Lawyer Destroys Arguments for Game Piracy

[ezaviel]

snip

snip.

snip

But physical resources are actually finite. I mean, yes, if we could duplicate everything for free using techno-magic, then sure, money does become pretty useless. But we are not even close to that.

I mean, there is an actual physical limit to the ammount of any given substance in the world at one time. We cannot create matter.

I am not sure what resources you think we have no physical limit on? Even with renewable resources we have a hard limit equal to the rate at which we can renew that resource.

One thing that I would criticize about money is that it puts restrictions on technology from becoming widely used. Especially in impoverished countries.

E.G: If you stacked farms in a vertical building rather than a horizontal landscape. Then you would have 10x more acres of land to play with (assuming that it is a ten story building). Now all you need to do is use hydroponics in order to grow plants and wala! you have the capability to amp up food production by 100% per a floor. The above analogy wood have a production rate of 1000% compared to their just being one field, and this does not take into account that plants can grow faster in this environment dew to rich oxygen and mineral solutions that they feed all the plants.

This is not rocket science. It just makes sense. We have the resources to build such things, and moving this technology to Africa would greatly improve their food supply.

Another example is the fact that we know how to cure and prevent malaria. Yet, millions die because of it. It is not posed as a question of if we have the resources to help them, it is posed as a question that asks if it would be profitable to help them.

The malaria example is fair criticism, and the companies who make the drugs use a similar logic to what I said, "we made the drug, dont we deserve to be paid?" yet, they let people die in order to make that profit.

As for the 10 stack farms, that idea wouldn't work, not because of money, but because of physical reasons. Firstly, building a hydroponics farm in Africa isn't such a good idea, hydroponics uses a lot of water. Africa does not have enough water to begin with, this would make a bad problem worse, sure they would have more food, but they would be dying of thirst.
Also, I'm fairly certain you can't grow grains hydropnically, this makes it very hard to feed a population using pure hydroponics. You could grow masses of lettuces, or other green vegetables this way, but no grains, and grains are probably the biggest part of the human diet, and we kind of need them.

Ideas like this would only work if we had a global government and could just put our resource centres in the most ideal places, to be shipped whever they were needed. Even then we would still need some standard farms to produce the foods we cant make using hydroponics (or some kind of synthetic/GM grain-replacement). While it is a nice idea, technolgy is not our only barrier.

Even if the world became a global socialist state, we would still have some form of currency, if there was no official on, an un-official currency would develop. People barter, it's what they do. Whatever object is the most desired will just become the currency if there is no imposed artifial currency (like metal coins, or paper/cotton/plastic/polymer notes, or credit chips, or whatever).

Though we have drifted far from the topic of the thread.

 

[ezaviel]

snip

snip

snip

snip

That's not what I mean either.

I suppose a better way to convey it would be like this:

An individual disk containing any type of non physical data is only worth the amount of the physical disk itself. However, a game, program, movie, whatever, IS worth something, as many people's time and effort went in to it.

The issue with our society is that we put values on things. I'm no expert in economics or history or whatever, but i'm fairly certain that the entire foundation of currency was developed because different objects or substances had a practical use. Like in africa, gold wasn't worth nearly as much as salt, as salt had a much more practical purpose.

Somewhere along the line, a few things happened: We started to assign value based on other factors:

- Scarity/limited-ness: The loss of a amount of these deprived the owner of that use. Or, in other words, the gain of something requires the loss of that thing from other places. Like with a math problem that has stuff on both sides of the = sign. You can't add stuff to one side without subtracting it from the other.

Therefore, things that were harder to obtain became more valuable.

- Entertainment/pleasure:/demand by a person's subjective "worth" of it. Entertainment, pleasure, etc are all subjective things we experience that have no direct physical impact on the world.

- Time/effort: Also, because we don't like spending a lot of effort and time, only to have it not mean anything in the end, some amount of value was placed on time and effort as well. Likewise, things that reduced the amount of effort or time became more valuable.

---------------------------------
Remember the thing I said about the math equations? Well, with digital things, that's not true. You can make an infinite amount of a thing without causing the loss of it in the first place. But you can't just say it's worthless, as the thing was still the result of time and effort.

That's goes directly against of current model of a things worth.

So, with Video games:

- They serve no practical purpose; Worthless in this aspect.
- They have no limited aspect or "scarcity"; ENTIRELY Worthless in this aspect.
- They ARE a major source of entertainment, and are worth a LOT in this aspect.
- A LOT of time and effort goes into making a game, so it's worth a lot here.

-----------------------------
So, what do then?

Well, we know that as you can make an infinite number of these things, you shouldn't be paying for them on a indivual basis, "disc by disc" (I put it in quotes because I don't actually mean discs, as that is worth something by itself, I just can't thing of a equilvent statement for a purely digital purchase.)

Practicality has no bearing on any idea to pay for these, except in case of digital price vs. retail price: digital purchases should cost less, because you aren't paying for a box and a disc.

A price SHOULD be determined by enjoyment, and by time and effort.

As I stated, one way to do this would be to have all profits be made totally by donation. This way, a person wouldn't be paying for the scarcity/practicality of the thing, but they would be paying based on the subjective pleasure they get out of it.

Sadly, it's likely that not enough people would pay enough to make it "profitable" enough in the aspect of time and effort. So, this model really is not any better, and arguably worse than the current.

Another way to do it would be to make the games free, but since the consumers now have more money because they don't pay for games, the CONSUMERS pay the devolpers to MAKE the games, not to buy a already made one.

This also has issues, tough, of course

Well actually, this modal has proven to work. If you're getting into the realm of pay by charity, then places like bandcamp.com, the open source world, and a free movie called "Sita Sings the Blues" is worth a look into for case studys and the likes. The artists back story on Sita Sings the Blues is actually quite interesting. It goes into her struggle with copyright laws with her movie, that contained songs that were created in the dam 20's. creative works are meant to come into the public domain after 60 years, (As a note, it used to be 30 years, and before that it was 10) but apparently company's can now keep them indefinitely. Any who, copyright laws need a serious overhaul, because in my opinion, it seems to be currently conflicting with human nature it self.

I would agree that there is some evidence that a model like that can work, but that is far from proof that it is a valid tactic for the industry as a whole. As one of my lecturers used to say, "anecdotal evidence isnt".

I definatly agree that the copyright system does need an overhaul, it is begining to drift away from protecting the creators rights into protecting corporations rights to own other peoples work.

 

[ezaviel]

snip

snip

snip

snip

That's not what I mean either.

I suppose a better way to convey it would be like this:

An individual disk containing any type of non physical data is only worth the amount of the physical disk itself. However, a game, program, movie, whatever, IS worth something, as many people's time and effort went in to it.

The issue with our society is that we put values on things. I'm no expert in economics or history or whatever, but i'm fairly certain that the entire foundation of currency was developed because different objects or substances had a practical use. Like in africa, gold wasn't worth nearly as much as salt, as salt had a much more practical purpose.

Somewhere along the line, a few things happened: We started to assign value based on other factors:

- Scarity/limited-ness: The loss of a amount of these deprived the owner of that use. Or, in other words, the gain of something requires the loss of that thing from other places. Like with a math problem that has stuff on both sides of the = sign. You can't add stuff to one side without subtracting it from the other.

Therefore, things that were harder to obtain became more valuable.

- Entertainment/pleasure:/demand by a person's subjective "worth" of it. Entertainment, pleasure, etc are all subjective things we experience that have no direct physical impact on the world.

- Time/effort: Also, because we don't like spending a lot of effort and time, only to have it not mean anything in the end, some amount of value was placed on time and effort as well. Likewise, things that reduced the amount of effort or time became more valuable.

---------------------------------
Remember the thing I said about the math equations? Well, with digital things, that's not true. You can make an infinite amount of a thing without causing the loss of it in the first place. But you can't just say it's worthless, as the thing was still the result of time and effort.

That's goes directly against of current model of a things worth.

So, with Video games:

- They serve no practical purpose; Worthless in this aspect.
- They have no limited aspect or "scarcity"; ENTIRELY Worthless in this aspect.
- They ARE a major source of entertainment, and are worth a LOT in this aspect.
- A LOT of time and effort goes into making a game, so it's worth a lot here.

-----------------------------
So, what do then?

Well, we know that as you can make an infinite number of these things, you shouldn't be paying for them on a indivual basis, "disc by disc" (I put it in quotes because I don't actually mean discs, as that is worth something by itself, I just can't thing of a equilvent statement for a purely digital purchase.)

Practicality has no bearing on any idea to pay for these, except in case of digital price vs. retail price: digital purchases should cost less, because you aren't paying for a box and a disc.

A price SHOULD be determined by enjoyment, and by time and effort.

As I stated, one way to do this would be to have all profits be made totally by donation. This way, a person wouldn't be paying for the scarcity/practicality of the thing, but they would be paying based on the subjective pleasure they get out of it.

Sadly, it's likely that not enough people would pay enough to make it "profitable" enough in the aspect of time and effort. So, this model really is not any better, and arguably worse than the current.

Another way to do it would be to make the games free, but since the consumers now have more money because they don't pay for games, the CONSUMERS pay the devolpers to MAKE the games, not to buy a already made one.

This also has issues, tough, of course

In my experience, digital games do cost significantly less then physical ones (with some notable and very annoying exceptions).

But, having all pofits based on donation would completly ignore the effort side of the equation, as the donations would end up being based on the subjective enojoyment. While paying the developers up-front would not address how enjoyable the game was, just set a scale for the time/effort they were now willing to put in.

So yeah, I would agrue they are both worse then our current system.

 

[incal11]

"Lawyer Destroys Arguments for Game Piracy" is a preety S*** title. He haven't said anything new, at best he is not the one who brought these up. Piracy bad? Yes. So why not arrest based on IP? Because that's not a good definitive proof of culpability. If someone personal cumputer IP was identified as used for piracy, the owner is probably guilty, PROBABLY. Can you bring a definitive piece of evidence to confirm that? NOOOOOOOOO.... so shut the hell up.

Computer IP is at best a tool to track down suspects, not a conclusive piece of evidence, unfortunately.

Only useful tought is "The solution to piracy should come from publishers offering better ways for customers to enjoy their games, not suing willy-nilly." but that's also not new.

If he says anything that would convince a regular pirate gamer to spend $60 on a game instead of getting it for free on the internet, then I will be impressed.

You haven't answered my last PM, how come ? and I though you disappeared
Apparently you forgot the arguments I once made with you...

Personally I won't be convinced to pay 60$ for a new game because most, if not all, of them are just not worth that price. If you think paying only for what you like best will only discourage studios which are not good enough, again :
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110725/04104115231/new-study-piracy-increases-quality-content.shtml

 

[hatseflats]

Ok, help me out. What's *a* positive effect of piracy?

Letting people try a game before they buy. Two examples: Skyrim and GTAIV. I thought I wouldn't like them and didn't buy them. A few weeks after the release of GTAIV I realized I could simply pirate the game. I did so, loved it and bought it. Then I was fucked in the ass by GFWL. Anyway, without the option of piracy I wouldn't have bought it. Same for Skyrim. I like Morrowind, didn't like Oblivion and thought Skyrim was going to be the game Oblivion should've been - which is the sort of game I actually don't really like. But I was on the fence, doubted whether it was really not worth the buy, pirated it, liked it and bought it. Those are the only two games I pirated during the last two years. Two extra sales at full price. (not saying this is true for everybody, just an example of a possible positive effect of piracy).
Besides that, piracy might lead to brand awareness and might help unknown, innovative franchises to gain momentum. People are conservative in their buying new games, for ?50 is a lot of money to risk on a game they might not like. A new game might have difficulty selling at first, but a sequel can be very successful due to people being familiar with the franchise because of their pirating the first game. Not saying these effects are large, but they are possible. And that's the problem with piracy: there are several positive and negative effects and determining which are more important than others is key. For that you need quantitative measurement.

Difficulty with piracy is that quantitative measurement of the total effect (positive and negative) is almost impossible. For instance, how to measure the effect of piracy on sales? Let's say I pirate a game. Does that equal a lost sale? That's very important to determine, but also impossible, for one would need to observe an action I can't possibly take: my behaviour if no piracy is possible. I might pirate games I would never have bought even if no piracy is possible (= no lost sales). I might pirate games which I would be willing to pay for but wouldn't be able to afford (= no lost sales). I might pirate games I would be willing and able to afford (= lost sales). It's impossible to determine which of these options is true for my pirating games. This would require a comparison with a situation where no piracy is possible, and there is no such situation.

 

[incal11]

The challenge is on
Smash my arguments whithout sidestepping them and you will have my admiration and respect.

And now we are treated to the sounds of:

"It's not a lost sale, because they were never going to buy it anyway." (unverifiable ex-post-facto justification)

That some buy it after they downloaded it is verifiable however, even if it clashes with your concept of human nature.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qkyt1wXNlI&feature=player_embedded
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCk9Cheiqqg
https://torrentfreak.com/book-authors-see-bittorrent-as-a-promotional-tool-080428/
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/37563/Unity_Piracy_Driving_Huge_Growth_In_Asian_Regions.php
https://torrentfreak.com/paulo-coelho-supports-the-pirate-bay-090415/
http://new-media.lazaruscorporation.co.uk/2010/10/piracy-trumps-obscurity-again/
http://amitay.us/blog/files/piracy_doubled_my_app_sales.php

"Stop calling it theft. The publisher is not denied access or deprived of any property." (a "no true Scotsman" regarding the definition of "theft")

Saying that no honest person share what they have or ever accept others' generosity is a no true scotsman too.

"Well the publishers need to stop being greedy, and maybe people will support them." (a deflection and complete change of topic. could be called "the Robin Hood defense.")

Many are stupid enough to actually use that argument, sadly. It is a deformation of "The publishers need to make themselves popular, and surely more people will support them".
Now I wait for your evidence that making yourself popular makes you less likely to be paid. Links please.

"If they made better games, maybe people wouldn't pirate." (logically inside-out, since any improvement to the game itself would equally improve the pirated copy. No disincentive is established.)

Same, a deformation of "if they made better games they would be better rewarded"
http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/04/study-pirates-buy-tons-more-music-than-average-folks.ars
http://www.geek.com/articles/news/anime-piracy-and-streaming-found-to-increase-dvd-sales-in-japan-2011027/
http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-cetera/movie-industry-bins-report-proving-pirates-are-great-consumers-20110720/
On top of the links I gave before.

"People only pirate because of DRM." (reversal of the actual state of cause-effect, since DRM measures were created as a reaction to piracy, and DRM-less games are still frequently pirated)

In fact DRMs cause only some people to download, most often after they bought the game and got fed up with the security measures. To say that everyone download without paying just because of the DRMs is indeed stupid, and in fact I have not seen this argument used as you present it very often.

Trololols and etc.
Hope you take the time to answer.

 

[gagoogady]

ok im curious as to whether or not anyone agrees with me on this subject; say one wants an out dated game, like...I dunno Battletoads and Double Dragons for the SNES, it hasn't been remade, re-released, or redone in anyway, nor is it being sold anywhere but in a flea market or on Ebay. downloading a copy with emulator shouldn't harm the company who made the game in anyway, in this situation I believe its okay to "pirate" yourself a copy.

 

[Nero Akira]

ok, piracy is a joke, we can buy 360 games install them and return to get our money back. Fail?