating their rights or stealing.

If you want it, you pay for it. If not, you don't get it. It's as simple as that. Get that into your heads.

Oh my goodness, who needs logic? If you order people around and tell people what they can and cannot do you must surely be right!

I can play that game, too. If you put your media out there, you don't get to decide who gets to partake in it. Don't like people copying it? Don't like people pirating it? Too bad, you aren't morally justified in deciding who gets to partake in it. It's as simple as that.

and it's "reasons" like that why you see things like DL limits, country-specific pricing and DRM being created. because the user base is a bunch of self-entitled twerps. If you disagree with the laws and regulations of society, act to change them. The artists creating content are working within the law. You however, are not.

 

[F4LL3N]

People finally realize the truth. It's the developer/publishers fault, not ours. They've fucked themselves over by punishing their customers and making shitty games.

So people still want to consume content, and not pay for it. If the content is so bad, why would people still want to play it?

They probably don't want to play it once they've realized how worthless it is. Or maybe they want to play it, but don't think it's worth $50-100.

Uh huh. That's not a defence. For anything.

In your opinion... We aren't in court.

 

[ResonanceSD]

People finally realize the truth. It's the developer/publishers fault, not ours. They've fucked themselves over by punishing their customers and making shitty games.

So people still want to consume content, and not pay for it. If the content is so bad, why would people still want to play it?

They probably don't want to play it once they've realized how worthless it is. Or maybe they want to play it, but don't think it's worth $50-100.

Uh huh. That's not a defence. For anything.

In your opinion... We aren't in court.

Hilariously enough, it wouldn't be a viable defence in court either. Your point that people still want to play it and dont want to pay THAT MUCH MONEY underlines the entitlement culture of gamers here. It's a Luxury. Not a Right.


[sub] Are you looking forward to SOPA? I am

[br]
SOPA, the MW2 Nuke for the internet.[/sub]

 

[ResonanceSD]

So this is just another case of some person taking a grey issue and treating like a black-and-white one? Good to know.

The arguments for game piracy seem a bit flimsy in response to stories like CD Projekt's DRM-less Witcher 2 being pirated more than it was purchased or this abominable list of pirated games from TorrentFreak [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/115003-TorrentFreak-Reveals-Top-Pirated-Games-of-2011]. The games industry can't just ignore these thefts, and no amount of backwards logic can argue the impact of piracy away.

And yet there is nothing they can do to stop it. They will never stop piracy, or hurt it in any meaningful way, and all companies like Ubisoft and EA are doing is kneecapping paying customers.

Piracy continues to be a viable way for potential customers to try out their very expensive product and see if it suits them before dropping their hard earned money. I noticed that of the games on the top pirated list, only FIFA and Crysis, and Forza had demos.

edit: Also, it's not theft and it's simply incorrect to call it such.

We are also never going to stop rape, murder, or other forms of theft, not in the foreseeable future at least.

Sri Lanka has the death penalty for simple possesion of illegal drugs, yet they still put people to death there, proving THAT STILL isnt a deterrant 100% of the time.

So, I dont really know what you are getting at with this "they will never stop piracy" line of drivel...

People say it because they can delude themselves that everyone who pirates a game was totally going to buy it later, or was just testing their hardware out. It's childish and lasts about three seconds before everyone calls them out on it.