Lawyer Destroys Arguments for Game Piracy

Recommended Videos

ResonanceSD

Elite Member
Legacy
Dec 14, 2009
4,536
5
43
Kwil said:
ZippyDSMlee said:
Wow another one that dose not get it. IMO at the end of the day its about information and inspiration which can not be defined thus all information needs to be traded freely. However those that own the IP should be the only ones to profit any off its trade.

Right now the system in place is a mess and getting worse so I say most copy right law is a scoff law you can ignore.

I'd like to call it cigital disobedience.

http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/2011/12/31/what-is-cigital-disobedience/
Please. More rebel without a clue crap.
Hint: Civil disobedience is not simply choosing to ignore the laws you don't agree with. That's simply being a punk criminal.

Civil disobedience is where you publicly break the laws and welcome the authorities prosecuting you for it so as to make example of the bad law. If you're not willing to have the latter happen, then you sure as hell aren't doing the former.

Can either of you two explain what "its about information and inspiration which can not be defined thus all information needs to be traded freely" means? I sure as hell don't agree with the premise that it's even remotely close to civil disobedience.
 

Some_weirdGuy

New member
Nov 25, 2010
611
0
0
Voltano said:
Its like a bread baker saying he is being 'stolen from' by other bread bakers because he isn't making any money in the market since he isn't reaching his expected income with the sale of his bread.
Isn't it more like a bread baker saying he's losing sales because someone has set up a stall right at the entrance which gives away for free the same bread he's trying to sell?

Oh! And then he tries selling new 'cheese and bacon rolls' as an incentive to people, but they're only allowed to eat the cheese and bacon rolls while they stay inside his shop(to stop the stall finding his recipe), but within a couple of days the stall at the entrance has learned the recipe anyway and is now giving away cheese and bacon rolls too (again, for free) AND the stall isn't forcing people to eat them in one place like he is.

Some people start taking the stall rolls because they don't want to be forced to stay in his shop to eat, though most are people who were using the stall before anyway. One day he asks on of the people why, asides from being free, they keep taking the stalls stuff over his own. The person answered honestly that they're lazy, the stall is right at the entrance and gives away everything he's offering, and the fact its free does play a big factor in it.

This gives the baker an idea, let the stall have its cheesy bacon rolls and bread, he can't really beat that. Instead, he'll give out something free of his own for anyone who buys their stuff from him.
So then he starts giving away cupcakes! A couple of the people who tried his cheesy bacon rolls and his bread for free decide they'll buy the bread and cupcakes from him out of respect, cause they know he's really the one coming up with the recipes and cupcakes are pretty nice. Unfortunately, less than half of them actually show him this respect, and as the stall starts selling cupcakes too he finds himself losing out even more.

... Man, I could go on with this example for ages.

Long story short, After many trials and tribulations the bakery industry adapts to these stalls, but its not really for the better. His bakery is replaced with larger more aggressive bakeries that buy into tactics like handcuffing their customers to the counter, or selling their bread one slice at a time, or selling people bread licenses that give them a right to eat bread but one false move and you will be punched in the stomach so that you throw up all bread you've bought from them. They also pass a bill that lets them shut down any stall they want to simply by requesting it (Little timmy's lemonade stand is the first to go to this easily abused system. Many others follow, but timmy was the most adorable and thus heartbreaking).
On the plus side most people own giant tv's and flying boat cars by this time and on a completely unrelated note they also solved piracy. ((Turns out there were some old laws about pirates receiving the death penalty, most people avoid piracy pretty fervently now since they started enforcing them again.))


:p
 

xvbones

New member
Oct 29, 2009
528
0
0
Hammeroj said:
The moment you so much as imply that piracy equates to lost sales is the moment you become a disingenuous fuck. Which this guy is.

And that's as much input as this overdone topic deserves from me.
The world where getting something that has monetary value for nothing is not theft is not this world.

Piracy is theft.
 

TotalerKrieger

New member
Nov 12, 2011
376
0
0
Who cares really, if others pirate software I'm not going to say anything against them. I don't condone or oppose such doings. I don't see the developers suffering terribly as starving artists.

It seems to be a case where technology is outpacing capitalism. Until the developer/publishers manage to protect their rights and property without punishing paying consumers, or alternatively adapt a new business model, I am completely apathetic to their plight. It's like dropping bags of cash out of a plane, then complaining when people take some for themselves.

Gabe Newell's belief that piracy can be outdone through superior service is at very least a positive step forward...naive perhaps.
 

Macgyvercas

Spice & Wolf Restored!
Feb 19, 2009
6,102
0
0
So what about games from 20 years ago from a studeo long since disbanded? Or if you can't legally get a game in your area? What are his thoughts on those?
 

ZippyDSMlee

New member
Sep 1, 2007
3,958
0
0
Kwil said:
ZippyDSMlee said:
Wow another one that dose not get it. IMO at the end of the day its about information and inspiration which can not be defined thus all information needs to be traded freely. However those that own the IP should be the only ones to profit any off its trade.

Right now the system in place is a mess and getting worse so I say most copy right law is a scoff law you can ignore.

I'd like to call it cigital disobedience.

http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/2011/12/31/what-is-cigital-disobedience/
Please. More rebel without a clue crap.
Hint: Civil disobedience is not simply choosing to ignore the laws you don't agree with. That's simply being a punk criminal.

Civil disobedience is where you publicly break the laws and welcome the authorities prosecuting you for it so as to make example of the bad law. If you're not willing to have the latter happen, then you sure as hell aren't doing the former.
IMO civil disobedience is the act of scoffing and being in defiance of rules and laws that are questionable, the more people rise up against copy right tyranny the better. The more grandmothers and 13 year olds being hounded the better.

=============
ResonanceSD said:
Kwil said:
ZippyDSMlee said:
Wow another one that dose not get it. IMO at the end of the day its about information and inspiration which can not be defined thus all information needs to be traded freely. However those that own the IP should be the only ones to profit any off its trade.

Right now the system in place is a mess and getting worse so I say most copy right law is a scoff law you can ignore.

I'd like to call it cigital disobedience.

http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/2011/12/31/what-is-cigital-disobedience/
Please. More rebel without a clue crap.
Hint: Civil disobedience is not simply choosing to ignore the laws you don't agree with. That's simply being a punk criminal.

Civil disobedience is where you publicly break the laws and welcome the authorities prosecuting you for it so as to make example of the bad law. If you're not willing to have the latter happen, then you sure as hell aren't doing the former.

Can either of you two explain what "its about information and inspiration which can not be defined thus all information needs to be traded freely" means? I sure as hell don't agree with the premise that it's even remotely close to civil disobedience.
Basically information/ and inspiration is a right of every human being its nourishment for the mind and soul much like the fruit and foul in the kings forest is food for the body. One can not lock it away and say you are not allowed this simply because you are the wrong type of person/class/creed to have it.

The trouble as I see it is not sharing of information/media,ect its the profiteering off it which should solely be the domain of the IP owner. If you took out finical support for file sharing it will shrink to a natural part of the modern world rather than be a market which directly competes with retail and thus the IP owners themselves.
 

Canadish

New member
Jul 15, 2010
675
0
0
Higgs303 said:
Who cares really, if others pirate software I'm not going to say anything against them. I don't condone or oppose such doings. I don't see the developers suffering terribly as starving artists.

It seems to be a case where technology is outpacing capitalism. Until the developer/publishers manage to protect their rights and property without punishing paying consumers, or alternatively adapt a new business model, I am completely apathetic to their plight. It's like dropping bags of cash out of a plane, then complaining when people take some for themselves.

Gabe Newell's belief that piracy can be outdone through superior service is at very least a positive step forward...naive perhaps.
Another great post. Until the last two words at least.

 

ResonanceSD

Elite Member
Legacy
Dec 14, 2009
4,536
5
43
Some_weirdGuy said:
Voltano said:
Its like a bread baker saying he is being 'stolen from' by other bread bakers because he isn't making any money in the market since he isn't reaching his expected income with the sale of his bread.
Isn't it more like a bread baker saying he's losing sales because someone has set up a stall right at the entrance which gives away for free the same bread he's trying to sell?

Oh! And then he tries selling new 'cheese and bacon rolls' as an incentive to people, but they're only allowed to eat the cheese and bacon rolls while they stay inside his shop(to stop the stall finding his recipe), but within a couple of days the stall at the entrance has learned the recipe anyway and is now giving away cheese and bacon rolls too (again, for free) AND the stall isn't forcing people to eat them in one place like he is.

Some people start taking the stall rolls because they don't want to be forced to stay in his shop to eat, though most are people who were using the stall before anyway. One day he asks on of the people why, asides from being free, they keep taking the stalls stuff over his own. The person answered honestly that they're lazy, the stall is right at the entrance and gives away everything he's offering, and the fact its free does play a big factor in it.

This gives the baker an idea, let the stall have its cheesy bacon rolls and bread, he can't really beat that. Instead, he'll give out something free of his own for anyone who buys their stuff from him.
So then he starts giving away cupcakes! A couple of the people who tried his cheesy bacon rolls and his bread for free decide they'll buy the bread and cupcakes from him out of respect, cause they know he's really the one coming up with the recipes and cupcakes are pretty nice. Unfortunately, less than half of them actually show him this respect, and as the stall starts selling cupcakes too he finds himself losing out even more.

... Man, I could go on with this example for ages.

Long story short, After many trials and tribulations the bakery industry adapts to these stalls, but its not really for the better. His bakery is replaced with larger more aggressive bakeries that buy into tactics like handcuffing their customers to the counter, or selling their bread one slice at a time, or selling people bread licenses that give them a right to eat bread but one false move and you will be punched in the stomach so that you throw up all bread you've bought from them. They also pass a bill that lets them shut down any stall they want to simply by requesting it (Little timmy's lemonade stand is the first to go to this easily abused system. Many others follow, but timmy was the most adorable and thus heartbreaking).
On the plus side most people own giant tv's and flying boat cars by this time and on a completely unrelated note they also solved piracy. ((Turns out there were some old laws about pirates receiving the death penalty, most people avoid piracy pretty fervently now since they started enforcing them again.))


:p

I love your bread analogy. You are my new favourite person on the Escapist. [sub] Sorry Susan. [/sub]
 

TotalerKrieger

New member
Nov 12, 2011
376
0
0
Canadish said:
Higgs303 said:
Who cares really, if others pirate software I'm not going to say anything against them. I don't condone or oppose such doings. I don't see the developers suffering terribly as starving artists.

It seems to be a case where technology is outpacing capitalism. Until the developer/publishers manage to protect their rights and property without punishing paying consumers, or alternatively adapt a new business model, I am completely apathetic to their plight. It's like dropping bags of cash out of a plane, then complaining when people take some for themselves.

Gabe Newell's belief that piracy can be outdone through superior service is at very least a positive step forward...naive perhaps.
Another great post. Until the last two words at least.

Heh, I bow to your superior wisdom.
 

Magnicon

New member
Nov 25, 2011
94
0
0
The "right fighters" in this thread disgust me. The ignorance you people display is pathetic. Do some research on the subject and stop being so damn ignorant.

I'll help get you started. Heres a very small amount of examples/opinions.

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/07/05/report-game-industry-worth-74-billion-in-2011/

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/118/1184550p1.html

http://games.slashdot.org/story/11/02/17/0526200/valve-beats-google-apple-for-profits-per-employee

http://torrentfreak.com/top-10-most-pirated-movies-of-all-time-111012/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCkX0KcNwrI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCk9Cheiqqg

http://thenextweb.com/2008/12/09/author-paulo-coelho-supports-piracy-share-to-get-revenue/

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114537-File-sharing-Remains-Legal-In-Switzerland

Bathesda Net income 450 million
Vivendi (ActivisionBlizzard) Profit ?2.198 billion (2010)
EA Net income US$-677 million (FY 2010)
Ubisoft Net income ?89.8 million (2010) <- Worst DRM offenders and biggest piracy complainers have noticeably lower number.

I'll never understand how people can choose to be so ignorant on a subject and rant at people about it. Unfortunately I doubt a single one of you will look through these links and realize you might have been wrong, but heres hoping. Before you reply repeating the same crap, fully read through that last link.
 

Krantos

New member
Jun 30, 2009
1,839
0
0
Greg Tito said:
The arguments for game piracy seem a bit flimsy in response to stories like abominable list of pirated games from TorrentFreak [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114429-The-Witcher-2-Pirated-Roughly-4-5-Million-Times-Says-Dev]. The games industry can't just ignore these thefts, and no amount of backwards logic can argue the impact of piracy away.
Um, I'm against piracy and all that, but I think your two links here kind of contradict each other. Witcher 2 is estimated at 4.5 million copies pirated, but this estimate is from the developers, who claim "the reality is probably way worse." However, the other article lists the top 5 pirated games and the Witcher 2 doesn't even make the list.

Again, I'm anti-piracy, but using contradicting articles seems just as bad as "backwards logic".
 

ResonanceSD

Elite Member
Legacy
Dec 14, 2009
4,536
5
43
ZippyDSMlee said:
One can not lock it away and say you are not allowed this simply because you are the wrong type of person/class/creed to have it.

No one is doing this. We want people to pay for content we create. Why's that so terrible?
 

the clockmaker

New member
Jun 11, 2010
423
0
0
Canadish said:
Trippy Turtle said:
Before I get a warning I still disagree with piracy, just explaining how I hate that argument.
Wow. That censorship.

Sure is feeling North Korea in here.
No, its a privately owned venue for discussion, if Mr. Tito here kicked in your front door and then shot you for saying that piracy was not so bad, then it would be north korea. As it stands, it is more akin to you not being alowed to scream 'down with capatalism' in a bank than one of the most oppressive regimes in human history.

But on topic if I have something, whether it is a good, service or kick arse beard and I am offering it for a fixed or negotiable price YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE IT WITHOUT PAYING THAT PRICE OR RECIEVING IT WILLINGLY FROM ME!

It is seriously not a hard concept and saying 'I wouldn't have paid for it anyway' is not a good escuse. It's funny actually how often these entitled litle mongrels compare the big companies to whores, because at least no one is claiming that it's alright to run off on a whore without paying.
 

ResonanceSD

Elite Member
Legacy
Dec 14, 2009
4,536
5
43
the clockmaker said:
Canadish said:
Trippy Turtle said:
Before I get a warning I still disagree with piracy, just explaining how I hate that argument.
Wow. That censorship.

Sure is feeling North Korea in here.
No, its a privately owned venue for discussion, if Mr. Tito here kicked in your front door and then shot you for saying that piracy was not so bad, then it would be north korea. As it stands, it is more akin to you not being alowed to scream 'down with capatalism' in a bank than one of the most oppressive regimes in human history.

But on topic if I have something, whether it is a good, service or kick arse beard and I am offering it for a fixed or negotiable price YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE IT WITHOUT PAYING THAT PRICE OR RECIEVING IT WILLINGLY FROM ME!

It is seriously not a hard concept and saying 'I wouldn't have paid for it anyway' is not a good escuse. It's funny actually how often these entitled litle mongrels compare the big companies to whores, because at least no one is claiming that it's alright to run off on a whore without paying.

It's not running off. It's doing the deed, then running them over with the car you're in to get your money back. Oh no he didn't.
 

ZippyDSMlee

New member
Sep 1, 2007
3,958
0
0
ResonanceSD said:
ZippyDSMlee said:
One can not lock it away and say you are not allowed this simply because you are the wrong type of person/class/creed to have it.

No one is doing this. We want people to pay for content we create. Why's that so terrible?
Yes they are via laws and rules one can not distribute ANYTHING from something that is copyrighted without consent. Since fair use is vague and limp the powers that be abuse their powers and the take down system squelching the public's right to comment and harmlessly derive mashups, parodies and other fair use uses of copyright.

I can agree that any and all money made off the distribution and/or linking to a copy righted IP should go to the IP owners however if it dose not make money then it can not do NO harm to the monetary value of said IP. If anything it should raise it through simple word of mouth. The trouble comes from the loopholes that the powers that be are overlooking to go after the distribution of thought, information and ideas. They want it all, I seek a better middle ground.
 

ResonanceSD

Elite Member
Legacy
Dec 14, 2009
4,536
5
43
ZippyDSMlee said:
ResonanceSD said:
ZippyDSMlee said:
One can not lock it away and say you are not allowed this simply because you are the wrong type of person/class/creed to have it.

No one is doing this. We want people to pay for content we create. Why's that so terrible?
Yes they are via laws and rules one can not distribute ANYTHING from something that is copyrighted without consent. Since fair use is vague and limp the powers that be abuse their powers and the take down system squelching the public's right to comment and harmlessly derive mashups, parodies and other fair use uses of copyright.

I can agree that any and all money made off the distribution and/or linking to a copy righted IP should go to the IP owners however if it dose not make money then it can not do NO harm to the monetary value of said IP. If anything it should raise it through simple word of mouth. The trouble comes from the loopholes that the powers that be are overlooking to go after the distribution of thought, information and ideas. They want it all, I seek a better middle ground.

Oh, you're referencing SOPA now. Right. I'm pretty sure that ruining the internet entirely to protect a company's bottom line isn't the intent, but it could happen.
 

SciMal

New member
Dec 10, 2011
302
0
0
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)
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114537-File-sharing-Remains-Legal-In-Switzerland

To quote the study (emphasis mine)...

"However, these people don't spend less money as a result because the budgets they reserve for entertainment are fairly constant. This means that downloading is mostly complementary.

The other side of piracy, based on the Dutch study, is that downloaders are reported to be more frequent visitors to concerts, and game downloaders actually bought more games than those who didn't."


Good day, sir.
 

ZippyDSMlee

New member
Sep 1, 2007
3,958
0
0
ResonanceSD said:
ZippyDSMlee said:
ResonanceSD said:
ZippyDSMlee said:
One can not lock it away and say you are not allowed this simply because you are the wrong type of person/class/creed to have it.

No one is doing this. We want people to pay for content we create. Why's that so terrible?
Yes they are via laws and rules one can not distribute ANYTHING from something that is copyrighted without consent. Since fair use is vague and limp the powers that be abuse their powers and the take down system squelching the public's right to comment and harmlessly derive mashups, parodies and other fair use uses of copyright.

I can agree that any and all money made off the distribution and/or linking to a copy righted IP should go to the IP owners however if it dose not make money then it can not do NO harm to the monetary value of said IP. If anything it should raise it through simple word of mouth. The trouble comes from the loopholes that the powers that be are overlooking to go after the distribution of thought, information and ideas. They want it all, I seek a better middle ground.

Oh, you're referencing SOPA now. Right. I'm pretty sure that ruining the internet entirely to protect a company's bottom line isn't the intent, but it could happen.
More like the DMCA, and previous copy right wank that has tried to prevent us useing fair use.

Again whats so wrong about sharing the wealth of humanity via non monetary gaining means? The legal file sharing market would be tiny compared what it is today and with the cost of sharing being placed on the sharers(you can not run a site for donations or ad rev or any other means to gain funds) you shirk the market for "free stuff" to a point its over saturated and controlled via limited bandwidth. Which means more collective money for IP owners. I do not see how this is a loss for anyone.
 

ResonanceSD

Elite Member
Legacy
Dec 14, 2009
4,536
5
43
ZippyDSMlee said:
ResonanceSD said:
ZippyDSMlee said:
ResonanceSD said:
ZippyDSMlee said:
One can not lock it away and say you are not allowed this simply because you are the wrong type of person/class/creed to have it.

No one is doing this. We want people to pay for content we create. Why's that so terrible?
Yes they are via laws and rules one can not distribute ANYTHING from something that is copyrighted without consent. Since fair use is vague and limp the powers that be abuse their powers and the take down system squelching the public's right to comment and harmlessly derive mashups, parodies and other fair use uses of copyright.

I can agree that any and all money made off the distribution and/or linking to a copy righted IP should go to the IP owners however if it dose not make money then it can not do NO harm to the monetary value of said IP. If anything it should raise it through simple word of mouth. The trouble comes from the loopholes that the powers that be are overlooking to go after the distribution of thought, information and ideas. They want it all, I seek a better middle ground.

Oh, you're referencing SOPA now. Right. I'm pretty sure that ruining the internet entirely to protect a company's bottom line isn't the intent, but it could happen.
More like the DMCA, and previous copy right wank that has tried to prevent us useing fair use.

Again whats so wrong about sharing the wealth of humanity via non monetary gaining means? The legal file sharing market would be tiny compared what it is today and with the cost of sharing being placed on the sharers(you can not run a site for donations or ad rev or any other means to gain funds) you shirk the market for "free stuff" to a point its over saturated and controlled via limited bandwidth. Which means more collective money for IP owners. I do not see how this is a loss for anyone.

Ok here's how the Earth works. Or at least, game developers.

They create a game they want to share with people. In return for sharing the game with them, you have to help them eat. You know, with money.