Lawyer Destroys Arguments for Game 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

 

[RatRace123]

Well, I agree with him. Not that that's saying much though.

This argument has gone on and will go on, hell God could come down from Heaven in a fiery blaze and give his opinion on it and the argument would still go on.

 

[lancar]

The games industry can't just ignore these thefts, and no amount of backwards logic can argue the impact of piracy away.

And no amount of backwards logic will ever equate the crime of "theft" to "copyright infringement". You may try, and by god do some people try this ALOT, but it will still never make it true no matter how much you wish for it.

Also, the degree of impact of piracy is debatable as there is no clear correlation between lost sales and pirated copies (unless you're a mindreader?).

These may be tired arguments, but that doesn't make them any less true.


The Lawyer fellow do have a reasonable take on how to limit piracy though. Preying on the common gamer weakness of laziness is a savvy practice, and couple it with limited time offers to get the games significantly cheaper than the prohibitively expensive normal retail prices and you got yourself a recepie for success.
Valve, with Steam, is tackling this problem the correct way.
EA & Ubisoft, with cutting content into DLC and rigging DRM everywhere, are NOT.

CD Projekt, with their DRM free policy, I fear are a bit naive. There is no point in overprotecting something that will be instantly cracked anyway, but there should still be something small in place to stir the laziness gene. If it's not there, you can't exploit it and you'll rely on pure goodwill. We're not a very nice species, so this isn't a very sensible approach imho.
...even if that approach made me pre-order The Witcher 2.

 

[Woodsey]

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

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

So you're suggesting there's no financial loss from putting money into the game and not seeing a return on all the people who consume it? Would you not perceive a financial loss if people were stealing physical copies by the boat load?

No, a pirated copy doesn't necessarily equate to a lost sale, but it sure as shit doesn't guarantee a purchase.

 

[Gincairn]

What concerns me more, looking at the most pirated games list, Modern Warfare 3 still beat out Battlefield 3 there.

OT: I'm still not sure where I stand on this issue, it's not something that I do but at the same time I understand why some people do (too lazy to work, no money, etc etc we've all heard the excuses)

I don't believe that piracy is a good and valid reason to hike up prices, nor is it a good reason for ridiculous DRM to be installed, they just seem like a way of irritating the paying customers (kind of like the anti-piracy messages at the start of paid for DVD's).
In fact I had this bite me in the ass the other night, playing Battlefield 3 on the PS3, I got kicked out of my single player campaign because I had lost connection to the EA servers. Why should a console game require an internet connection for a single player experience? That's just moronic.

As to how to combat it, a few of you are saying Demos, that works to a certain degree, but how many times have you downloaded a demo, played the 5 minutes they allow or seen a small piece of the game (not enough to actually fully experience it) and the demo ends, case in point Heavenly Sword, Mirror's Edge and Brutal Legend to name a few, only to buy the game and discover that it's absolute shite?

Currently the PS3 market seems to have a good way of tackling this in the form of full game trials, you download the whole game, and you have a 1 hour timer, the whole thing is open to you and allows full access to everything you would get from the disc version, it's a great way of getting around the "We need a demo" or "The demo wasn't long enough" argument.

The other alternative is to wait, prices do drop eventually and if you use a service like Steam or Onlive you can pick up new games for peanuts, again as an example Deus Ex HR for 70p when I got it on Onlive, Mafia 2 and Orcs must die for under a fiver also on Onlive. and Entire bundles of Indie titles through steam on various sales.

There ARE solutions out there, they just need to be found, perfected and then used industry wide.