Lawyer Destroys Arguments for Game Piracy

[MysticToast]

Bulletstorm is the lastest I have gotten (Not long after release and I was both horrified and relieved).

You do it because you're a lazy-ass gamer, who puts your own immediate needs ahead of those who actually did the work to make the game.

Case in point: http://www.joystiq.com/2011/04/04/bulletstorm-pc-demo-now-out-on-steam-and-gfwl/

There ARE demo versions, you were just too damned lazy/impatient to bother finding them.

"Not long after release"

Looks like you were too lazy (Edit: Yes, that was a little jab at you insulting him, it was meant to be a thing of "see, doesn't feel good when someone insults you does it" post, figured i'd clear that up) to read through his post properly. The demo didn't come out on the PC until about two months after.

On an on topic note, what argument did he destroy exactly? Is it just because he has a legal degree that the same argument now magically means more?

Man.. now that's funny -- attempting to berate somebody for not reading thoroughly when it's pretty clear that the only one who has a problem reading thoroughly here is you. And because you probably haven't read this message thoroughly either, I'll just point out I bolded some stuff for you.

I insult people who deserve it, moron. Someone admitting flat out that they pirated a game because they're simply too self-entitled to wait to see if a demo comes out is certainly deserving of that.

Beyond that, however, even if a demo had NEVER come out, that still gives the prick no right to download the game. He's certainly free to not purchase it, and to tell the company that without a demo he won't purchase it. And in fact, if we want to encourage demos, that's the exact thing he SHOULD be doing -- not just downloading a copy anyway and using that to decide.

Tell me, at what point should he pay the movie theatre for a ticket once he's gone in and sat down? Or perhaps he should just sneak into clubs and decide after he's watched the band for a while whether it's worth paying the cover charge? Here's a thought, instead of either of those, why not act like a responsible human being and NOT decide his desires for entertainment supersede the rights of developers to charge a price for their product and release/not release demos if they want?

I like you. You speak with logic and reason and you're not even afraid to show it.

OT: Seriously, this guy pretty much says what I think about piracy.

 

[lancar]

CD Projekt, with their DRM free policy, I fear are a bit naive.

Seeing as they've grown from a small Polish game localisation studio to the largest distributor in Eastern Europe and made enough scratch to launch a few game development studios and try their hand at publishing as well, I wouldn't be too worried about their approach.

Yes, I know about their progress. I've been following it with no small degree of interest due to their rather unique approach to the subject, and I admit it's heartening to see them do well for themselves.
Yet we also both know they've been going after the ones that do pirate their games, so they do take part in the system of punishment for piracy, which of course they have every right to do.

The carrot and stick.
Their carrot is DRM free games which garners goodwill, the stick is punishing those who violate their trust.
Yet, only the smallest hoop to jump through would, imho, drastically reduce the size of the stick needed (as it'd stop the ignorant & put a nice sign on the game saying "pirating this is illegal"), and this is why I can't completely get behind their approach.

But then again, when all is said and done, this is the PR image they've decided to brand themselves with. To forsake it now would incur a backlash, so for the time being their best option is probably to just roll with it.

 

[ResonanceSD]

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]

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.))

 

[xvbones]

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]

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]

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]

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.

=============

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]

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]

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.))

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

 

[TotalerKrieger]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.