Lawyer Destroys Arguments for Game Piracy

[AndyFromMonday]

For calling itself the "mouthpiece of the gaming generation", the Escapist has got to be the most disingenuous news website on the entire fucking internet.

 

[xPixelatedx]

What about downloading a game you already own? How do you even begin to debunk that?

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Aww, and here I was hoping he'd address the "people weren't going to buy the game anyways but they pirated it and ended up buying it after all since it surpassed their expectations" defense or the "free advertisement defense". Hell, even the "I wouldn't buy the game anyways" often suffices since in both situations the makers get the same amount of money, hell, buying it used is the same as piracy as far as the makers are concerned.

 

[Agayek]

There really weren't any good arguments for piracy to begin with. It's bad to illegally copy games and one who does that doesn't have any moral high ground to stand on unless the game wasn't available for release in their country or the original game makers were out of business or something like that.

Just a point to address this. Have you, at any point in your life, ever borrowed a book, CD/tape, game or other similar item from a friend?

If so, you have committed the exact same sin people who pirate the same do. You have used and acquired something without paying the original creator.

The whole debate is rather ludicrous. Piracy is silly, but the sheer level of outrage over it is even worse. It's quite literally exactly the same as borrowing a copy from someone, and borrowing is not, nor has it ever been, illegal.

 

[Blunderboy]

but in the meantime it means a financial loss for the developer

NO, it does not. That logic is incredibly erroneous.

As I see it, the two polar notions that piracy is always a lost sale and that piracy is never effectively a financial loss are what is truly lacking logic. The truth is in fact somewhere in the middle.

Finally,someone in a piracy thread speaks logically and maturely. I applaud you sir and not just for your avatar.

 

[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/

 

[XMark]

There really weren't any good arguments for piracy to begin with. It's bad to illegally copy games and one who does that doesn't have any moral high ground to stand on unless the game wasn't available for release in their country or the original game makers were out of business or something like that.

Just a point to address this. Have you, at any point in your life, ever borrowed a book, CD/tape, game or other similar item from a friend?

If so, you have committed the exact same sin people who pirate the same do. You have used and acquired something without paying the original creator.

The whole debate is rather ludicrous. Piracy is silly, but the sheer level of outrage over it is even worse. It's quite literally exactly the same as borrowing a copy from someone, and borrowing is not, nor has it ever been, illegal.

We're talking about completely different things here. If you go to Bittorrent and download a full copy of Skyrim for free online and never pay for it, you're clearly in the wrong.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

but in the meantime it means a financial loss for the developer

NO, it does not. That logic is incredibly erroneous.

That was a line that got to me as well. This is a complete line of bullshit, as if they have a right to our money the moment the game comes out instead of having to wait till we decide to give them that money! That any reason, including verifying that the product is worth spending money on, is causing them financial hardship.... Sorry, it has broken me a little bit to see that argument even being made.

This anti-piracy response was simply in regards to the results produced by Swiss that took into account more then just distribution vs licenses that the pro-piracy group fixates on*. This report found out there is no real economical loss from piracy itself, that the entertainment industries get our money anyway. It has gone from 'waaa, we didn't get their money' to 'waaa, we didn't get it fast enough.'

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Difference between a pirate and a lawyer?

A Pirate gets something for free. A Lawyer gets paid to get something for free.

When the two of them face off, I'm sorta hoping for a no score draw situation.

 

[Agayek]

We're talking about completely different things here. If you go to Bittorrent and download a full copy of Skyrim for free online and never pay for it, you're clearly in the wrong.

How, precisely, is downloading a copy of Skyrim and playing that any different from borrowing a copy from a friend and playing that?

Either way, you're playing a game you did not pay for and have no intention of paying for. It's quite literally functionally equivalent. Especially if the person you borrowed from was already "done" with the game.

 

[Baresark]

It's a pointless weigh in. You see, it matters not if he is a lawyer. Anyone who doubts the validity of a theft accusation is idiotic. But, defining it as theft better, isn't going to stop it. As a lawyer, it's no small wonder he doesn't see the logic in most of the "pro-piracy" arguments. But some of his arguments are not valid either. When it comes to IP tracking arguments, people in general only don't support it because they can see how easily an innocent person can be caught for piracy. People forget that laws are not supposed to target innocent people, only people guilty of crimes. I would never support a law that would allow innocent people to be falsely accused of crimes they may not be responsible for. The old, "you have to break a few eggs" argument is broken in this situation.

Lawyers, the world would might be a better place without them, except for defense attorneys, those guys are ok.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

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?"

No, but it does mean that companies need more evidence than just an IP address to take people to court.

The notion that piracy does not equate to lost sales is just as erroneous.

No, it's not. Someone who pirates a game was not definitely going to buy it if they could not pirate it. So if you stop all piracy, it does not mean that all those pirated copies would turn into sales on a 1:1 ratio. This is hardly rocket science, but some people try very hard to ignore common sense.

How is this article titled 'Lawyer Destroys Arguments for Game Piracy', when he does not even discuss any pro piracy arguments. The only things he is talks about are evidential short comings of enforcement and the industries wrong assumptions about how much piracy is costing them.

The arguments for game piracy seem a bit flimsy in response to stories like CD Projekt's DRM-less Witcher 2 being pirated more than it was purchased or this abominable list of pirated games from TorrentFreak [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/115003-TorrentFreak-Reveals-Top-Pirated-Games-of-2011]. The games industry can't just ignore these thefts, and no amount of backwards logic can argue the impact of piracy away.

And as I predicted in my comment to the top pirated games article, the figures now are being reported as fact even though they are ESTIMATES based on bad data collection methodology. And the two ESTIMATES don't even tally as if the Witcher 2 Piracy ESTIMATE was right, then the game would have appeared in the top 10 Torrentfreak article.

I don't like games being pirated and buy all of mine, but the reporting / journalism here on this issue, leaves a lot to be desired. All these badly sourced ESTIMATES do is convince developers to add more intrusive DRM schemes which only affect legitimate buyers, like myself.

There's a long and definative 'pro-industry' trend towards journo here as it relates to piracy, which oddly clashes with the Escapists vehement anti-industry stance when it comes to SOPA (a stance I agree with BTW). The dichotemy suggests, at least, it's not some sort of silly conspiracy, just Greg Tito reporting as Greg Tito believes. I don't really have a problem with that persay, but I think alot of these 'news articles' should be rightfully labeled as editorials.

 

[Magnicon]

Another ignorant article written by an ignorant person using quotes from another ignorant person. It has been proven endlessly that piracy does not have a negative effect on industries profits, and if anything likely increases it. Proven. Fact.

If you choose to ignore the information made available, even just on this site alone, then you are simply an ignorant troll.

 

[XMark]

We're talking about completely different things here. If you go to Bittorrent and download a full copy of Skyrim for free online and never pay for it, you're clearly in the wrong.

How, precisely, is downloading a copy of Skyrim and playing that any different from borrowing a copy from a friend and playing that?

Either way, you're playing a game you did not pay for and have no intention of paying for. It's quite literally functionally equivalent. Especially if the person you borrowed from was already "done" with the game.

It's fair play to lend your game to someone else when you're done with it. It only becomes piracy if you work around the DRM or CD check or whatever so that both of you can still play the game.

 

[CapitalistPig]

I have very little sympathy for game developers or pirates. Both have their own crosses to bear and each is equally to blame for the unique position that has developed from gaming frenzy. The reality is most people only play a few games and don't contribute very much to game developers. The idea of sale loss develops from failed arguments on both sides because most people who pirate don't end up playing them because most games SUCK. And if your game sucks then you don't deserve any money do you? And those that say it doesnt effect sales, well big name games that do get played a lot and don't suck get pirated too and people dont end up buying them all the time, thus that effects sales. (Queue a dozen replies angrily refuting that one)

let people play games first before they have to throw down for a $60 serial number and then we can talk seriously. Cause lets face it with P2P sharing that's all that you are really paying for anyway. The software while extensive is worthless. All that matters is that green light serial. And how about when game developers start behaving, gamers do too? Its an animal grab bag for consumer money out there. If both sides can come to any kind of conclusion then gaming might calm down into something respectable. But these days.... i dont know which camp is worse. I play free to play games cause i can download it first and play it before im gonna shove out $60 at the item shops. Thats what harmony is all about. You support me (AKA the happy gamer) i support you (the providing developer).

So pirates and game developers alike can all go cry all they want. I'll happily support my indie game makers.

 

[xvbones]

I currently own almost 200 games on Steam (plus uncounted boxed games, both old and new titles) and I'll admit I have pirated games.

Nothing else you said matters.

Everything that follows this sentence is nothing but rationalization and justification for your admitted theft of video games.

You used illegal means to gain goods with a commercial value for free.

You are a thief.

Period.

I do not, again, DO NOT, get pirated games because I'm a cheap ass customer. I do it because I want to have fun for the money I'm spending. Nothing else. Sadly, that doesn't represent the state of mind of most "pirates".

No, you stole those games because you didn't want to pay for them.

And you are no different than most 'pirates', as I am certain each and every one of them also has a bushel full of justifications, rationalizations and excuses they use to forgive themselves for theft, too.

 

[xvbones]

How, precisely, is downloading a copy of Skyrim and playing that any different from borrowing a copy from a friend and playing that?

Because your friend's copy that you borrowed is a physical game disk that was bought and paid for.

 

[CrystalShadow]

The arguments for game piracy seem a bit flimsy in response to stories like CD Projekt's DRM-less Witcher 2 being pirated more than it was purchased or this abominable list of pirated games from TorrentFreak [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/115003-TorrentFreak-Reveals-Top-Pirated-Games-of-2011]. The games industry can't just ignore these thefts, and no amount of backwards logic can argue the impact of piracy away.

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)

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

"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.")

"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.)

"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)

So, now that we've got that out of the way, good article and I'm glad to hear lawyers weighing in on it.

Lol. Because I have nothing better to do.

1. "It's not a lost sale." Well, the counter-point, "It is a lost sale", is an equally unverifiable claim, and using it in some kind of mathematical calculation to imply you would've made X amount of extra money if there was no piracy is wishful thinking.

2. Correct as stated, but rather misses the rather more serious point that copyright law was never intended to imply that you 'owned' your work. Quite the opposite in fact. Your ability to financially benefit from your work through the use of copyright law is contingent upon you agreeing to give up any attempt to claim ownership of your work. Of course, this is tangential, because it has no direct bearing on piracy. Piracy is still copyright infringement, and still a crime, irrespective of if "Intellectual property" is a valid notion. - However, I really don't think "Intellectual property" is an idea that should be allowed to exist, because it has some seriously nasty and ultimately unworkable follow-on effects. (mostly in regards to such things as 'fair use', derived works, and the like. if Creative works were indeed property, by what logic could you even argue for something like 'fair use'? existing? No, this is something dependent upon Copyright not in fact being 'ownership'. - There are other problems too, but this is quite lengthy already.)

3. No problem here as such. Greed is evident, and problematic, but that is a completely different discussion that has no real direct relevance to piracy.

4. "If they made better games..." That's not really a meaningful statement in and of itself. If better is defined in terms of the game itself, it probably wouldn't have much effect. If however it is defined in terms of the consequences of copy protection... Then it becomes a rather different issue. Pirated games here are inherently better than their official counterparts, simply for being less likely to fail to run, or do weird awkward things to your computer. (Starforce and the like come to mind, but even basic CD checks can be really irritating.)
This however is an issue with the direct consequences of DRM, not so much with the 'quality' of the game itself.

5. "people only pirate because of DRM", Reversal of cause and effect? Well, yes, and no. It's true DRM exists as a response to piracy, but Cracks exist both as an aid to piracy, and as a response to people annoyed with the restrictions imposed by DRM. To say that DRM is solely a factor that reduces piracy, is to say that DRM never fails, and never does anything that annoys anyone. That is perhaps the riskiest calculation a game publisher can make...

What are the negative consequences on sales for implementing DRM? vs. What are the positive effects of DRM on sales?

Now, as a case in point, the OP states:

The arguments for game piracy seem a bit flimsy in response to stories like CD Projekt's DRM-less Witcher 2 being pirated more than it was purchased or this abominable list of pirated games from TorrentFreak. The games industry can't just ignore these thefts, and no amount of backwards logic can argue the impact of piracy away

This is after all an empty statement when you get right down to it. That the Witcher 2 has had more pirated copies downloaded than it has had sales, certainly demonstrates that removing DRM doesn't eliminate piracy. (Why would it?)

However, neither does it prove anything about the effectiveness of DRM. Have a look at the figures for games that use significant amounts of DRM, and you might notice that their piracy figures are pretty similar.

If anything, this calls into question the usefulness of DRM as a concept, because DRM takes a lot of resources to implement and deal with, and can potentially cause a lot of aggravation to your customers.
(Pirates aren't customers, and oddly, they don't really have to deal with DRM either.)
So... To bother with DRM, you have to have some decent evidence that you actually gain something from implementing it.

It's easier to go without DRM than with it, so the burden here is not to prove that DRM-free games aren't pirated, but rather that DRM is a worthwhile investment that actually improves your profits.

Yet, that is never the tone these kind of articles set. Nor is it even acknowledged incidentally that this is in fact the real question about DRM.
No point wasting money on something that doesn't work, so it's important to be able to demonstrate that it does something useful.

Anyway... That's enough silly devils advocate stuff for one day.

 

[Don't taze me bro]

How, precisely, is downloading a copy of Skyrim and playing that any different from borrowing a copy from a friend and playing that?

Because your friend's copy that you borrowed is a physical game disk that was bought and paid for.

It also stands to reason, that your friend cannot play at the same time you are.

Also, do people really believe that piracy does not equal lost revenue? I know dozens of anecdotal situations from friends and associates where a purchase was planned, but due to the availability of a pirated version never eventuated.

 

[Slycne]

There's a long and definative 'pro-industry' trend towards journo here as it relates to piracy, which oddly clashes with the Escapists vehement anti-industry stance when it comes to SOPA (a stance I agree with BTW). The dichotemy suggests, at least, it's not some sort of silly conspiracy, just Greg Tito reporting as Greg Tito believes. I don't really have a problem with that persay, but I think alot of these 'news articles' should be rightfully labeled as editorials.

Or simply that while tangentially related they are still two separate issues. Just as someone might vote Democratic, doesn't mean they are in favor of every policy put forward by their chosen representative. People are more varied than binary labeling.

I can be against the sweeping power that would be made available through SOPA and still think pirating videogames is bad as well.