Lawyer Destroys Arguments for Game Piracy

[ResonanceSD]

When the first HIB came out, they complained about people torrenting the game and still they made $1 million. They learned how to make the pack of games more enticing without having to use copyright enforcement.

Also, it's not stealing. Infringement and theft continue to be two separate things. Nothing is lost from downloading. No potential income is exchanged. And by all reports, when piracy increases so does the income of musicians, artists, and movies since more people have access to the material.

Copyright enforcement through PIPA would cost $47 million [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/08/protect-ip-act-would-cost-taxpayers-47-million-private-sector-much-more.ars] annually for less than perfect protection. You can't stop piracy, nor control it. And obviously, if the government needs to protect a business from the free market and the choices of millions of people, they don't deserve to be in business.

The HIB is a great example of how to repel pirates without draconian DRM or government intervention. Good on them.

Possible profit is taken, actually. If I were to pirate Mass Effect 3 when it comes out, BioWare has just not received $60 that they're entitled to. Money has not been taken from them, yes, but money they're owed is also not given to them. I consider that theft.

If you read carefully, I said I don't endorse PIPA or SOPA because they would infringe on America's First Amendment rights. As to the rest of your comment about free markets, I wholeheartedly disagree, seeing as how I'm a democratic socialist =P If millions of people choose to steal from stores, they should be punished. You can't seriously be saying that businesses should protect themselves from that, right? Similarly, if millions of people don't give a game dev./pub. the money they're owed, and the methods that HIB employed don't work for them (which is an important part, in my opinion), are you seriously suggesting that the government shouldn't swoop in and find a reasonable way to stop the people ripping off these companies?

Oh, also, the other guy in your original post, the one you said whose argument was incoherent, it actually was coherent. And it's a damn good point.

Why thank you [sub] *grins* [/sub]

Anyway
[br]
I support SOPA. So does the company I work for. Why? Simply put, we might stand to gain more money if it's passed than if piracy continues completely unabated. We're not getting the money we're entitled to, under the law. Not wanting to pay the money for something isn't an excuse for anything. Pirating something "to get an idea if it's entertaining" isn't an excuse. "I wasn't going to buy it anyway" really isn't an excuse, also you deserve a kick in the face. "I don't like the DRM" still isn't an excuse. What these aforementioned examples turn out to be, are rationalising of the issue. It also allows companies like the one I work for (and as you may have noticed, most gaming companies) to turn around and go, "well our users are people we can never please no matter what we do, so let's try something *sunglasses* radical". The companies behind it aren't likely to lose money. ALL OF THE COMPANIES opposed to it, will lose money. So now that we're aware that it's about money, primarily, let's drop the issue about "first amendement rights". I live in Australia, so hopefully my (supposedly left wing) government won't enact similar legislation immediately following the passing of SOPA.

I'm adding this so you're aware that I'll care about your rights not because they affect mine, indirectly (due to globalisation of the legal system), but because I'm aware of the scope of the problem, SOPA is too powerful.( Also so I won't have another round of "you're just a corporate shill" (I totally am, let's move on)). SOPA in it's current form is cumbersome, too powerful and needs a nerf. However, the industry has made many concessions in order to modernise, and has realised that you just can't please some people, and as such, isn't going to bother anymore. For examples of such people, Check out "F4ll3n" and that german sounding guy's posts out above. The industry has had enough of your ridiculous rationalising, and is now going to break the internet. Thanks so much for understanding.

How do you get more money if SOPA passes?

"yo, provider, a page is hosting our content without permission, take that guy's entire site down". Anyone looking for our content then comes to a site that's owned by us, and our ad revenue keeps coming in.

You know, the exact way of manipulating a shitty law that everyone's worried about? Yeah. That one.

 

[Fbuh]

It's the same argument you get with movies or art. How do you put a price on what is nothing more than interactive information? As an artist, I understand the need for proper compensation. However, there really isn't a defining line of what can be downloaded and what can't.

 

[brainslurper]

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 does not.

Can you prove to me there is a 100% chance that someone would have bought the game if they were unable to pirate it? (assuming they would afford it)

It is potentially a loss of sales, and on the same note, the person who pirated the game could potentially buy that game afterwards.

EDIT: To clarify, both ends of the argument have their flaws, and going for a middle ground results in estimates that could be way off, so the argument shouldn't really be used (for either side) at all.

No, It is not a valid justification of piracy anyways, and there are very few, if not no justifications for piracy (I can only think of one), but it is not killing the industry, and the loss that people are claiming are not only entirely intangible, but are usually based on estimates that are more likely than not far from the actual truth.

100%? No. But saying that even 50% of gamers would give up gaming because they didn't want to pay for their games is an overestimation. It isn't that people can't afford to pay for games, it is that they feel fine with giving the developers nothing for their work.

 

[yundex]

When the first HIB came out, they complained about people torrenting the game and still they made $1 million. They learned how to make the pack of games more enticing without having to use copyright enforcement.

Also, it's not stealing. Infringement and theft continue to be two separate things. Nothing is lost from downloading. No potential income is exchanged. And by all reports, when piracy increases so does the income of musicians, artists, and movies since more people have access to the material.

Copyright enforcement through PIPA would cost $47 million [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/08/protect-ip-act-would-cost-taxpayers-47-million-private-sector-much-more.ars] annually for less than perfect protection. You can't stop piracy, nor control it. And obviously, if the government needs to protect a business from the free market and the choices of millions of people, they don't deserve to be in business.

The HIB is a great example of how to repel pirates without draconian DRM or government intervention. Good on them.

Possible profit is taken, actually. If I were to pirate Mass Effect 3 when it comes out, BioWare has just not received $60 that they're entitled to. Money has not been taken from them, yes, but money they're owed is also not given to them. I consider that theft.

If you read carefully, I said I don't endorse PIPA or SOPA because they would infringe on America's First Amendment rights. As to the rest of your comment about free markets, I wholeheartedly disagree, seeing as how I'm a democratic socialist =P If millions of people choose to steal from stores, they should be punished. You can't seriously be saying that businesses should protect themselves from that, right? Similarly, if millions of people don't give a game dev./pub. the money they're owed, and the methods that HIB employed don't work for them (which is an important part, in my opinion), are you seriously suggesting that the government shouldn't swoop in and find a reasonable way to stop the people ripping off these companies?

Oh, also, the other guy in your original post, the one you said whose argument was incoherent, it actually was coherent. And it's a damn good point.

Why thank you [sub] *grins* [/sub]

Anyway
[br]
I support SOPA. So does the company I work for. Why? Simply put, we might stand to gain more money if it's passed than if piracy continues completely unabated. We're not getting the money we're entitled to, under the law. Not wanting to pay the money for something isn't an excuse for anything. Pirating something "to get an idea if it's entertaining" isn't an excuse. "I wasn't going to buy it anyway" really isn't an excuse, also you deserve a kick in the face. "I don't like the DRM" still isn't an excuse. What these aforementioned examples turn out to be, are rationalising of the issue. It also allows companies like the one I work for (and as you may have noticed, most gaming companies) to turn around and go, "well our users are people we can never please no matter what we do, so let's try something *sunglasses* radical". The companies behind it aren't likely to lose money. ALL OF THE COMPANIES opposed to it, will lose money. So now that we're aware that it's about money, primarily, let's drop the issue about "first amendement rights". I live in Australia, so hopefully my (supposedly left wing) government won't enact similar legislation immediately following the passing of SOPA.

I'm adding this so you're aware that I'll care about your rights not because they affect mine, indirectly (due to globalisation of the legal system), but because I'm aware of the scope of the problem, SOPA is too powerful.( Also so I won't have another round of "you're just a corporate shill" (I totally am, let's move on)). SOPA in it's current form is cumbersome, too powerful and needs a nerf. However, the industry has made many concessions in order to modernise, and has realised that you just can't please some people, and as such, isn't going to bother anymore. For examples of such people, Check out "F4ll3n" and that german sounding guy's posts out above. The industry has had enough of your ridiculous rationalising, and is now going to break the internet. Thanks so much for understanding.

How do you get more money if SOPA passes?

"yo, provider, a page is hosting our content without permission, take that guy's entire site down". Anyone looking for our content then comes to a site that's owned by us, and our ad revenue keeps coming in.

You know, the exact way of manipulating a shitty law that everyone's worried about? Yeah. That one.

When you say "piracy" I don't think .com websites. You actually mean those foreign sites that stream things and host ads. I don't think you'll make any money with that, due to the simplicity of circumventing it. Unless you mean petty shit like nostalgia critic, in which case go for it lol.

 

[ResonanceSD]

When the first HIB came out, they complained about people torrenting the game and still they made $1 million. They learned how to make the pack of games more enticing without having to use copyright enforcement.

Also, it's not stealing. Infringement and theft continue to be two separate things. Nothing is lost from downloading. No potential income is exchanged. And by all reports, when piracy increases so does the income of musicians, artists, and movies since more people have access to the material.

Copyright enforcement through PIPA would cost $47 million [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/08/protect-ip-act-would-cost-taxpayers-47-million-private-sector-much-more.ars] annually for less than perfect protection. You can't stop piracy, nor control it. And obviously, if the government needs to protect a business from the free market and the choices of millions of people, they don't deserve to be in business.

The HIB is a great example of how to repel pirates without draconian DRM or government intervention. Good on them.

Possible profit is taken, actually. If I were to pirate Mass Effect 3 when it comes out, BioWare has just not received $60 that they're entitled to. Money has not been taken from them, yes, but money they're owed is also not given to them. I consider that theft.

If you read carefully, I said I don't endorse PIPA or SOPA because they would infringe on America's First Amendment rights. As to the rest of your comment about free markets, I wholeheartedly disagree, seeing as how I'm a democratic socialist =P If millions of people choose to steal from stores, they should be punished. You can't seriously be saying that businesses should protect themselves from that, right? Similarly, if millions of people don't give a game dev./pub. the money they're owed, and the methods that HIB employed don't work for them (which is an important part, in my opinion), are you seriously suggesting that the government shouldn't swoop in and find a reasonable way to stop the people ripping off these companies?

Oh, also, the other guy in your original post, the one you said whose argument was incoherent, it actually was coherent. And it's a damn good point.

Why thank you [sub] *grins* [/sub]

Anyway
[br]
I support SOPA. So does the company I work for. Why? Simply put, we might stand to gain more money if it's passed than if piracy continues completely unabated. We're not getting the money we're entitled to, under the law. Not wanting to pay the money for something isn't an excuse for anything. Pirating something "to get an idea if it's entertaining" isn't an excuse. "I wasn't going to buy it anyway" really isn't an excuse, also you deserve a kick in the face. "I don't like the DRM" still isn't an excuse. What these aforementioned examples turn out to be, are rationalising of the issue. It also allows companies like the one I work for (and as you may have noticed, most gaming companies) to turn around and go, "well our users are people we can never please no matter what we do, so let's try something *sunglasses* radical". The companies behind it aren't likely to lose money. ALL OF THE COMPANIES opposed to it, will lose money. So now that we're aware that it's about money, primarily, let's drop the issue about "first amendement rights". I live in Australia, so hopefully my (supposedly left wing) government won't enact similar legislation immediately following the passing of SOPA.

I'm adding this so you're aware that I'll care about your rights not because they affect mine, indirectly (due to globalisation of the legal system), but because I'm aware of the scope of the problem, SOPA is too powerful.( Also so I won't have another round of "you're just a corporate shill" (I totally am, let's move on)). SOPA in it's current form is cumbersome, too powerful and needs a nerf. However, the industry has made many concessions in order to modernise, and has realised that you just can't please some people, and as such, isn't going to bother anymore. For examples of such people, Check out "F4ll3n" and that german sounding guy's posts out above. The industry has had enough of your ridiculous rationalising, and is now going to break the internet. Thanks so much for understanding.

How do you get more money if SOPA passes?

"yo, provider, a page is hosting our content without permission, take that guy's entire site down". Anyone looking for our content then comes to a site that's owned by us, and our ad revenue keeps coming in.

You know, the exact way of manipulating a shitty law that everyone's worried about? Yeah. That one.

When you say "piracy" I don't think .com websites. You actually mean those foreign sites that stream things and host ads. I don't think you'll make any money with that, due to the simplicity of circumventing it. Unless you mean petty shit like nostalgia critic, in which case go for it lol.

SOPA isn't actually designed primarily to fight piracy. It's about copyright infringement. The shitty way it's drafted means that any page hosting licensed content gets a nuke and it's up to the owner of that page to prove that it wasn't infringing.

 

[yundex]

When the first HIB came out, they complained about people torrenting the game and still they made $1 million. They learned how to make the pack of games more enticing without having to use copyright enforcement.

Also, it's not stealing. Infringement and theft continue to be two separate things. Nothing is lost from downloading. No potential income is exchanged. And by all reports, when piracy increases so does the income of musicians, artists, and movies since more people have access to the material.

Copyright enforcement through PIPA would cost $47 million [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/08/protect-ip-act-would-cost-taxpayers-47-million-private-sector-much-more.ars] annually for less than perfect protection. You can't stop piracy, nor control it. And obviously, if the government needs to protect a business from the free market and the choices of millions of people, they don't deserve to be in business.

The HIB is a great example of how to repel pirates without draconian DRM or government intervention. Good on them.

Possible profit is taken, actually. If I were to pirate Mass Effect 3 when it comes out, BioWare has just not received $60 that they're entitled to. Money has not been taken from them, yes, but money they're owed is also not given to them. I consider that theft.

If you read carefully, I said I don't endorse PIPA or SOPA because they would infringe on America's First Amendment rights. As to the rest of your comment about free markets, I wholeheartedly disagree, seeing as how I'm a democratic socialist =P If millions of people choose to steal from stores, they should be punished. You can't seriously be saying that businesses should protect themselves from that, right? Similarly, if millions of people don't give a game dev./pub. the money they're owed, and the methods that HIB employed don't work for them (which is an important part, in my opinion), are you seriously suggesting that the government shouldn't swoop in and find a reasonable way to stop the people ripping off these companies?

Oh, also, the other guy in your original post, the one you said whose argument was incoherent, it actually was coherent. And it's a damn good point.

Why thank you [sub] *grins* [/sub]

Anyway
[br]
I support SOPA. So does the company I work for. Why? Simply put, we might stand to gain more money if it's passed than if piracy continues completely unabated. We're not getting the money we're entitled to, under the law. Not wanting to pay the money for something isn't an excuse for anything. Pirating something "to get an idea if it's entertaining" isn't an excuse. "I wasn't going to buy it anyway" really isn't an excuse, also you deserve a kick in the face. "I don't like the DRM" still isn't an excuse. What these aforementioned examples turn out to be, are rationalising of the issue. It also allows companies like the one I work for (and as you may have noticed, most gaming companies) to turn around and go, "well our users are people we can never please no matter what we do, so let's try something *sunglasses* radical". The companies behind it aren't likely to lose money. ALL OF THE COMPANIES opposed to it, will lose money. So now that we're aware that it's about money, primarily, let's drop the issue about "first amendement rights". I live in Australia, so hopefully my (supposedly left wing) government won't enact similar legislation immediately following the passing of SOPA.

I'm adding this so you're aware that I'll care about your rights not because they affect mine, indirectly (due to globalisation of the legal system), but because I'm aware of the scope of the problem, SOPA is too powerful.( Also so I won't have another round of "you're just a corporate shill" (I totally am, let's move on)). SOPA in it's current form is cumbersome, too powerful and needs a nerf. However, the industry has made many concessions in order to modernise, and has realised that you just can't please some people, and as such, isn't going to bother anymore. For examples of such people, Check out "F4ll3n" and that german sounding guy's posts out above. The industry has had enough of your ridiculous rationalising, and is now going to break the internet. Thanks so much for understanding.

How do you get more money if SOPA passes?

"yo, provider, a page is hosting our content without permission, take that guy's entire site down". Anyone looking for our content then comes to a site that's owned by us, and our ad revenue keeps coming in.

You know, the exact way of manipulating a shitty law that everyone's worried about? Yeah. That one.

When you say "piracy" I don't think .com websites. You actually mean those foreign sites that stream things and host ads. I don't think you'll make any money with that, due to the simplicity of circumventing it. Unless you mean petty shit like nostalgia critic, in which case go for it lol.

SOPA isn't actually designed primarily to fight piracy. It's about copyright infringement. The shitty way it's drafted means that any page hosting licensed content gets a nuke and it's up to the owner of that page to prove that it wasn't infringing.

So how do you make money? (again) I mean, give me a real world example because i'm confused, lol.

 

[ResonanceSD]

When the first HIB came out, they complained about people torrenting the game and still they made $1 million. They learned how to make the pack of games more enticing without having to use copyright enforcement.

Also, it's not stealing. Infringement and theft continue to be two separate things. Nothing is lost from downloading. No potential income is exchanged. And by all reports, when piracy increases so does the income of musicians, artists, and movies since more people have access to the material.

Copyright enforcement through PIPA would cost $47 million [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/08/protect-ip-act-would-cost-taxpayers-47-million-private-sector-much-more.ars] annually for less than perfect protection. You can't stop piracy, nor control it. And obviously, if the government needs to protect a business from the free market and the choices of millions of people, they don't deserve to be in business.

The HIB is a great example of how to repel pirates without draconian DRM or government intervention. Good on them.

Possible profit is taken, actually. If I were to pirate Mass Effect 3 when it comes out, BioWare has just not received $60 that they're entitled to. Money has not been taken from them, yes, but money they're owed is also not given to them. I consider that theft.

If you read carefully, I said I don't endorse PIPA or SOPA because they would infringe on America's First Amendment rights. As to the rest of your comment about free markets, I wholeheartedly disagree, seeing as how I'm a democratic socialist =P If millions of people choose to steal from stores, they should be punished. You can't seriously be saying that businesses should protect themselves from that, right? Similarly, if millions of people don't give a game dev./pub. the money they're owed, and the methods that HIB employed don't work for them (which is an important part, in my opinion), are you seriously suggesting that the government shouldn't swoop in and find a reasonable way to stop the people ripping off these companies?

Oh, also, the other guy in your original post, the one you said whose argument was incoherent, it actually was coherent. And it's a damn good point.

Why thank you [sub] *grins* [/sub]

Anyway
[br]
I support SOPA. So does the company I work for. Why? Simply put, we might stand to gain more money if it's passed than if piracy continues completely unabated. We're not getting the money we're entitled to, under the law. Not wanting to pay the money for something isn't an excuse for anything. Pirating something "to get an idea if it's entertaining" isn't an excuse. "I wasn't going to buy it anyway" really isn't an excuse, also you deserve a kick in the face. "I don't like the DRM" still isn't an excuse. What these aforementioned examples turn out to be, are rationalising of the issue. It also allows companies like the one I work for (and as you may have noticed, most gaming companies) to turn around and go, "well our users are people we can never please no matter what we do, so let's try something *sunglasses* radical". The companies behind it aren't likely to lose money. ALL OF THE COMPANIES opposed to it, will lose money. So now that we're aware that it's about money, primarily, let's drop the issue about "first amendement rights". I live in Australia, so hopefully my (supposedly left wing) government won't enact similar legislation immediately following the passing of SOPA.

I'm adding this so you're aware that I'll care about your rights not because they affect mine, indirectly (due to globalisation of the legal system), but because I'm aware of the scope of the problem, SOPA is too powerful.( Also so I won't have another round of "you're just a corporate shill" (I totally am, let's move on)). SOPA in it's current form is cumbersome, too powerful and needs a nerf. However, the industry has made many concessions in order to modernise, and has realised that you just can't please some people, and as such, isn't going to bother anymore. For examples of such people, Check out "F4ll3n" and that german sounding guy's posts out above. The industry has had enough of your ridiculous rationalising, and is now going to break the internet. Thanks so much for understanding.

How do you get more money if SOPA passes?

"yo, provider, a page is hosting our content without permission, take that guy's entire site down". Anyone looking for our content then comes to a site that's owned by us, and our ad revenue keeps coming in.

You know, the exact way of manipulating a shitty law that everyone's worried about? Yeah. That one.

When you say "piracy" I don't think .com websites. You actually mean those foreign sites that stream things and host ads. I don't think you'll make any money with that, due to the simplicity of circumventing it. Unless you mean petty shit like nostalgia critic, in which case go for it lol.

SOPA isn't actually designed primarily to fight piracy. It's about copyright infringement. The shitty way it's drafted means that any page hosting licensed content gets a nuke and it's up to the owner of that page to prove that it wasn't infringing.

So how do you make money? (again) I mean, give me a real world example because i'm confused, lol.

How ad revenue works: Companies pay more money to a website provider if they get more "eyeballs" (Page impressions/unique browsers) on a particular page. Think of it like google ranks. The good spots up the top are more expensive to obtain than a lower-ranked paid result.

If a website is taking content directly from one of our websites, the flow of traffic to that particular bit of information is reduced for us. Not by half, but by a little bit. As such, the ad value of a website decreases. If there are no competing websites hosting content that's been created by us, in theory, we get all the eyeballs.

So as you can see, being able to take down entire websites because a single piece of infringing material is on it is somewhat imbalanced and is crying out for a nerf.

 

[yundex]

When the first HIB came out, they complained about people torrenting the game and still they made $1 million. They learned how to make the pack of games more enticing without having to use copyright enforcement.

Also, it's not stealing. Infringement and theft continue to be two separate things. Nothing is lost from downloading. No potential income is exchanged. And by all reports, when piracy increases so does the income of musicians, artists, and movies since more people have access to the material.

Copyright enforcement through PIPA would cost $47 million [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/08/protect-ip-act-would-cost-taxpayers-47-million-private-sector-much-more.ars] annually for less than perfect protection. You can't stop piracy, nor control it. And obviously, if the government needs to protect a business from the free market and the choices of millions of people, they don't deserve to be in business.

The HIB is a great example of how to repel pirates without draconian DRM or government intervention. Good on them.

Possible profit is taken, actually. If I were to pirate Mass Effect 3 when it comes out, BioWare has just not received $60 that they're entitled to. Money has not been taken from them, yes, but money they're owed is also not given to them. I consider that theft.

If you read carefully, I said I don't endorse PIPA or SOPA because they would infringe on America's First Amendment rights. As to the rest of your comment about free markets, I wholeheartedly disagree, seeing as how I'm a democratic socialist =P If millions of people choose to steal from stores, they should be punished. You can't seriously be saying that businesses should protect themselves from that, right? Similarly, if millions of people don't give a game dev./pub. the money they're owed, and the methods that HIB employed don't work for them (which is an important part, in my opinion), are you seriously suggesting that the government shouldn't swoop in and find a reasonable way to stop the people ripping off these companies?

Oh, also, the other guy in your original post, the one you said whose argument was incoherent, it actually was coherent. And it's a damn good point.

Why thank you [sub] *grins* [/sub]

Anyway
[br]
I support SOPA. So does the company I work for. Why? Simply put, we might stand to gain more money if it's passed than if piracy continues completely unabated. We're not getting the money we're entitled to, under the law. Not wanting to pay the money for something isn't an excuse for anything. Pirating something "to get an idea if it's entertaining" isn't an excuse. "I wasn't going to buy it anyway" really isn't an excuse, also you deserve a kick in the face. "I don't like the DRM" still isn't an excuse. What these aforementioned examples turn out to be, are rationalising of the issue. It also allows companies like the one I work for (and as you may have noticed, most gaming companies) to turn around and go, "well our users are people we can never please no matter what we do, so let's try something *sunglasses* radical". The companies behind it aren't likely to lose money. ALL OF THE COMPANIES opposed to it, will lose money. So now that we're aware that it's about money, primarily, let's drop the issue about "first amendement rights". I live in Australia, so hopefully my (supposedly left wing) government won't enact similar legislation immediately following the passing of SOPA.

I'm adding this so you're aware that I'll care about your rights not because they affect mine, indirectly (due to globalisation of the legal system), but because I'm aware of the scope of the problem, SOPA is too powerful.( Also so I won't have another round of "you're just a corporate shill" (I totally am, let's move on)). SOPA in it's current form is cumbersome, too powerful and needs a nerf. However, the industry has made many concessions in order to modernise, and has realised that you just can't please some people, and as such, isn't going to bother anymore. For examples of such people, Check out "F4ll3n" and that german sounding guy's posts out above. The industry has had enough of your ridiculous rationalising, and is now going to break the internet. Thanks so much for understanding.

How do you get more money if SOPA passes?

"yo, provider, a page is hosting our content without permission, take that guy's entire site down". Anyone looking for our content then comes to a site that's owned by us, and our ad revenue keeps coming in.

You know, the exact way of manipulating a shitty law that everyone's worried about? Yeah. That one.

When you say "piracy" I don't think .com websites. You actually mean those foreign sites that stream things and host ads. I don't think you'll make any money with that, due to the simplicity of circumventing it. Unless you mean petty shit like nostalgia critic, in which case go for it lol.

SOPA isn't actually designed primarily to fight piracy. It's about copyright infringement. The shitty way it's drafted means that any page hosting licensed content gets a nuke and it's up to the owner of that page to prove that it wasn't infringing.

So how do you make money? (again) I mean, give me a real world example because i'm confused, lol.

How ad revenue works: Companies pay more money to a website provider if they get more "eyeballs" (Page impressions/unique browsers) on a particular page. Think of it like google ranks. The good spots up the top are more expensive to obtain than a lower-ranked paid result.

If a website is taking content directly from one of our websites, the flow of traffic to that particular bit of information is reduced for us. Not by half, but by a little bit. As such, the ad value of a website decreases. If there are no competing websites hosting content that's been created by us, in theory, we get all the eyeballs.

So as you can see, being able to take down entire websites because a single piece of infringing material is on it is somewhat imbalanced and is crying out for a nerf.

So which website is taking content from your website and profiting off of it? By "real world example" I mean, who is doing this on a .com website? Link? The only one I know of is "dbz episode". Good website, but I won't defend what they do. If you mean sites like that than yeah I agree. (despite my love for it)

 

[ResonanceSD]

When the first HIB came out, they complained about people torrenting the game and still they made $1 million. They learned how to make the pack of games more enticing without having to use copyright enforcement.

Also, it's not stealing. Infringement and theft continue to be two separate things. Nothing is lost from downloading. No potential income is exchanged. And by all reports, when piracy increases so does the income of musicians, artists, and movies since more people have access to the material.

Copyright enforcement through PIPA would cost $47 million [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/08/protect-ip-act-would-cost-taxpayers-47-million-private-sector-much-more.ars] annually for less than perfect protection. You can't stop piracy, nor control it. And obviously, if the government needs to protect a business from the free market and the choices of millions of people, they don't deserve to be in business.

The HIB is a great example of how to repel pirates without draconian DRM or government intervention. Good on them.

Possible profit is taken, actually. If I were to pirate Mass Effect 3 when it comes out, BioWare has just not received $60 that they're entitled to. Money has not been taken from them, yes, but money they're owed is also not given to them. I consider that theft.

If you read carefully, I said I don't endorse PIPA or SOPA because they would infringe on America's First Amendment rights. As to the rest of your comment about free markets, I wholeheartedly disagree, seeing as how I'm a democratic socialist =P If millions of people choose to steal from stores, they should be punished. You can't seriously be saying that businesses should protect themselves from that, right? Similarly, if millions of people don't give a game dev./pub. the money they're owed, and the methods that HIB employed don't work for them (which is an important part, in my opinion), are you seriously suggesting that the government shouldn't swoop in and find a reasonable way to stop the people ripping off these companies?

Oh, also, the other guy in your original post, the one you said whose argument was incoherent, it actually was coherent. And it's a damn good point.

Why thank you [sub] *grins* [/sub]

Anyway
[br]
I support SOPA. So does the company I work for. Why? Simply put, we might stand to gain more money if it's passed than if piracy continues completely unabated. We're not getting the money we're entitled to, under the law. Not wanting to pay the money for something isn't an excuse for anything. Pirating something "to get an idea if it's entertaining" isn't an excuse. "I wasn't going to buy it anyway" really isn't an excuse, also you deserve a kick in the face. "I don't like the DRM" still isn't an excuse. What these aforementioned examples turn out to be, are rationalising of the issue. It also allows companies like the one I work for (and as you may have noticed, most gaming companies) to turn around and go, "well our users are people we can never please no matter what we do, so let's try something *sunglasses* radical". The companies behind it aren't likely to lose money. ALL OF THE COMPANIES opposed to it, will lose money. So now that we're aware that it's about money, primarily, let's drop the issue about "first amendement rights". I live in Australia, so hopefully my (supposedly left wing) government won't enact similar legislation immediately following the passing of SOPA.

I'm adding this so you're aware that I'll care about your rights not because they affect mine, indirectly (due to globalisation of the legal system), but because I'm aware of the scope of the problem, SOPA is too powerful.( Also so I won't have another round of "you're just a corporate shill" (I totally am, let's move on)). SOPA in it's current form is cumbersome, too powerful and needs a nerf. However, the industry has made many concessions in order to modernise, and has realised that you just can't please some people, and as such, isn't going to bother anymore. For examples of such people, Check out "F4ll3n" and that german sounding guy's posts out above. The industry has had enough of your ridiculous rationalising, and is now going to break the internet. Thanks so much for understanding.

How do you get more money if SOPA passes?

"yo, provider, a page is hosting our content without permission, take that guy's entire site down". Anyone looking for our content then comes to a site that's owned by us, and our ad revenue keeps coming in.

You know, the exact way of manipulating a shitty law that everyone's worried about? Yeah. That one.

When you say "piracy" I don't think .com websites. You actually mean those foreign sites that stream things and host ads. I don't think you'll make any money with that, due to the simplicity of circumventing it. Unless you mean petty shit like nostalgia critic, in which case go for it lol.

SOPA isn't actually designed primarily to fight piracy. It's about copyright infringement. The shitty way it's drafted means that any page hosting licensed content gets a nuke and it's up to the owner of that page to prove that it wasn't infringing.

So how do you make money? (again) I mean, give me a real world example because i'm confused, lol.

How ad revenue works: Companies pay more money to a website provider if they get more "eyeballs" (Page impressions/unique browsers) on a particular page. Think of it like google ranks. The good spots up the top are more expensive to obtain than a lower-ranked paid result.

If a website is taking content directly from one of our websites, the flow of traffic to that particular bit of information is reduced for us. Not by half, but by a little bit. As such, the ad value of a website decreases. If there are no competing websites hosting content that's been created by us, in theory, we get all the eyeballs.

So as you can see, being able to take down entire websites because a single piece of infringing material is on it is somewhat imbalanced and is crying out for a nerf.

So which website is taking content from your website and profiting off of it? By "real world example" I mean, who is doing this on a .com website? Link? The only one I know of is "dbz episode". Good website, but I won't defend what they do. If you mean sites like that than yeah I agree. (despite my love for it)

I'm not actually going to link them here, due to the fact that they don't deserve any traffic at all. We're a news company, the fact that we post news that no one else has is one of our primary assets. Once someone posts a similar story (a competitor) does it, it's fine, it's normal market competition. The minute that some random blogger takes a story, word-for-word from one of our sites without referencing us, we start getting annoyed.

 

[NezumiiroKitsune]

His comments don't contribute anything significant to the issue. There's some carefully written, logically and statistically reinforced papers written on the subject, coming at the issue from every area of the debate; does it mean loss for the developer, is it immoral, has it an effect of the quality of games, etc...

His comments are just a few factual statements, and a couple of opinions masquerading as facts, on the subject, as impacting as most comments here.

What's of note, as has been said once or twice, is he's a lawyer that doesn't hate video games, saying something about video games.

 

[yundex]

When the first HIB came out, they complained about people torrenting the game and still they made $1 million. They learned how to make the pack of games more enticing without having to use copyright enforcement.

Also, it's not stealing. Infringement and theft continue to be two separate things. Nothing is lost from downloading. No potential income is exchanged. And by all reports, when piracy increases so does the income of musicians, artists, and movies since more people have access to the material.

Copyright enforcement through PIPA would cost $47 million [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/08/protect-ip-act-would-cost-taxpayers-47-million-private-sector-much-more.ars] annually for less than perfect protection. You can't stop piracy, nor control it. And obviously, if the government needs to protect a business from the free market and the choices of millions of people, they don't deserve to be in business.

The HIB is a great example of how to repel pirates without draconian DRM or government intervention. Good on them.

Possible profit is taken, actually. If I were to pirate Mass Effect 3 when it comes out, BioWare has just not received $60 that they're entitled to. Money has not been taken from them, yes, but money they're owed is also not given to them. I consider that theft.

If you read carefully, I said I don't endorse PIPA or SOPA because they would infringe on America's First Amendment rights. As to the rest of your comment about free markets, I wholeheartedly disagree, seeing as how I'm a democratic socialist =P If millions of people choose to steal from stores, they should be punished. You can't seriously be saying that businesses should protect themselves from that, right? Similarly, if millions of people don't give a game dev./pub. the money they're owed, and the methods that HIB employed don't work for them (which is an important part, in my opinion), are you seriously suggesting that the government shouldn't swoop in and find a reasonable way to stop the people ripping off these companies?

Oh, also, the other guy in your original post, the one you said whose argument was incoherent, it actually was coherent. And it's a damn good point.

Why thank you [sub] *grins* [/sub]

Anyway
[br]
I support SOPA. So does the company I work for. Why? Simply put, we might stand to gain more money if it's passed than if piracy continues completely unabated. We're not getting the money we're entitled to, under the law. Not wanting to pay the money for something isn't an excuse for anything. Pirating something "to get an idea if it's entertaining" isn't an excuse. "I wasn't going to buy it anyway" really isn't an excuse, also you deserve a kick in the face. "I don't like the DRM" still isn't an excuse. What these aforementioned examples turn out to be, are rationalising of the issue. It also allows companies like the one I work for (and as you may have noticed, most gaming companies) to turn around and go, "well our users are people we can never please no matter what we do, so let's try something *sunglasses* radical". The companies behind it aren't likely to lose money. ALL OF THE COMPANIES opposed to it, will lose money. So now that we're aware that it's about money, primarily, let's drop the issue about "first amendement rights". I live in Australia, so hopefully my (supposedly left wing) government won't enact similar legislation immediately following the passing of SOPA.

I'm adding this so you're aware that I'll care about your rights not because they affect mine, indirectly (due to globalisation of the legal system), but because I'm aware of the scope of the problem, SOPA is too powerful.( Also so I won't have another round of "you're just a corporate shill" (I totally am, let's move on)). SOPA in it's current form is cumbersome, too powerful and needs a nerf. However, the industry has made many concessions in order to modernise, and has realised that you just can't please some people, and as such, isn't going to bother anymore. For examples of such people, Check out "F4ll3n" and that german sounding guy's posts out above. The industry has had enough of your ridiculous rationalising, and is now going to break the internet. Thanks so much for understanding.

How do you get more money if SOPA passes?

"yo, provider, a page is hosting our content without permission, take that guy's entire site down". Anyone looking for our content then comes to a site that's owned by us, and our ad revenue keeps coming in.

You know, the exact way of manipulating a shitty law that everyone's worried about? Yeah. That one.

When you say "piracy" I don't think .com websites. You actually mean those foreign sites that stream things and host ads. I don't think you'll make any money with that, due to the simplicity of circumventing it. Unless you mean petty shit like nostalgia critic, in which case go for it lol.

SOPA isn't actually designed primarily to fight piracy. It's about copyright infringement. The shitty way it's drafted means that any page hosting licensed content gets a nuke and it's up to the owner of that page to prove that it wasn't infringing.

So how do you make money? (again) I mean, give me a real world example because i'm confused, lol.

How ad revenue works: Companies pay more money to a website provider if they get more "eyeballs" (Page impressions/unique browsers) on a particular page. Think of it like google ranks. The good spots up the top are more expensive to obtain than a lower-ranked paid result.

If a website is taking content directly from one of our websites, the flow of traffic to that particular bit of information is reduced for us. Not by half, but by a little bit. As such, the ad value of a website decreases. If there are no competing websites hosting content that's been created by us, in theory, we get all the eyeballs.

So as you can see, being able to take down entire websites because a single piece of infringing material is on it is somewhat imbalanced and is crying out for a nerf.

So which website is taking content from your website and profiting off of it? By "real world example" I mean, who is doing this on a .com website? Link? The only one I know of is "dbz episode". Good website, but I won't defend what they do. If you mean sites like that than yeah I agree. (despite my love for it)

I'm not actually going to link them here, due to the fact that they don't deserve any traffic at all. We're a news company, the fact that we post news that no one else has is one of our primary assets. Once someone posts a similar story (a competitor) does it, it's fine, it's normal market competition. The minute that some random blogger takes a story, word-for-word from one of our sites without referencing us, we start getting annoyed.

If they're posting the story and linking to your site and giving credit, that should be fine yes? By that I mean...basically what the escapist does, reporting on your story.

 

[Gindil]

I'm not trolling. Just trying to point out the erroneous logic which calls piracy a market mechanism which is what you are attempting. It isn't part of the market because it is illegal appropriation of content. Pirates are not natural competitors to the industry, regardless of what the extra credits people say.

You ignored the Gabe Newell article. Further, you would probably ignore all evidence [http://steveblank.com/2012/01/04/why-the-movie-industry-cant-innovate-and-the-result-is-sopa/] that piracy is an example of a market failure.

The fact remains that piracy is a market failure [http://piracy.ssrc.org/hadopi-says-lets-try-cutting-off-nose-to-spite-face/] and I have the evidence to back up my claims. Piracy is a natural competitor. Unless you can prove otherwise, you're making an assertion that has no bearing on the conversation.

 

[JCBFGD]

-all snipped-

You support SOPA? That's where you and I disagree. Tremendously. It's unconstitutional, furthers America's descent into an authoritarian corporatocracy, and it will kill the internet. It is a travesty that someone came up with it, and frankly, I would happily endorse the imprisonment of all involved in trying to pass it. It is ethically and morally disgusting. And the fact that you support it just so you can get more money is one of the most repugnant things I've ever read. If I knew what company you worked for, I'd encourage everyone I know to boycott it, and I'd even consider pirating from your company (if you made any worthwhile games that I really wanted); your company's ethics have just become so revolting, that legally purchasing your products (thus supporting and encouraging this behaviour) would be worse than pirating from you. And how dare you imply that the First Amendment, a human right is less important than money. Absolutely fucking atrocious. SOPA supporters are infinitely worse than the pirates; at least the pirates support freedom of speech and have a (admittedly loose) code of ethics. Congratulations on being worse than the people you're trying to stop. Impressive. Oh, also, thanks for making me defend pirates. They're not good people, but nowhere near as terrible as you and your sleazy, execrable ilk.

Also so I won't have another round of "you're just a corporate shill" (I totally am, let's move on)

And with that sentence, you just lost the right to even talk to me. Don't bother wasting my time by replying.

 

[Gindil]

When the first HIB came out, they complained about people torrenting the game and still they made $1 million. They learned how to make the pack of games more enticing without having to use copyright enforcement.

Also, it's not stealing. Infringement and theft continue to be two separate things. Nothing is lost from downloading. No potential income is exchanged. And by all reports, when piracy increases so does the income of musicians, artists, and movies since more people have access to the material.

Copyright enforcement through PIPA would cost $47 million [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/08/protect-ip-act-would-cost-taxpayers-47-million-private-sector-much-more.ars] annually for less than perfect protection. You can't stop piracy, nor control it. And obviously, if the government needs to protect a business from the free market and the choices of millions of people, they don't deserve to be in business.

The HIB is a great example of how to repel pirates without draconian DRM or government intervention. Good on them.

Possible profit is taken, actually. If I were to pirate Mass Effect 3 when it comes out, BioWare has just not received $60 that they're entitled to. Money has not been taken from them, yes, but money they're owed is also not given to them. I consider that theft.

If you read carefully, I said I don't endorse PIPA or SOPA because they would infringe on America's First Amendment rights. As to the rest of your comment about free markets, I wholeheartedly disagree, seeing as how I'm a democratic socialist =P If millions of people choose to steal from stores, they should be punished. You can't seriously be saying that businesses should protect themselves from that, right? Similarly, if millions of people don't give a game dev./pub. the money they're owed, and the methods that HIB employed don't work for them (which is an important part, in my opinion), are you seriously suggesting that the government shouldn't swoop in and find a reasonable way to stop the people ripping off these companies?

Oh, also, the other guy in your original post, the one you said whose argument was incoherent, it actually was coherent. And it's a damn good point.

Stores and digital content are not the same thing. It's a constant confusion between people that don't understand digital markets, unfortunately. Also, no company is entitled to money. If their service is inferior, piracy increases. That's the point that Gabe Newell has made constantly and consistently in regards to fighting piracy. You make a service that is better than what the pirates can offer. Constant updates, different methods of acquiring goods, various points of entry, small amounts of DRM, etc. That's how you compete against piracy.

A business doesn't protect itself by considering its customers criminals. That's the entire problem with this "but, but... piracy" argument. The problem of SOPA/PIPA is that it seems the entertainment industry is entitled to people's money without working for it. They can overblock websites, decide who their competition is and provide inferior service for goods at higher prices, which no one wants.

So no, I don't believe setting up a government sanctioned monopoly that censors websites [http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/08225217010/breaking-news-feds-falsely-censor-popular-blog-over-year-deny-all-due-process-hide-all-details.shtml], lies about money lost due to piracy [http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/how-copyright-industries-con-congress/], or spends four times as much as the tech industry for bad laws [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68448_Page4.html] is really needed.

Finally, his point is incoherent. All he's stating is that "since this is an indie developer, the money from a torrent is lost". Nevermind the fact that most people in the first HIB were not in the US, we have a global economy where not all internet connections are the same, prices are different for products, no charity was set up (since it's proven that people give more money to charities), and there were a myriad of problems that are ignored by just saying "yeah, those people are cheap". The least he could do is research and respond with something better than assertions. As it stands, his points are simplistic to the point that I highly doubt he can actually refute the fact that piracy actually allows goods to be circulated and has benefits that he doesn't understand.

 

[JCBFGD]

-snip-

I don't see your point. Piracy is still a kind of theft, in that money owed for a product is not ever paid. Companies that put out goods and services are entitled only to the money that paid to them in exchange for their good or service. I agree with Gaben's idea, though; peacefully outdoing them is probably for the best.

You still seem to be not reading my replies, so I'll put this in boldface and capital letters, as well as italicise it: I DO NOT SUPPORT PIPA OR SOPA. I repeat: I DO NOT SUPPORT PIPA OR SOPA. There needs to be a less authoritarian, oppressive way to stop these criminals.

While that terrible excuse for a human being is wrong in supporting SOPA, he had a point in the reply I read to you: pirates pirated from ethical independent developers that they claim to support because of their ethics. He's still (more than likely) right by going with the thought process of, "Those pirates are cheap bastards." And that's the reason that all my friends who pirate have given for their piracy; they're cheap. There's no ethical or moral crusade, as you and so many others make it out to be...it's simply so they don't have to spend money. Then there's me: I'd pirate from an unethical company, but I don't, because I hope they'll solve the issue on their own; in the meantime, I'll boycott them. That's how you really stick it to a company.

 

[ResonanceSD]

-all snipped-

You support SOPA? That's where you and I disagree. Tremendously. It's unconstitutional, furthers America's descent into an authoritarian corporatocracy, and it will kill the internet. It is a travesty that someone came up with it, and frankly, I would happily endorse the imprisonment of all involved in trying to pass it. It is ethically and morally disgusting. And the fact that you support it just so you can get more money is one of the most repugnant things I've ever read. If I knew what company you worked for, I'd encourage everyone I know to boycott it, and I'd even consider pirating from your company (if you made any worthwhile games that I really wanted); your company's ethics have just become so revolting, that legally purchasing your products (thus supporting and encouraging this behaviour) would be worse than pirating from you. And how dare you imply that the First Amendment, a human right is less important than money. Absolutely fucking atrocious. SOPA supporters are infinitely worse than the pirates; at least the pirates support freedom of speech and have a (admittedly loose) code of ethics. Congratulations on being worse than the people you're trying to stop. Impressive. Oh, also, thanks for making me defend pirates. They're not good people, but nowhere near as terrible as you and your sleazy, execrable ilk.

Also so I won't have another round of "you're just a corporate shill" (I totally am, let's move on)

And with that sentence, you just lost the right to even talk to me. Don't bother wasting my time by replying.

I loved reading your response. Possible as much as you enjoyed writing it. I liked most that you ignored most of my post before hulking out. So here it is. I support the idea behind SOPA. Not the way it's being implemented. I addressed all of your concerns above, in my post that you ALL SNIPPED.

I dont agree with the power it has, or the fact it won't actually stop piracy. However I guess your righteous anger got in the way of you reading that.

You still seem to be not reading my replies so I'll put this in boldface and capital letters, as well as italicise it: I DO NOT SUPPORT PIPA OR SOPA. I repeat: I DO NOT SUPPORT PIPA OR SOPA.

Yeah but at least he reads posts that he quotes. Unlike, oh I don't know. You. Try to relax. If that isn't feasible, keep on doing your current thing.

 

[Ad-Man-Gamer]

You know, there is a way to research games and how they'll run on your system. Youtube can help there.


And if you won't buy a game until it has a demo, tell the developer. Don't resort to illegal means, as that only helps you.


Not all pirates buy what they've downloaded again. Why would they? They already have the product. Thus, someone is consuming content, for free = lost sale.


And remember, as always, COMPUTER GAMES ARE A LUXURY, NOT A RIGHT.

Isn't health care in America classed as a luxury? isn't it a case of if your not earning money to pay for it then your a waist that deserves to die anyway? do correct me if I'm wrong.

Oh. As a note, I pirated Half Life 1, and as a result I now legally own all of valves games (including Half Life 1).

I would also like to say that the SOPA act's technical workings is the same as china's techniques used to filter their internet. My only question is, do you really trust that kind of power to an industry that abuse their powers to stop parodys and spoofs, and take down Youtube videos of a baby just because a track is playing in the background as diegetic sound?

 

[ResonanceSD]

You know, there is a way to research games and how they'll run on your system. Youtube can help there.


And if you won't buy a game until it has a demo, tell the developer. Don't resort to illegal means, as that only helps you.


Not all pirates buy what they've downloaded again. Why would they? They already have the product. Thus, someone is consuming content, for free = lost sale.


And remember, as always, COMPUTER GAMES ARE A LUXURY, NOT A RIGHT.

Isn't health care in America classed as a luxury? isn't it a case of if your not earning money to pay for it then your a waist that deserves to die anyway? do correct me if I'm wrong.

Oh. As a note, I pirated Half Life 1, and as a result I now legally own all of valves games (including Half Life 1).

I would also like to say that the SOPA act's technical workings is the same as china's techniques used to filter their internet. My only question is, do you really trust that kind of power to an industry that abuse their powers to stop parodys and spoofs, and take down Youtube videos of a baby just because a track is playing in the background as diegetic sound?

Not anymore. American healthcare finally caught up with ours thanks to Obama. I'm not sure why the bit where I said I don't agree with the way that sopa is being implemented keeps bypassing everyone.


Oh, and music companies already remove the audio tracks from YouTube videos which infringe on copyrights. Just an fyi.

 

[Fishyash]

-snip-

100%? No. But saying that even 50% of gamers would give up gaming because they didn't want to pay for their games is an overestimation. It isn't that people can't afford to pay for games, it is that they feel fine with giving the developers nothing for their work.

Forgive me for this but...

(again, sincere apologies apologies)

The point is, don't just equate a pirated game to a lost sale (like the lawyer is basically doing), because that assumes the person who pirated won't buy the game. Personally I think the fact that online piracy is unetical and illegal alone should be reasons to not pirate.

Estimation was bolded to show that at the end of the day (I still hate saying that, but for lack of a better phrase) "lost sales" are intangible. Not everyone is going to buy the game if it can't be pirated (and it's not just on the basis of affording either).