Lawyer Destroys Arguments for Game Piracy

[OrenjiJusu]

I can honestly say that the only games i've downloaded without paying for have been abandonware or freeware, or were abandonware at the time. I don't think it's depriving profit if the company that made the game no longer exists, is it?
Any who, with more modern triple A titles i either buy it and try to make the best of it or wait for a demo/price cut.

 

[Dejawesp]

A hundred downloads do not equal a hundred lost sales no but there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people out there who pirate instead of buying and out of those many are "Lost sales" because they take something for free when the option is presented.

 

[Agayek]

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

But you're still playing a game you did not pay for (which is what publishers seem to want, everyone who plays pays). Beyond that, being a physical item doesn't change that you are being loaned something from someone and deriving whatever enjoyment you get from it, without paying a cent.

It's a perfectly legitimate practice, with everything but digital media, and people proclaiming that it's somehow different is fucking stupid. Any anti-piracy argument can, and should, be also applied to borrowing intellectual property items in the real world. If it goes in one place, it's fair game in the other.

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.

How is lending a game to someone any different from posting it on the internet? Either way, you're done with the game and someone else will now play it. The fact remains that file-sharing is functionally equivalent to loaning the item in question to someone. From an end-user AND from a developer standpoint.

Edit: To clarify a bit, I am not a pirate nor do I condone piracy. I buy/pay for all the media I consume, be it book, movie, TV, or game. I just find the argument that piracy is somehow inherently morally egregious and/or a new development to be laughably false.

 

[Caverat]

Surprise, folks who pirate software get butthurt when their dishonesty is pointed out.

Any argument towards the justification of piracy is like a study begun with a confirmation bias, the end point is decided at the onset, and any reasoning afterward is just mental hoop hopping to get the result where they aren't the asshole.

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.

Well, for starters, there is only one copy. When you're reading/playing it, your friend isn't. Unless one of you is sitting on the other's lap, or something, hey, I'm not judging, to each their own.

But copying it makes another of the product, which in no way is permitted in any interpretation of consumer's rights or the TOS agreements of using the developers' product, unless someone is a complete fucking moron with serious entitlement issues.

But hey, I can see you like analogies, I like em to, here's another one for ya:

Stating software piracy is like lending a book to a friend is like saying abortions are murdering a child. It's literally functionally equivalent, a human organism is prevented from getting any older.

Seriously, if you can't see the difference between lending someone a book and making a digital copy of software and letting thousands, potentially millions access a copy of that, thereby making thousands or millions of copies of the product at nothing going to the people who made the product.... What the hell? Are you just trolling? Is there someone that stupid on the planet? I mean, I shouldn't be surprised, but, I guess I'm just surprised someone that retarded could manage to figure out how to use a computer at all, let alone happen to post here at this forum.

 

[MoNKeyYy]

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

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

If you're playing their game without a sale going to them it represents a financial loss. One used game represents one sale to them and then the owners of the property doing what they will with it. A pirated copy represnts one sale copied hundreds or thousands of times and distrubuted for free or at low cost, with hundreds of copies distributed but one sale going to the publisher/developer. That's a financial loss, plain and simple.

Even if you go into more broad economic terms, pirated copies (especially 2-3 million in the case of Crysis 2 or the Witcher 2) means a significant increase in supply with a drop in demand, which leads to reduced cost and less money in the pockets of developers and publishers.

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.

Why have I done it? Titles that look fun but have a dubious feel to it; I usually end up testing for a couple of hours (more or less) then make a decision if I want to acquire it or not based on fun-factor.

Bulletstorm is the lastest I have gotten (Not long after release and I was both horrified and relieved). Horrified at the dullness of it. Relieved that I hadn't spent 40, 50$ bucks for it.

Now, understand that if there were demo versions of those dubious games in the first place I wouldn't even have to download all that data. I would be happy to download a smaller set of the game itself, test it out; the mechanics, the fun I'm having and replayability potential, to finally be able to make a decision based on personal values I find important in a game.

In the last two years I might have downloaded 5-6 games and bought NONE of them. But you know what, I didn't even finish any either. I played a couple of hours, didn't like my experience then uninstalled/deleted the whole thing.

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".

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.

Agreed. By your logic, when I go see a movie the most sensible thing to do is to sneak in and watch the first half or maybe the whole movie before I make a decision regarding whether or not I want to pay to see the movie, then going to the box office and buying a ticket afterwards.

 

[Exile714]

You know, there's a better argument against piracy that would appeal to many posters here: it hurts PC GAMING.

Console gamers pirate less than PC gamers. That's why all the money is going to console games.

Quit arguing law and morality with these people, it doesn't get through to them. Just tell them that their vaunted "gaming rigs" are going to see less games over time because they keep pirating. Nothing else seems to work.

Or, just stop developing for PC's cold turkey and put major DRM on the consoles themselves such that modders are easy to catch. /piracy

 

[Agayek]

Well, for starters, there is only one copy. When you're reading/playing it, your friend isn't. Unless one of you is sitting on the other's lap, or something, hey, I'm not judging, to each their own.

But copying it makes another of the product, which in no way is permitted in any interpretation of consumer's rights or the TOS agreements of using the developers' product, unless someone is a complete fucking moron with serious entitlement issues.

But hey, I can see you like analogies, I like em to, here's another one for ya:

Stating software piracy is like lending a book to a friend is like saying abortions are murdering a child. It's literally functionally equivalent, a human organism is prevented from getting any older.

WRT your analogy: Arguably true, though a bit crass. From the standpoint of the child itself, it certainly is murder. Depending on the circumstances of the abortion, I'd also be willing to argue that it is murder from a more universal perspective as well, but let's not get into that.

Now, the primary reason I used my analogy is because Neil Gaiman used it to describe piracy of his books, and to be honest it's pretty damn accurate. You can go here [http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/02/10/neil-gaiman-piracy-lending-books/] for the interview video itself.

The long and short of it is that you are getting publicity with the piracy (just like with those who borrow it), and if it's good, people will buy things you put out later. He says it far more eloquently, and I strongly suggest everyone in this thread watches that video.

Also, as I've said before, I am not a pirate and I do not condone piracy. I go out of my way to buy/pay for just about everything I consume, be it intellectual property or physical items. I just couldn't let the inherent stupidity of the original comment go without question. There's nothing inherently wrong with piracy any more than there is of borrowing something from a friend. If one is acceptable, the other is as well.

 

[minuialear]

People seem to be forgetting that video games are a luxury, not a right. If the price of one is too much for someone, then, like all luxuries, it would follow that said person would either start saving up more for that game, or would deem it out of his/her price range and move on. The idea that people are justified in cheating developers out of profit for the work they put so many hours into just because people don't like the price or because people don't want to buy a console for a region they want to play games from, makes absolutely no sense; especially since video games aren't exactly an essential commodity, such as food or water.

Arguments that piracy is justifiable when there is no demo are equally nonsensical, considering there are at least half a dozen active and popular video game trading websites/auction websites people can use to sell/trade their games should they not like them; not to mention the fact that there are outlets that still allow people to return opened games 30 days after buying them. As for those outlets that don't: do people think it's the developer's fault that Gamestop doesn't allow returns of unopened games? Do people seriously think it makes sense to chastize developers for not allocating more of their already taxed time to making a demo, and then pirate their material in "protest," but then still buy products from these stores as if the store has nothing to do with the problem? Because if stores like Gamestop were to be forced to reform and allow 30-day refunds on games, this argument would be completely moot.

 

[ThatDarnCoyote]

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

Eh, mileage may vary on that point. Just ask anyone who has found themselves unable to play one of their saved games when their internet connection isn't working. Even in "offline mode".

 

[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/

So you're effectively against second-hand sales too?

 

[Marik2]

Damn I wonder how many people are gonna get the banhammer in this news post....

 

[ResonanceSD]

Damn I wonder how many people are gonna get the banhammer in this news post....

Given the new ToS a few weeks ago, my money's on the guy directly attacking the escapist.

 

[Caverat]

Well, for starters, there is only one copy. When you're reading/playing it, your friend isn't. Unless one of you is sitting on the other's lap, or something, hey, I'm not judging, to each their own.

But copying it makes another of the product, which in no way is permitted in any interpretation of consumer's rights or the TOS agreements of using the developers' product, unless someone is a complete fucking moron with serious entitlement issues.

But hey, I can see you like analogies, I like em to, here's another one for ya:

Stating software piracy is like lending a book to a friend is like saying abortions are murdering a child. It's literally functionally equivalent, a human organism is prevented from getting any older.

WRT your analogy: Arguably true, though a bit crass. From the standpoint of the child itself, it certainly is murder. Depending on the circumstances of the abortion, I'd also be willing to argue that it is murder from a more universal perspective as well, but let's not get into that.

Now, the primary reason I used my analogy is because Neil Gaiman used it to describe piracy of his books, and to be honest it's pretty damn accurate. You can go here [http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/02/10/neil-gaiman-piracy-lending-books/] for the interview video itself.

The long and short of it is that you are getting publicity with the piracy (just like with those who borrow it), and if it's good, people will buy things you put out later. He says it far more eloquently, and I strongly suggest everyone in this thread watches that video.

Also, as I've said before, I am not a pirate and I do not condone piracy. I go out of my way to buy/pay for just about everything I consume, be it intellectual property or physical items. I just couldn't let the inherent stupidity of the original comment go without question. There's nothing inherently wrong with piracy any more than there is of borrowing something from a friend. If one is acceptable, the other is as well.

Well, don't look for a high-five for doing what you are legally obligated to do, pay for the merchandise or products you use.

Borrowing and piracy are not the same thing. One is copying, potentially en mass, the other is the owner of a product allowing someone else to use it. The product is not multiplying, multiple people cannot use an individual copy of it simultaneously.

An accurate analogy would be if someone was operating their own printing press and giving away exact mint-condition copies of a book to whoever wanted them, without licence from the author or publisher. Would there be anything wrong with that?

Here's a hint, the above analogy isn't like borrowing either.

 

[Dogstile]

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?

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

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.

If you continue to insist on making logical and balanced posts we're going to have to ask you to leave the thread.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

"Piracy might result in an eventual purchase of a game, but in the meantime it means a financial loss for the developer," Purewal said.

Considering most developers don't get royalties, that's a pretty silly thing to say.

 

[ResonanceSD]

"Piracy might result in an eventual purchase of a game, but in the meantime it means a financial loss for the developer," Purewal said.

Considering most developers don't get royalties, that's a pretty silly thing to say.

So the publisher then. #bigdifference.

The interest being gained on the money is with the pirate, until they buy the game, then the money goes to the publisher, and they get to start earning interest on the cash. Simple as that.

 

[Signa]

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.

I was just thinking about that this morning. A lot of these arguments spawn from what comes down to nothing more than faith. Some have faith that a pirate, if interested in buying a game will buy it when they can. Others decide that same pirate would never buy because they already have obtained a functional copy of the game and have no need to separate themselves from their money for any reason.

The truth is obviously not an absolute of either position, but I would like to point out the testimony of unrepentant pirates. I've only ever heard comments saying that they buy after they try, needed something better than a demo, wanted to check the power of their PC, or just don't want to give their money to a corrupt publisher. Every one of those circumstances give credence to the former of the two arguments. I'm yet to hear of the gamer to casually declares that they were going to buy a game, but didn't because they could just get it for free. Maybe it's because they know that the non-pirates would eat him alive for speaking such heresy, but in this age where every consumer knows that entertainment companies are asking for you to give them money for their hard work, how many of those millions of downloaders actually feel compelled to intentionally not compensate some one for their work if they liked a product? Not a significant percentage my faith believes.

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

Piracy can = a lost sale, but does not always = a lost sale. If the numbers you see on piracy aren't broken down into legitimate pirates vs pirates who can't buy something if they wanted too then they are overblown sensationalist BS.

Here's an example. Super modern shooter 9 is pirated 1,000,000 times total.
Break that down into countries of download.

100,000 - Germany (not available for import or purchase)
300,000 - US (available for purchase)
250,000 - UK (available for purchase and import)
50,000 - Brazil (banned for sale by the government)
100,000 - Sweden (no copyright or piracy laws, company chooses not to sell game here)
150,000 - Russia (Game not for sale in Russia)
50,000 - Middle Eastern Countries (Banned by government due to content)

only 550,000 downloads were actual lost sales. The other 450,000 had no way of actually purchasing it legitimately therefore do NOT = lost sales. Pirates are only doing something illegal where laws say it's illegal. We don't beat and kill women who drive in the US because it's illegal in some Muslim countries. Therefore when making a statement about something that is or isn't a lost sale, it has to be relative to where it can and can not be sold. (Note: this isn't a moral discussion, but a legal one)

The DRM argument is weak because it's not illegal to remove DRM and play a game you own. It's just illegal to remove DRM to be able to play a game you don't own. Every game I have ever purchased that has DRM, gets it promptly removed by me. I do not want to have to put in a CD every time I play your game nor do I want to have to watch unskippable intro's every time I load it up, so guess what, I remove it. That's not piracy. Every single game I own on physical media has been imaged and stored on my server. That's not piracy, it's backing up my investment.

I do not condone illegal acts in any way. With that being said, "piracy" as it is defined here in the US is NOT illegal everywhere in the world. Therefore numbers and figures published should not include countries where it's A.)not illegal and B.) the product in question is not available by any means other then downloading. (I didn't call it illegal or pirating because in those countries it's neither.)

 

[witheringsanity]

I don't see how anyone with a brain can seriously hold the belief that a pirated game leads to a sale later.

umm. we believe that because it DOES happen. here's a freakin list.

minecraft
civ 5
portal
portal 2
oblivion
fallout 3
fallout new vegas
cave story
terraria
and many many more.

you see, not everyone has the income to throw down $60 on a game that you have NO WAY of recouping your loss if it's terrible. this is not a "boo hoo i'm poor" argument, it's a "pc gamers have no consumer protection" argument. if i buy a game for PC, 9 times out of 10 i'm stuck with it, no matter how much it sucks. i can't return it, i can't resell it, nothin. THIS is the best (and probably only good) reason i've heard for pirating.

so the best solution to combat piracy?? CONSUMER PROTECTIONS. allow us to resell our games. allow us to return our games. put out demos. it's a sad world we live in where publishers can put out sh*t games and anyone foolish enough to buy it is stuck with a loss. it's unethical. what other product besides PC games (and other digital media) can you do NOTHING to get even some of your money back if you're not happy with it? food? no. clothing? no. furniture, appliances, cosmetics, entertainment, electronics, utensils, services, medicine, office supplies?? no, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO. you could return/exchange ANY of these product for most if not ALL your money if you're not satisfied with them. it's because PC gamers are pissed off at being taken advantage of that piracy is booming the way it is today (at least, in my opinion).

/rant