On the morality of copyright.

[Atmos Duality]

If its not sold in your area/hilariously overpriced - The first part your not really depriving them of sales, since they don't sell it in your area in the first place. Its the only way you can get the thing. Second part applies to quite a few nations, where the games cost as much as a month's salary. Harder to say "go without", but still a very grey area for me.

I've given thought to that second part for some time now; it's about the greyest area I've found in regards to ethics/morality vs piracy.
If a company is charging ridiculous prices for goods in a region to the point their targeted customers cannot afford it, then they need to change something or stop providing in that market, because what will ultimately happen is that they will encourage their own users to pirate their title.

Yes, one can argue that this would happen anyway if the person wants it bad enough, but that's not at all conclusive; I could argue that without localization in many of these countries, the effort needed to play the game would become more trouble than it is worth.
In short, you cannot miss out on opportunities that weren't there to begin with.

Currently, these price-gouging schemes are creating economic loops in which nobody wins, and nobody is ultimately at fault here either. The Publisher is usually selling the same game at the same (adjusted to a stronger US dollar) price.

ON TOPIC: As for general file sharing; what of it?
If you find a game you like, why wouldn't you reward the creators for it? Why would you not encourage them to do better, or do more?
Furthermore, if you're "Sticking it to the man", you are in fact, adding to the problem.
By pirating the game, you are still sending a message to the Publisher that you want their products.
Do you honestly think they are going to listen to you now? You're a lost sale to them, regardless of what your opinion is. They're going to try to fight you now, and you have just made the situation worse.

To me, this piracy vs business problem is an interesting microcosm of modern society as a whole.
Think about it: We live in a funny world that demands that we make as much economic profit as possible, in every facet of our lives, and then we set rules that ensure that only the wealthy can profit from it (99% of the world's resources and capital is owned by less than half a percent of the world's population).
Piracy is free. That's technically profit. It isn't legal, but it's profit.

And yet at the same time, it was those rules that form the basis of our society to begin with (don't kill/steal/cheat, lest you undermine the entire point of social cooperation), and so we are stuck.

 

[incal11]

I'm just going to quote you on two things:

I agree that authors deserve compensation for a good work,

Compensation? When you go to work, do you expect 'compensation' for going there? No, you expect pay. They get payeed when you buy their games. They do not when you pirate.

You are missing the point of the whole topic.
I pay for recent games, and I am talking about how copyright that are too long are bad.

What the hell is so hard to understand about this? How is it different to stealing?! When you steal a game from a store, they don't care that you've taken their SACRED game! They've got another 50 or so out back!

should our access to culture be limited by our fortune ? (Yes I include video games, but I mean Culture in general).

I don't have any consoles but a Wii. So you're saying I should steal an XBox and a 360?

What I'm talking about when I say copyrights are overly restrictive is mainly data, this discussion has nothing to do with shoplifting.

I honestly haven't heard a piracy argument that makes sense, in context to the preacher. Yes, you may use the 'Timmy doesn't have enough money to buy games, his family starves, etc' argument, but get this - YOU AREN'T TIMMY.

I feel like you are totally missing the point on purpose, this isn't any random rant. Maybe this topic may have been done the same stupid way for so long that you can't understand what I am actually trying to talk about.
You're like a kitten who has been raised seeing only horizontal lines and now cannot see the verticals.

At the moment I am not stealing anything.
Would the developpers allow me to play their older games for free if they could? surprisingly yes. Here is an example http://sc2.sourceforge.net/

Pfft. That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard.

They can. [http://www.elderscrolls.com/downloads/downloads_games.htm]

Well, I don't see how that makes my argument stupid. Not all developpers have the right to share their own work, these are only exceptions.
I did say "if they could".

 

[The Thief]

I tend to think of what's moral or not in the general sense of "If everyone acted this way how would it affect me." So if everyone pirated software and there was nobody left to pay the developers they couldn't and wouldn't make games, or at least not large budget games. Now I don't mind many freeware games, heck some can be outright incredible, but I do love my big budget triple A games as well, and I'd hate to go without. But even though I consider piracy immoral and destructive it has never really bothered me personally; I don't care how other people get their games. The only thing that bothers me about piracy is when people try to justify it.

But to be more on topic, concerning some of the principle arguments you posted (I'm sorry I don't have enough patience to read the linked articles)




"-Publishers get you to concentrate on a small number of works by stigmatizing file sharing, thus limiting your own ability to create."
"-Freer access to more media would allow more artists to rise from their state of passive consumers, making for a richer culture, and an even more profitable entertainment market."

These only really concern potential artists, not the majority of consumers. For potential artists, there are already plenty of free ways to create games, and plenty of free games available to play and gather ideas from. Even the games that aren't free have enough information about them floating around the internet for anyone to gain inspiration. I don't see why publishers should be required to allow their product be shared for free, and since many developers already are giving away their games for free, they really shouldn't need to; No matter what your budget is, you can play/create games (Well, so long as you can afford the hardware). So if there are any potentially great artists out there they aren't very motivated, and I doubt they would make it far developing games with a lack of motivation.



"-Sharing should be a basic human right."

I think that sharing physical goods should always be a right, but sharing digital goods falls into the grey. If you're burning a copy of X game for a friend, that is very different from uploading a copy of X game so 200,000 strangers can download it.

Also, concerning long copyrights, I think it's only moral if the creator is no longer profiting from it.

 

[The Rockerfly]

I don't see what you're exactly trying to bring up

Someone spends time, money and uses their own ideas to create a medium. You have a demand for said medium, they supply it. Very simple capitalism supply and demand

If you copy something that you don't want and the supply is massive then it is worthless economically anyway. However, why the fuck are you downloading something you don't want in the first place

You download something, therefore you must have some demand to watch/listen/use/play that medium, if there is also a supply then yes piracy is wrong. If their is neither a supply or you don't want it, the item has no value therefore in economic terms the original owner isn't losing anything since it is worthless

My morals come from economics though, I don't think that would hold up in a court of law

 

[TheLaofKazi]

No, I don't think it's necessarily wrong to illegally download media, given that there isn't much proof that internet piracy has had a dramatic, negative effect on the industry. I think the OP has a good point, in that strong copyright laws limit the amount of culture and art people can consume and experience, and thus turns them more into passive consumers. The beautiful thing about culture is that it builds on itself. All of the music, video games, films and books I've experience have influenced me and now will pass on the message in my own fashion, and contribute to culture. When I create my own art, and enrich my own and other people's lives, the industry doesn't like that, because that means people will possibly be less likely to buy more. They will be influenced, they will learn from my expression and use that as fuel for their own unique expression.Again, the industry generally doesn't like. People creating their own art and passing it onto other people in an organic, human and free way isn't good for the industry. But I think it is good for people and society. I mean, culture and symbolism is one of the only things that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

And I think it's preposterous, yet understandable given the societal mindset most of us have grown up in, to think that now that we have the internet, a tool that allows us to distribute art at a scale never before achieved in human history. It can spread faster, to a wider audience, and for an extremely low cost.

Theoretically, with this new technology, with more availability and much cheaper production cost, we should see the market grow rapidly why prices skydive. The problem is, thats not fucking happening, and I think the industry's grasp on copyright law is mostly responsible for this. Instead of being having to adapt and innovate, the industry has pushed for more and more control so they don't have to at the cost of the consumer.

Sure, piracy is free. But it's also faster, more convenient, has less restrictions, and even has a wider selection of media available. The industry certainly isn't going to be able to make their products free, but certainly if they worked to innovate, cater to the consumer instead of trying to control them, and made good use of this technology without exploiting people and being greedy (unlike iTunes, which I think is actually harmful to the market) then all of those other benefits could be achieved, and the cost could go down.

And honestly people, read the articles he posted. The look at copyright history in England is very interesting.

 

[Kortney]

Whilst I do see piracy as being somewhat immoral, I don't believe the legislation in place to protect is based off moral grounds. I believe it is there to safeguard the wealth of the multi-million dollar companies.

 

[Bluesoul]

I think first of all we should research on how much do the developers really make out of the prices the publishers charge for the products. I know that there is a lot of efffort into making a game, but why does a brand new game costs 60+ bucks while the release of a movie in blu-ray is never over 30, both publishers are looking for a profit and took millions of dollars in the making, the movie probably needed more but still the game's price is double.

Because of the country(and town) I live at Pc games are really hard to find at least I have more luck with console games on that mattter(not prices though paying 90USD for a 50 USD game). The thing is, if there is a game I want to get on the pc the only option I have is to wait until someone shares it over the web... For Civ V I downloaded the demo from steam to make sure it worked on mu pc but when i tried to go and buy the real stuff I couldnt do it because of the country i live at.

I feel that the publishers shouldn't consider game sharing as an enemy, on the contrary, if they get a game that is really worth it and they will be getting a lot of fans from and stuff they can turn all the merchandising into profit without any problem, imagine if they gave the game itself rather cheap but they sold the collectors edition at a 100 bucks, with nice artwork, and some other stuff for those who really want something to show off, that would really force them into making memorable games and not just another GTA clone. The game of the year edition of fallout 3 for example(I love my lunch box )

I still think that the legislation should be more specific, or i could be prosecuted for lending my friend any of my games, weather its the actual disc or a digital copy

 

[Zechnophobe]

What annoys me, more than anything, is not the diverse opinions regarding ownership, public domain, copyright, etc. But rather the people who think it is a simple issue and never try to understand the immense complications.

For instance, ethics are even in a weird space on this. We know that taking something from someone else is bad. But *why* is this true?

1) Because then the other person doesn't have it
2) Because you don't deserve it.

Both answers are somewhat true. Fiscally speaking, taking something that you could have payed for falls into both of these, though 1) transiently (they don't have your money). However there is an immense difference with the digital medium. Because in case 1) the item still exists in the owners posession and can still be resold.

Ah, but that doesn't deny the transient property of 'value'. You could have bought the item, and what you are denying them isn't the item itself, but the value of the sale.

I think we can then pretty clearly say that getting something off the internet that you could have payed for is wrong.

*But what if you could not have payed for it?*

Woa, now there goes a wrench in this whole thing. If I can't afford 50 dollars a game for every game that I want, but still acquire it, what is the quandry now? Did I deny them a sale? Well, no, not anymore than if I didn't buy it to begin with. Do they not have the item to sell to someone else? No, they still have that too.

All we have left is the 2nd point from above, which I'll restate so you don't have to scroll up:

2) Because you don't deserve it.

Ouch! Ethically this is the only leg we have to stand on. But this is all sorts of weird to use as an ethical basis for anything. What someone deserves is a completely subjective concept. Do you not deserve the free handouts your parents give you? What about anything provided by the state like education? If you argue that your education is paid for by taxes.. man that takes it down an even more complicated route by saying that the population at large can cause you to deserve something and.. eesh, let's not go there.

The point of all this is that bare bones, the ethics seem to point against sharing of things if you can pay for it, and if you can't... they get more complicated. As much as what someone deserves is subjective, it is still hard to say that it's okay to take things you can't afford.


That brings us to our next Arena! Economics. Many companies have found throughout time that charging the greatest price isn't always the way to get the most money. You don't want to haggle or you'll lose your just combo bonus. Er.. wait, Recettear flashbacks.

What I really mean though is that scale is an issue, as is circulation. All you can eat Buffets, for example. At some point, does it become 'wrong' to keep eating? What if you are just really hungry? What if you stay there for 3 hours? Gosh that's a hard decision to make, especially around the edges.. What if you are there for 1.5 hours? At what point are you exploiting the system. Could the company make less on the sale then they charge? it's possible. The point is that ethics and economics don't really mix the way they ought to.

MMO's like DnD online, or LOTR Online have become 'free to play' for the most part. Is this due to the threat of piracy? No, not at all. These are simply models they use to get people into them before making them WANT to spend money on them. Like an extremely elaborate advertising campaign. If you play a game for free like this, for 4 years without ever purchasing the main content, are you any more exploiting than the guy at the buffet? If you had pirated the game (somehow..?) before this?

Let's talk about circulation as well. Digital circulation, and they way product travels to people is a super important part of this discussion. DRM and Copyright law should *never* be discussed without each other. Been to an airport? Tried to buy a hamburger from the Mcdonald's there, only to find it costs 25% more than normal? This is DRM in a nutshell.

Huh? Okay that might not make sense at first. But DRM is basically giving the user purchasing and ownership restrictions, to make sure they get a certain amount of return on investment. That certain amount is an amount they decide, it isn't some obvious percentage based on how the game of life values video games.

The price-hike at locations where you are a captive audience is the same thing. They get away with that hike because you have literally no other way to get the goods they offer in these situations.

The big difference is that if you don't want to pay for McDonald's food at the airport because it costs too much, you just wait till you get to your Uncle Jack's house and then go to Arby's. In the land of Digital rights, there isn't a way to buy "Bioshock 2" from some budget vendor for a lower price that you feel is fair. This creates a stupidly dichotomous scenario wherein people are left with two options.

Two options so polarizing they remind you of moral choices in Bioware games. But that's economy. The seller is completely allowed to try to sell you their goods for as much as possible. Normally you have the ability to look for cheaper alternatives. But unique goods such as games and books cannot be found in 'cheaper' ways. Though it would be sorta interesting to try. Gears of War: Product Placement edition. Your favorite game with your favorite brands right inside, half the normal price of the game too!

All in all, I think pirating is actually become less of a problem nowadays. Steam has given people a way to buy games online pretty consistently, meaning 'casual' pirates just don't exist, or have some really hard time splaining their actions.

I think as games become less and less an 'all or nothing' proposition( "You either buy the 60 dollar version or you don't get it legally") it will eventually fade away into the true area of pure stealing. At some point people who just like to take things cuz they don't wanna pay will be the only ones left, and much more easily excised.

 

[Zechnophobe]

I tend to think of what's moral or not in the general sense of "If everyone acted this way how would it affect me." So if everyone pirated software and there was nobody left to pay the developers they couldn't and wouldn't make games, or at least not large budget games.

That's a good start. But realize that obviously the scenario isn't that simple. When you drive your car do you think "Hmm, what if everyone turned left. Man, that'd be terrible, I better keep going straight." The context of the action is a fundamental part of the action. I'm pretty sure, though this is a guess, that people are not 'all pirate' or 'all purchase'. This means it isn't something they just do, but rather a decision they are making. What conditions made them think it was okay to pirate? The question then becomes "If everyone thinks it is okay to pirate under these conditions..." and depending on the conditions might not be so bad. Maybe. Or maybe it just behooves the game company to remove the conditions.

It's rather complicated.

 

[Kagim]

Because piracy isn't stealing. Stealing makes ONE LESS of something; and doesn't pay for it. PIRACY is making a COPY of something that WAS paid for. Piracy isn't stealing; thus should be legal in all respects.

First off,

1. Stealing has no legal definition. What you have stated is your own personal definition. The dictionary only lists the most common uses of the word. Theft is a legally defined word. Theft is different from illegal cases of file sharing. However Rape is different from vandalism. Both are still crimes. One is just significantly less harmful then the other.

2. Stealing currently holds multiple common definitions. "Jim stole the spotlight at the recital" Does not mean Jim physical deprived the school of one spotlight during the recital. It means he performed really well and the audience loved him. Just because you have decided that 'steal' is synonymous with the legal definition of 'theft' doesn't mean it is what everyone else in the world is saying.

3.Piracy IS stealing, well involves the act of theft to be exact. For someone trying to be anal about the single definition of the word 'steal' its kinda odd your using a slang term for illegal file sharing. Piracy is the act of committing theft and assault to sea born vessels. Not ripping porn off Limewire.

And I PIRATE all my games BEFORE I buy them, cause why would I buy a game; find out I don't actually like it - only to be TURNED DOWN to return it - because I COULD'VE COPIED THE DISK.

1. Reviews, demos, and millions of videos online to show what game is about.

2. Funny how in a world where gamers expect publishers to take tens of million dollar risks gamers are not willing to take a $60-$100(depending on where you live) risk even when they have almost limitless sources of reference to decide if they like a game.

It's the same thing as drugs, if you LOOK AT IT NEGATIVELY, THEN IT WILL BE NEGATIVE. If you look at it positively, then it will be positive. Simple as that.

Herion, Meth, and Crack will always be negative drugs. No matter how hard you try and think about it positively those drugs will fuck you up.

Mainly it's because people only care about money these days. FUCK THE CORPORATE WORLD.

I get it now, your in high school, or at the least still living with your parents. Were talking about non necessities. Video games, movies, music. Shit that you can live without. They have a right to charge money for the products and services they provide. Your not going to die if you can't play Modern Warfare 2 the day it comes out for free

People wonder why most of us see you as self entitled brats.

"A company that spent 20+million dollars making a game doesn't like me playing it for free! What greedy bastards!"

Yeahhhhhhh.

OT:

Publisher put up a lot of money to make said game. You might not be directly causing a loss of money but said avenue (illegal file sharing) is causing a loss. The loss of potential money is still a loss.

Even trade in game stores are not in the wrong simply because in cases like EB where the store ONLY sells video games and accessories if it wasn't for trade in's they wouldn't be able to stay in business.

You do not have the right to take what someone else has created for free unless they give permission for you to take said action.

"But Kagim! They didn't create my copy! I did! With Limewires!"

No. You copied that. Worse you didn't even create the program to copy it. You put not even a shred of the same effort in procuring that illegal copy that a developer did to make it. Nor did you put up a fraction of the money a publisher did to fund that game. There is NO analogy. You are not entitled to said product.

A creator of any work or service has the right to protect said work or service. If i write a novel, film a movie, make a game its my right to decide how to distribute said product. Not some kid in a basement somewhere who thinks they deserve everything for free.

As well when talking about 'the morality of it' there is none. Its the morale equivalent of taking a object of equal value off a shelf. If that doesn't bother you, fly at er. Very few of us are trying to call you or anyone else who does such a thing evil or monsters or equate it to rape.

A number of us hate the RIAA and DRM as much as you guys. In fact the RIAA and DRM are two big reasons why we hate illegal file sharing, because we would have a metric fuck ton more weight agaisnt them legally if it wasn't for people ripping shit they don't deserve.

What pisses a lot of us off are self entitled dip shits who are not content with just taking shit for free. They want to be given sympathy as though they are victims. Or praise as though they are champions fighting some evil oppressor.

When indie developers decided to let people choose how much to pay for there games, as low as a penny, and all proceeds would either go to charity or straight to the developer and people STILL ripped it for free. Games that you could have legally owned for a fucking penny. $0.01. A god damned cent, and people STILL fucking ripped the game, in many cases right off there site which DID cost them money directly in bandwidth. Those people kinda proved a point a lot of us have been trying to explain.

The ideal world where people take a service and pay for it deservingly is a pretty thing to imagine. However the gaming community has proven time and time again that even when having a game practically handed to them for rock bottom prices they will still choose to take it for free.

Also. More specifically this comment irks the fuck out of me.

You have a very cynical view of humanity, here's why things are not as bad as they seems. Despite everything already being available for free : the profits are still huge.

Seriously?

So because most people are willing to pay for a game that gives other people the right to get it for free?

Seriously?

NO.

That's like the bullshit defense "It's alright to download a game as long as your not interested in it!"

Which essentially means FANS and SUPPORTERS who are far more likely to appreciate and enjoy a game deserve it LESS then people who don't give a shit.

Fucking.

No.

 

[TheLaofKazi]

Compensation? When you go to work, do you expect 'compensation' for going there? No, you expect pay. They get payeed when you buy their games. They do not when you pirate.

What the hell is so hard to understand about this? How is it different to stealing?! When you steal a game from a store, they don't care that you've taken their SACRED game! They've got another 50 or so out back! I don't have any consoles but a Wii. So you're saying I should steal an XBox and a 360?

I honestly haven't heard a piracy argument that makes sense, in context to the preacher. Yes, you may use the 'Timmy doesn't have enough money to buy games, his family starves, etc' argument, but get this - YOU AREN'T TIMMY.

It's different then stealing because you are not taking anything directly from them, you are copying their work for yourself. The only money they lose is potential money. How do we know the person who pirated something would have brought the product if he couldn't pirate it? It's not like if piracy was somehow completely eradicated, people would flood the stores buying every movie, game, book or album they wanted or remotely caught their interest. People have a limited amount of money, and they also don't like wasting money on something they aren't sure they will like, they want to save it for something they know they will enjoy.

But with the ease and lack of cost of illegal downloading, people will tend to consume far more then they could ever afford if they actually brought the things they download. Don't have enough money to buy that new album? You get it anyway. Never heard of that band? Listen to all their music anyway. And despite being able to get things for free, pirate do still buy things. In fact, there is evidence that pirates tend to buy more then the average,non-pirate:

http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/04/study-pirates-buy-tons-more-music-than-average-folks.ars

When you immerse yourself in a ton of media, you tend to gain a bigger passion for that media, your tastes expand because you were willing to download and experience things you wouldn't want to, or couldn't take the risk purchasing. And it's not like all illegal downloaders are greedy people, and when they have money, they will spend it. A bunch of .mp3 files just don't compare to having that crisp limited edition LP from that band you love, while feeling good knowing you supported them.

*Snip*

That was a refreshingly neutral, well thought out and even humorous look into this whole issue.

I would comment further on it, but right now I'm a bit tired of writing . I'll probably get around to it later. But in a nutshell, I agree with most of what you said.

 

[cerebus23]

The whole problem is that games, books, music, movies cost money to make. They are not created out of thin air.

Games in fact can cost in the 10s of millions for a average game, while AAA titles can go in the 100 million range. Same for movies.

Now if everyone pirated everything than nothing would ever get made. Movies would not get made, musicians would not put out records, games would never get worked on or published.

Thing is that people that just dl and dl and never buy anything are more often called leeches in the actual scene than pirates. So there is a slight difference.

Now that is not to blame everying on leeches or pirates, the places where piracy dominates the markets is places where games cost a good chunk of a regions standard of living. These places a game might cost a few months wage, and if it came down to feeding your family or paying full price for a game for an escape from your fairly downtrodden life for a few hours which would you choose?

So in these areas piracy and i mean real piracy is rampant, you can go into many shops and buy games burned to dvd cause most people cannot afford high speed internet and stuff we take for granted. People sell them for a fraction of the cost of what the legit game would cost.

SOme companies have gotten smarter about this and companies like microsoft and blizzard do take into account standard of living on their software and combat piracy to a extent doing that.

But when it ocmes to filesharing and the like well it is a two edged sword. You get the people who will just dl stuff to dl it and never ever think about paying for anything. Then you get the people where if they really like something they will go and buy it.

Then you get the occasional happy story about some small time band or movie getting exposure because of torrents and the like and their album or movies sales go up. One guy that directed some movie actually wrote one torrent site to thank them, since his movie was privately funded and had no distribution, when it started making the rounds on torrent sites he started getting inquires on how to buy his movie. And was more than happy with the exposure that torrents got him and the word of mouth on torrent sites his movie got.

SO if your a small time anything with no name recognition filesharing can be a boon to you rather than a curse if you got something good out there. But if your major publisher or game maker or movie studio filesharing is almost always a curse since they have tons of money to get their product out there and distribute it and every dl is seen as stealing from their bottom line. Where i might argue that is only partially true since its is highly inplausable that everyone that dld something would have bothered to run out and buy it at all ever even if it could not be pirated. But there is no doubt that some of those dls do take from sales.

So the whole area of piracy and such is not strictly black and white there are shades of gray in there, but if your just dling stuff to dl it and you could well afford it if you wanted to then i think you can argue that you are in a morally bad place since you have disposable income you could support the people that make stuff.

 

[The Thief]

I tend to think of what's moral or not in the general sense of "If everyone acted this way how would it affect me." So if everyone pirated software and there was nobody left to pay the developers they couldn't and wouldn't make games, or at least not large budget games.

That's a good start. But realize that obviously the scenario isn't that simple. When you drive your car do you think "Hmm, what if everyone turned left. Man, that'd be terrible, I better keep going straight." The context of the action is a fundamental part of the action. I'm pretty sure, though this is a guess, that people are not 'all pirate' or 'all purchase'. This means it isn't something they just do, but rather a decision they are making. What conditions made them think it was okay to pirate? The question then becomes "If everyone thinks it is okay to pirate under these conditions..." and depending on the conditions might not be so bad. Maybe. Or maybe it just behooves the game company to remove the conditions.

It's rather complicated.

That is correct, which is why I only use that line of thinking in a general sense, and apply it to behaviors like pirating games, rather than a simple action like turning left. There are many scenarios in which an action which is generally thought of as immoral can be considered moral or neutral, but I can't think of any realistic scenario in which pirating a game, which is a luxury not a necessity, would not be considered immoral behavior (The one possible exception being you have already payed for a legal copy of the game you are pirating).

 

[incal11]

Its almost as if the pirates feel a bit shamed of them self's for pirating, so they attempt to make poor excuses to justify their acts and get rid of their guilt.

I'll see my excuses as "poor" when you prove them to be so here. I'd say it to your face, and I'll say it to the judge, I do not feel guilty.
Now, I dare you to come back and prove that my arguments are bad. come on, read my original post... no answer ?
I'm tired of flat brained noobs that can't think beyond the second degree.
You obviously don't value culture very much, you'd rather have your stale repetitive hit musics and madden games. My tastes are more varied, and I won't let culture be reduced to what you like.

The RCMP had a very different opinion when they finally arrived at my door. Took that to wake me up.
Grow up, at least admit you are a crook and then decide if being a crook is worth that song/game/etc.

Fine, I would appreaciate if instead of never answering, like most single track minds do on forums, you would make the effort of explaining what in my OP and in the links I gave is wrong. I am no trying to justify copyright violations, as far as I'm concerned it is already justified, and not even the autorities that might come at my door will change my mind. If they don't give me better arguments than "it's the law". Laws are not absolutes, they are made by human beings who are just as faillible as you.
You apparently think that copyrights are entirely justified, in regard of what I exposed, how are they justified exactly ?

You still raise a point, what differentiate games from services like phone lines ?
I would say that's because there are people who maintain and manage those lines that needs to be paid. Of course devs need to be paid too, and as I keep saying, that is why I do not pirate recent games.
Games that are not on a server are different from services in that there is no need to constantly "repair" them. The internet is a service, but the games travelling on it are more of a commodity.

I can't think of any realistic scenario in which pirating a game, which is a luxury not a necessity, would not be considered immoral behavior (The one possible exception being you have already payed for a legal copy of the game you are pirating).

Have a look at the first link I give in my OP when you have build up the patience, books were also treated as a luxury and still the "immoral behavior" going on in Germany at that time certainly didn't hurt. I ask, how do you explain that ?

if there are any potentially great artists out there they aren't very motivated, and I doubt they would make it far developing games with a lack of motivation.

You are right, there is tons of free material, but you miss that there are also tons of very talented artists thanks to that. There is no reasons it couldn't get even better if we were more free to share. However I do know that things can easily get a lot worse if we let ourselves be restricted by copyrights completely.
The motivation thing is a lie, that's why I urge you to read my first link.

If you're burning a copy of X game for a friend, that is very different from uploading a copy of X game so 200,000 strangers can download it.
Also, concerning long copyrights, I think it's only moral if the creator is no longer profiting from it.

On the last point we agree, but if you are going to share an old game with your friend, why not share it with anyone who might be interested ? It's sure to be good for the authors in some ways.

If you find a game you like, why wouldn't you reward the creators for it? Why would you not encourage them to do better, or do more?

But I do, not only do I prefer to pay for recent games, but I feel obligated to give money to the creators of any games that I think is great. I know I am not the only one or the "damage" caused by piracy would be undeniable

Think about it: We live in a funny world that demands that we make as much economic profit as possible, in every facet of our lives, and then we set rules that ensure that only the wealthy can profit from it (99% of the world's resources and capital is owned by less than half a percent of the world's population).
And yet at the same time, it was those rules that form the basis of our society to begin with (don't kill/steal/cheat, lest you undermine the entire point of social cooperation), and so we are stuck.

...and that's why these rules are amoral, anyone with a shred of independant though should not feel bound by them. At this point it is not social cooperation, but social exploitation, in truth we are stuck only if we believe ourselves to be.

If you copy something that you don't want and the supply is massive then it is worthless economically anyway. However, why the fuck are you downloading something you don't want in the first place

Myself I don't really understand what you're about, if I "pirate" it, it means I want it. data is infinitely duplicable, simple suply and demand logic cannot apply there.

 

[incal11]

Games in fact can cost in the 10s of millions for a average game, while AAA titles can go in the 100 million range. Same for movies.

Blockbusters cost millons too, and come on DVDs much cheaper than games, how is that ?

Now if everyone pirated everything than nothing would ever get made. Movies would not get made, musicians would not put out records, games would never get worked on or published.

Lies, read the first link in my OP.

But when it comes to filesharing and the like well it is a two edged sword. You get the people who will just dl stuff to dl it and never ever think about paying for anything. Then you get the people where if they really like something they will go and buy it.

The people who never pay for anything is a constant, unlike the ones who do pay, those are more likely to pay for something if they are exposed to more things they may like.

Then you get the occasional happy story about some small time band or movie getting exposure because of torrents and the like and their album or movies sales go up.

It's not occasional, many indy studios owe much of their fame to torrents, the impact for bigger studios is just not as visible.

there is no doubt that some of those dls do take from sales.

I have been thinking about that for very long, I have seen all the classic arguments already. You probably seen some too, but instead I am trying to move beyond that.
Of course I feel that "virtual losses" is a lie, you don't think so, and we may never agree.
I try to move beyond that, if Copyrights were made to restrict your cultural horizons, are they always justified? For now I don't question that you should pay for recent games.
Otherwise there is no gray area, it's the copyrights' shadow that makes you believe it's grey.

if your just dling stuff to dl it and you could well afford it if you wanted to then i think you can argue that you are in a morally bad place since you have disposable income you could support the people that make stuff.

That is why I do not feel guilty, I give to those who made a great work.

 

[Kagim]

Blockbusters cost millons too, and come on DVDs much cheaper than games, how is that ?

Movies get back much of its money through advertising both pre and post production. Then theaters who play the movies both have to pay for the movie itself, which is expensive, then pay royalties off every showing. Movies theaters actually lose money of many showings unless the movie is really popular. You ever wonder why a small pop costs five bucks?

By the time a movie hits the shelves even a total flop has broken even in many cases. Video games hit the shelves 10+million in the hole. Very few do ad spots. I have yet to see very many games with ads directly in the game. I know they are out there i just haven't seen them.

Movies sell for a quarter of video games because they don't need to pay back any investors. Games do.

 

[incal11]

1. Reviews, demos, and millions of videos online to show what game is about.

Not as good as playing them yourself though, at least the beginning of the game. Many times I deleted something it didn't like just after starting it. Demos tend to show you something unfinished and incomplete, most recent demos outright try to trick you into buying something that may not be that good.

2. Funny how in a world where gamers expect publishers to take tens of million dollar risks gamers are not willing to take a $60-$100(depending on where you live) risk even when they have almost limitless sources of reference to decide if they like a game.

For most of the world's population you have to understand those prices are still too high.

They have a right to charge money for the products and services they provide.

Personally I do not question that author and services need to be paid. What this thread is really about is how right can copyrights be ? when they have been made for the profits of a few and the detriments of everyone's culture (see first link in my OP).

Publisher put up a lot of money to make said game. You might not be directly causing a loss of money but said avenue (illegal file sharing) is causing a loss. The loss of potential money is still a loss.

In regard of my arguments, is it a loss from something they earned in the first place ? I mean, knowing copyrights are there to make you concentrate on just a few products.

You do not have the right to take what someone else has created for free unless they give permission for you to take said action.

Someone else's work should always be credited, and never used in a way that would be detrimental to it's original author. Beyond that there is a point where it should fall into the public domain and thus be free. That point should not be a minimum of 50 years after the death of the author.

A creator of any work or service has the right to protect said work or service. If i write a novel, film a movie, make a game its my right to decide how to distribute said product. Not some kid in a basement somewhere who thinks they deserve everything for free.

I don't only think I have a right to it, I have reasons to think so, please read my first post.

As well when talking about 'the morality of it' there is none. Its the morale equivalent of taking a object of equal value off a shelf.

Sharing is not stealing, at worst it's never paying for something you liked that is rude.

When indie developers decided to let people choose how much to pay for there games, as low as a penny, and all proceeds would either go to charity or straight to the developer and people STILL ripped it

and the indie developers still made large profits that surprised everyone, we all knew there are some rotten people, and always will be. It remains they made larger profits than expected, and that's the only relevant fact.

So because most people are willing to pay for a game that gives other people the right to get it for free?

For older games at least it should be a right.

That's like the bullshit defense "It's alright to download a game as long as your not interested in it!"

I never said that, though I would say that if you get data that you never used it is just as if you never had it. Maybe there are some who download for downloading's sake, I can't say I approve of that.

Which essentially means FANS and SUPPORTERS who are far more likely to appreciate and enjoy a game deserve it LESS then people who don't give a shit.

I lost you there. Maybe you mean that a true fan pays for what he likes, I never said the contrary, in fact it's what I wish to encourage. If you share something with a million people and if it's actually good, it can only gain support.

 

[incal11]

say what must be said.

XD I apreciate the support, but don't get banned because of me.
Try to tone down your words, outright insults don't work to convince someone, even if you are right.

Movies get back much of its money through advertising both pre and post production. Then theaters who play the movies both have to pay for the movie itself, which is expensive, then pay royalties off every showing. Movies theaters actually lose money of many showings unless the movie is really popular. You ever wonder why a small pop costs five bucks?

That's an illustration of how Hollywood and the theaters are wrong. There was a time where a ticket cost a few cents. How did it change ?
Well, now movie producers and the like need money so they can snort cocaine while surrounded with whores in their gigantic villas.
That's not to say they don't deserve to be rich for bringing entertainment to the masses, but they are clearly being greedy. Don't get me wrong though, I don't pirate recent movies either. The over restrictive copyrights they use is a side of this problem.

Movies sell for a quarter of video games because they don't need to pay back any investors. Games do.

They are doing it wrong, read the first link in my original post.

I think it's preposterous, yet understandable given the societal mindset most of us have grown up in, to think that now that we have the internet, a tool that allows us to distribute art at a scale never before achieved in human history. It can spread faster, to a wider audience, and for an extremely low cost.

Theoretically, with this new technology, with more availability and much cheaper production cost, we should see the market grow rapidly why prices skydive. The problem is, thats not fucking happening, and I think the industry's grasp on copyright law is mostly responsible for this. Instead of being having to adapt and innovate, the industry has pushed for more and more control so they don't have to at the cost of the consumer.

Well, the internet is a tool to distribute not only art but knowledge too, it was originally created for that !
Indeed, the reason changes are not happening very fast is because of the restrictive copyrights being enforced.

What annoys me, more than anything, is not the diverse opinions regarding ownership, public domain, copyright, etc. But rather the people who think it is a simple issue and never try to understand the immense complications.(...)
I think as games become less and less an 'all or nothing' proposition( "You either buy the 60 dollar version or you don't get it legally") it will eventually fade away into the true area of pure stealing. At some point people who just like to take things cuz they don't wanna pay will be the only ones left, and much more easily excised.

That was very interesting, thank you for the input.
When we get right down to it, the option to "pay what you want" some indie studios gave may be the best solution.
That, and mmorpgs that entice you with microtransactions.

 

[The Rockerfly]

If you copy something that you don't want and the supply is massive then it is worthless economically anyway. However, why the fuck are you downloading something you don't want in the first place

Myself I don't really understand what you're about, if I "pirate" it, it means I want it. data is infinitely duplicable, simple suply and demand logic cannot apply there.

No it can, if you download something, you want it. Can anyone supply it? If yes then you're stealing , very simple to me

However economics isn't the best place for morals

 

[incal11]

No it can, if you download something, you want it. Can anyone supply it? If yes then you're stealing , very simple to me
However economics isn't the best place for morals

Because something is amoral we shouldn't even try to question it ?
No, simple economics can't apply, and here wanting it or not isn't the real problem. something that is infinitely duplicable has no unitary value, it's an idea, the rest is just packaging. Economics are not often made by moral people, but if you know they are not why do you feel obliged to bend over so strongly for them ? Because it's the law ?
The law is made by faillible humans like you, and copyrights were literally made, it is a fact, to rip off the likes of you with no consideration for your intellectual development. Had you more education on the matter, your view of the world wouldn't be so simple, in short maybe you were held back by copyrights.
Because they are strong and you're weak ?
Stand up to them, you are not alone, and they can be beaten as they have been beaten before, or we would still be living in a feudal society.
Ideas are to be shared as often as possible for culture to flourish, please do read the first link in my original post for a good example. It would truly be a tragedy if everyone was to give up like you.