Lawyer Destroys Arguments for Game Piracy

[SciMal]

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.

 

[dantoddd]

Is there any way to know where most of the pirates live?

 

[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.

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]

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.

 

[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.

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.

Hardly the world works beyond such simple things. If you can not think out of the box then you must enjoy your cage.

 

[lacktheknack]

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.

The problem is you assume they WOULD be a paying customer. With or without piracy existing,there is no money that would go to the developer.

It is wrong to call it a lost sale. The sale doesn't exists, would not exist if piracy wasn't a thing.

Too significant of a chunk of people would purchase it if that was the only option for this logic to be a legitimate argument.

Good Lord, I need to review how conciseness works...

 

[lacktheknack]

Is there any way to know where most of the pirates live?

Assuming that many people use static IPs (I'm not sure) and that many pirates don't consider the consequences of their actions and/or show any foresight (they don't), then yes, yes there is. I'm not sure how to get a list of IPs, but CD Projekt did it.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

I?ve looked at the argument from 3 or 4 different points of view, the absolution?ist?s want everything. Either everything to be free or everything controlled under a fascist media regime of which we are heading happily too.

I prefer to think beyond these 2 limited trains of thought and find a middle ground where no one is truly happy. A system as to where you can trade freely just under limited circumstances making it much harder to gain the free stuff while protecting IP owners from profiteering. Its win/win IMO.

 

[Khada]

A lovely distraction from the underlying flaws of the monetary system itself >_>

The morality of piracy cannot be blanketed across all individuals who have ever been involved.

 

[Some_weirdGuy]

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

I had even more in it before
((newly developed bagels being given away by the stall before the baker even finished baking the first batch.
People complaining the baker was greedy even though only a fraction of what the people were paying actually went to him at all [instead the prices were set by the store's owner and local bakers tax costs].
And how although he was making enough money to stay afloat for now investors didn't want to back his business and allow it to grow cause all they could see was the issues of piracy... er, i mean bakery stalls, and so they took their money to other industries that don't have those problems))


But I realised that although it was an amusing satire, silly(but accurate) rambling is best served in moderation

 

[Baldr]

How does a lawyer not understand the difference between 'a lost sale' and 'a lost potential sale'. If piracy equalled a lost sale then yes, it would be near the same level as thievery. (not quite the same because no actual content was stolen, so there's no preventing someone else from buying it.) As it stands, that simply isn't the case.

Piracy means that a potential sale MAY not occur. There's no saying a pirate won't like the game and buy it. Just like there's no saying that without the means to pirate it, the pirate would have bought it.

Possible loss of a potential sale =/= loss of profit.

To state other wise in any way shape or form is disingenuous. Oh wait, we're talking about a lawyer... Of-course it's disingenuous.

If someone playing a game that was all hard work went into making for that players enjoyment and did not pay for it. That is a direct loss of sale, whether the person was "intending" to pay or not.

No it isn't. Will people please stop regurgitating this incredible logical fallacy. It's only a loss of a POTENTIAL sale if the person would have bought it if pirating it wasn't an option.

Legally, you can't work in 'what ifs'. A company can't say 'Oh they might have bought it if they couldn't pirate it. So we've lost a sale.' That's just blatant bullshit.

What is actually happening is someone is playing the game without paying for it. No lost sales, no loss of profit. Because they neither had the sale nor the profit to begin with.

By the same logic, I also ask you this.

If you were to rent a movie from blockbusters. And you and 4 other friends were to watch it. Is that then 4 lost rents for blockbusters? Because this is essentially the same thing.

No that is complete Bullshit, if you can't afford it or refuse to buy it: You don't pirate it. If a person refuses to give money to people who made the game, that make that person a huge arseface. If you refuse to pay for a movie in theatres, you don't sneak in?

As for the blockbuster analogy, you can trade used-games with friends that not a huge problem(unless it is a PC game you installed and plan to keep playing). Downloading over the internet from a stranger is a big problem.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

How does a lawyer not understand the difference between 'a lost sale' and 'a lost potential sale'. If piracy equalled a lost sale then yes, it would be near the same level as thievery. (not quite the same because no actual content was stolen, so there's no preventing someone else from buying it.) As it stands, that simply isn't the case.

Piracy means that a potential sale MAY not occur. There's no saying a pirate won't like the game and buy it. Just like there's no saying that without the means to pirate it, the pirate would have bought it.

Possible loss of a potential sale =/= loss of profit.

To state other wise in any way shape or form is disingenuous. Oh wait, we're talking about a lawyer... Of-course it's disingenuous.

If someone playing a game that was all hard work went into making for that players enjoyment and did not pay for it. That is a direct loss of sale, whether the person was "intending" to pay or not.

No it isn't. Will people please stop regurgitating this incredible logical fallacy. It's only a loss of a POTENTIAL sale if the person would have bought it if pirating it wasn't an option.

Legally, you can't work in 'what ifs'. A company can't say 'Oh they might have bought it if they couldn't pirate it. So we've lost a sale.' That's just blatant bullshit.

What is actually happening is someone is playing the game without paying for it. No lost sales, no loss of profit. Because they neither had the sale nor the profit to begin with.

By the same logic, I also ask you this.

If you were to rent a movie from blockbusters. And you and 4 other friends were to watch it. Is that then 4 lost rents for blockbusters? Because this is essentially the same thing.

How does a lawyer not understand the difference between 'a lost sale' and 'a lost potential sale'. If piracy equalled a lost sale then yes, it would be near the same level as thievery. (not quite the same because no actual content was stolen, so there's no preventing someone else from buying it.) As it stands, that simply isn't the case.

Piracy means that a potential sale MAY not occur. There's no saying a pirate won't like the game and buy it. Just like there's no saying that without the means to pirate it, the pirate would have bought it.

Possible loss of a potential sale =/= loss of profit.

To state other wise in any way shape or form is disingenuous. Oh wait, we're talking about a lawyer... Of-course it's disingenuous.

If someone playing a game that was all hard work went into making for that players enjoyment and did not pay for it. That is a direct loss of sale, whether the person was "intending" to pay or not.

No it isn't. Will people please stop regurgitating this incredible logical fallacy. It's only a loss of a POTENTIAL sale if the person would have bought it if pirating it wasn't an option.

Legally, you can't work in 'what ifs'. A company can't say 'Oh they might have bought it if they couldn't pirate it. So we've lost a sale.' That's just blatant bullshit.

What is actually happening is someone is playing the game without paying for it. No lost sales, no loss of profit. Because they neither had the sale nor the profit to begin with.

By the same logic, I also ask you this.

If you were to rent a movie from blockbusters. And you and 4 other friends were to watch it. Is that then 4 lost rents for blockbusters? Because this is essentially the same thing.

No that is complete Bullshit, if you can't afford it or refuse to buy it: You don't pirate it. If a person refuses to give money to people who made the game, that make that person a huge arseface. If you refuse to pay for a movie in theatres, you don't sneak in?

As for the blockbuster analogy, you can trade used-games with friends that not a huge problem(unless it is a PC game you installed and plan to keep playing). Downloading over the internet from a stranger is a big problem.

Er..... one takes up rented space the other uses energy one pays for to create a copy.... IMO limit the profiteering you limit sharing, its the only way to limit it in a fair and civil manner IMO.

 

[DalekJaas]

The solution to piracy is easy, stop releasing crap games. Especially on the PC. And stop over charging for stupid games like Portal 2. $80 dollars in store for a 5 hour puzzle games? Ridiculous. Sick of wasting my money on bad games. The only games that give their value for money are CoD's multiplayer (which lasts all year) and Skyrim. Game developers shouldn't whinge when all they are doing is releasing expensive short, rubbish games all year round. I have no desire to pirate games, I am just not buying them any more. In the last 2 years (excluding steam sales) I have bought 5 games, and 2 I regret (AvP and Crysis 2) so now I am limiting myself to CoD only and the next Elder Scrolls whenever that comes out.

 

[michael87cn]

It's only illegal because they don't want to give it away for free.

Think about that for a moment.

In Star Trek they no longer used currency and had the power to reproduce almost anything from a magical device called a Replicator.

Software can be replicated in much the same way, especially since it doesn't need to actually exist as anything but ones and zeroes on a computer.

I do not support piracy, but I can see how someday it wouldn't be wrong in a better society where people give for the sake of giving and share for the sake of sharing.

/shrug

At least I said something different.

 

[Amnestic]

You.
Are taking.
Something.
Without, WITH OUT.
Paying for it.

Ergo, theft.

Legally?
No
You
Are
Wrong.
I
Can
Talk
Like
This
Too.

But I wouldn't recommend it because people are liable to think less of you.

This argument pretty much excuses any master thief who steals a piece of art and leaves a shitty replica in it's place, too.

That analogy isn't even remotely...well, analogous to what piracy is. They even had a giant picture with helpful pigs to show you. Stealing a car is not the same as copying a file illegally. This is well established. One is theft, the other is copyright infringement.

Your bonus slavery point makes you like like you're making an attempt at a Godwin-Lite argument, which is hilarious.

Oh yeah, saying that pirates are also big customers is like saying there's honor among theives.

Well except for the quoted study earlier in the thread which found that pirates are big customers...so...

 

[ResonanceSD]

It's only illegal because they don't want to give it away for free.

Think about that for a moment.

In Star Trek they no longer used currency and had the power to reproduce almost anything from a magical device called a Replicator.

Software can be replicated in much the same way, especially since it doesn't need to actually exist as anything but ones and zeroes on a computer.

I do not support piracy, but I can see how someday it wouldn't be wrong in a better society where people give for the sake of giving and share for the sake of sharing.

/shrug

At least I said something different.

Point 1) This is not Star Trek

Point 2) Why would developers take it on faith that people will, you know, FEED THEM?

Point 3) We don't have replicators. Not even the cool kind from Stargate.

Point 4) The instant we can literally create anything we like is the same instant that we become gods.

Point 5) We don't give content away for free because we need to survive in the real world.

Point 6)

 

[Sud0_x]

Purewal says there is really no evidence that most pirates have the desire or technical chops to effectively mask their IP address, and even if some did, that's hardly a reason to stop going after pirates. "There's no empirical evidence so far to support how often IP spoofing is done," he said. "In reality, I suspect fairly few pirates actually go to the trouble of disguising themselves. Besides which, just because the method is not perfect, doesn't mean we should throw our hands up in the air and do nothing, does it?"

Anyone can do it, but I think he's right, a lot of people are either unaware or don't bother.
An IP address is just not enough evidence to prove anything on its own anyway.
However, getting away with it shouldn't be a valid excuse in anyone's mind.

The notion that piracy does not equate to lost sales is just as erroneous. "Piracy might result in an eventual purchase of a game, but in the meantime it means a financial loss for the developer," Purewal said.

Piracy on the whole possibly losing them money? Hard to argue with.
However, on a case-by-case basis; just because someone takes it for the low, low price of free absolutely does not mean they would have paid for it. Not every illegal download is a lost sale.

While we're at it; the publisher is hit hardest financially.
Developers are undoubtedly hurt by these losses to some degree and I know, I know, in some cases this loss can lead to a developer being forced to close but let's get things straight.

Even though Purewal is a lawyer and should therefore be on board for litigation solving all problems, he's also a gamer. The solution to piracy should come from publishers offering better ways for customers to enjoy their games, not suing willy-nilly.
"If we can reduce piracy through the means of technology and via the market, then that's got to be better than getting lawyers involved," he said.

Except for the part about reducing piracy through technical means (DRM)
I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. .
Many pirates, themselves, have actually been saying this for years.

He applauds platforms like Steam that are a form of DRM which don't slap paying customers in the face.

Oh ho ho I'd like to meet this man in a dark alley.


Can we please start separating the Steam store and Steam as DRM? It's no different to any other form of DRM. "But the sales and goodwill..." is not a fucking excuse for this shit. Furthermore, Steamworks games are a means to forcibly draw in more potential customers. Sure, it makes perfect sense as a business strategy but we shouldn't be applauding any DRM.
I simply don't understand it.

-Steam is not and has never been an effective defense against pirates.
-It makes genuine customer's lives hell, including mine.
-Even the store sucks donkey dick anyway due to regional pricing and locking.

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.

Greg, don't use that CD Projekt article to support anything in future. You know it's bullshit, we know it's bullshit.
The only thing abominable about that list of torrented games is the titles on said list. HI-OH! (I jest).
Yes, piracy is wrong and it sucks. It does lose people money.
Let's just not let anything get in the way of the truth.

Sorry, forgot which website I was on....
I see the redesigns still haven't fixed everything anything.

In response to the lawyer's original article:
I don't have any solutions to offer to the piracy issue.

The video game industry is absolutely plagued with problems right now but the industry seems content to just sweep it all under the carpet.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Ugh pirates choose arguments they know can't be proven or dis-proven. No one can say they would have bought it otherwise although in a lot of cases they would have I think... Think about the people waiting for Skyrim or COD for example.

To me piracy is like walking into a bookstore, photocopying a book and walking out with it, sounds absurd right?

The 'no demo' and ineffectual reviewing defence is better but the fact is that you can still rent games. Got no pennies? Then go to a rental system online and just rent them and see if you like them rather than downloading torrents.

I can understand why companies see this sort of thing as a lost sale, why on earth would you buy a game you have already played through for free?