Piracy is harmless?

[RandyPants]

I pirate stuff as a try before you buy - like I pirate a game, see if it's good (PC, obvs) and then buy it to enjoy fully.
And if I love a band, I pay them their dues by buying their CDs.
Movies too - I download them to see whether they're worth buying in DVD form for my library. xD
And I do pirate TV shows - since I can't afford boxsets of all them yet.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

I agree, piracy isn't exactly the same as stealing, but that doesn't make it right. And a lot of people don't buy the game to make a copy of it, they just download from torrent sites. You can't get away from the fact that you've acquired something without paying for it. No matter if it's a physical object or not, it's a type of stealing.

No, it's not even a type of stealing. It's copyright infringement. You're not stealing the game, you're either denying the publisher money by not buying it or you're not denying anything since you wouldn't have bought the game in the first place.

Publishers so aggressively pursue copy protection programs because they believe once piracy is not an option all of those potential buyers will giddy up and buy the game from a store. This is a tricky slope as you can either increase your profits or decrease them due to spending to much money on DRM. You can never be sure if pirates will actually go out and buy the game once piracy is not an option which is why DRM is such a risky business and which is also why piracy is blown way out of proportions.

 

[secretsantaone]

This has always been the criteria for stealing! At the end of the day, you're trying to justify an illegal act.

Stealing from a store: Going in the store and depriving the owner of goods.
"Stealing" in terms of piracy: Buying something as to make a copy and distribute it around the internet.

Look at it this way. Is it theft if I use an apple I bought from a store to start my own orchad and distribute the goods to everyone for free?

I agree, piracy isn't exactly the same as stealing, but that doesn't make it right. And a lot of people don't buy the game to make a copy of it, they just download from torrent sites. You can't get away from the fact that you've acquired something without paying for it. No matter if it's a physical object or not, it's a type of stealing.

Still not even a type of stealing I'm afraid. Two different concepts.

Every pirate I know buys a metric ton of games. They simply pirate the games they have a vague interest in but weren't prepared to spend money on. I recently bought DMC 3 on the recommendation of a friend who had pirated it, technically it's created one sale from a scenario where neither of us would buy it.

 

[Geekosaurus]

No, it's not even a type of stealing. It's copyright infringement. You're not stealing the game, you're either denying the publisher money by not buying it or you're not denying anything since you wouldn't have bought the game in the first place.

'I wouldn't have bought it anyway' is a BS excuse. You are illegally acquiring a product that isn't yours. It doesn't matter what you call it, you cannot justify it.

 

[JaymesFogarty]

Firstly, the whole is piracy = theft argument is wrong.

"Theft (noun): the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another."

You are required to pay for it and you didn't. It's theft.

Nope.

Theft, as you've so kindly defined, is 'the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another'.

With piracy, you are not taking and carrying away anything physical. You are not stealing a physical copy of the game from a shop. You are making a virtual copy of it.

If you'd have stolen the game, the developers would lose the cost of creating the disk, packaging ect.

With piracy, it doesn't technically cost the developer any money but the cost of the hypothetical sale, which may or may not have taken place.

Theft is theft.
Piracy is piracy.

I do apologise, but I must butt in here to disagree. When you pirate a game, you are taking the data, and the experience that the game brings, without paying for it. Essentially, it does not matter that the game has not been physically taken; it matters that you have experienced it without giving any money to the developers or the publishers of that game. It's the equivalent of standing in the back of the cinema without buying a ticket, or sneaking into a gig. You're technically not stealing; but you're not paying for the experience it offers.
I'm not going to lie to you or myself; pirates do sometimes decide to pay for the product that they have pirated. But that doesn't excuse the pain developers have trying to make a living, when so many pirates take the experience, and move on. One of my friends used to be a developer in a low-key Indie Team. He's not now though, as he just couldn't make any money. I don't think I need to go into how many sites I've seen, where you can download his game now without paying for it. He's out of a job; and as a result, I have little sympathy for pirates.

 

[Lucane]

piracy may not hurt the big corporations but they hurt the little guys. if a band like motion city soundtrack has 20% of their audience steal their tracks its no big deal but when a small, local band has their music ripped that 20% is the difference between getting new recording system and just getting a new mic. for small time publishers of video games, music, and other media sources piracy is a huge problem and if the stigma against piracy wasnt in place a large number of teenagers and young adults (a large section of medias audience) will steal these things. just think about it, if you have the means to get something free and without leaving your own home why wouldnt you? dont get me wrong, i do my fair share of downloading but whe it comes to indie band/ video games i try and fork out the cash. i may be hypocritical by telling people not to steal while admitting to do it myself but i just think the main victims are the little guys and if we dont support them we are going to be stuck with the same people with their non-innovative ideas for a long time. do you really want to be playing another CoD game while listening to some generic music the rest of your life? we have to support the little guys, for the sake of innovation and creativity

So do you stop monetarily supporting Indie bands when they get less innovative or become more mainstream and consider piracy more acceptable for them then? Everyone started small at one point the Big shots are either better or got started/noticed sooner.

I'm not trying to nail you for being a hypocrite but this is a key flaw in the logic.

 

[Ickorus]

I only really condone piracy when the people that do it intend to try it out and then buy it if they like it.

Also I condone it with music because once you have bought something I think you should have the right to listen to it whenever you want.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

No, it's not even a type of stealing. It's copyright infringement. You're not stealing the game, you're either denying the publisher money by not buying it or you're not denying anything since you wouldn't have bought the game in the first place.

'I wouldn't have bought it anyway' is a BS excuse. You are illegally acquiring a product that isn't yours. It doesn't matter what you call it, you cannot justify it.

I already replied to that. Here's that comment again:
"Publishers so aggressively pursue copy protection programs because they believe once piracy is not an option all of those potential buyers will giddy up and buy the game from a store. This is a tricky slope as you can either increase your profits or decrease them due to spending to much money on DRM. You can never be sure if pirates will actually go out and buy the game once piracy is not an option which is why DRM is such a risky business and which is also why piracy is blown way out of proportions."

To assume that by getting rid of piracy everything will suddenly be "way better" is absolute bull. Like I've said before, pirates pirate for a reason. Most of the times it's the lack of funds. If you actually believe anything will change if piracy didn't exist then you are truly naive.

You also failed to answer my question. Is it theft if I use the seeds of an apple that I bought from a store to create an orchad and share the fruits for free with everyone else? Should it be illegal for me to grow my own orchad and share the fruits for free with everyone?

Snip

Then change the definition of theft. Theft is the act of PHYSICALLY taking an object away from someone without their permission. Piracy is BUYING a virtual object and then copying it. You're not stealing, you're simply sharing. If you state that sharing virtual goods should be illegal then you HAVE to state that any sort of sharing should be illegal due to costing the original developer money.

Anything that does not make a profit but is similar to what someone else is selling SHOULD, following your logic, be illegal. SHARING, by definition, should be made illegal if we follow your logic.

 

[burningdragoon]

You also failed to answer my question. Is it theft if I use the seeds of an apple that I bought from a store to create an orchad and share the fruits for free with everyone else? Should it be illegal for me to grow my own orchad and share the fruits for free with everyone?

The problem with that comparison is that food is a necessity and games are a luxury. But if you were to take your generous act of giving away free food, and purposely set up shop right next to say, someone who was selling food as a way to make a living, then it would be kind of "wrong" yes. But that's not what you were saying anyway, just trying to give a (bad) example as how giving away apples would be "wrong".

[hr]

As for my personal opinion on piracy in general:

No it's not harmless. It may not seem to be directly harming people but it is.

Yes, in some cases, piracy can be "good". As in it can end up with people buying it for whatever reason.

Pirating because you can't afford to buy all the games you want should mean you suck it up and not play it. It's a dumb excuse, especially for a luxury, because that's what all hobbies are.

I forget who said it, but someone commented on someone else's example of pirating only hurting the stores because the developers already get paid. If a game flops, the chances of the developer's next game even existing are smaller.EDIT: Which is said much better here (and right below)

You just reinforced what I've said. The store is losing money, not the developer. The developer was already paid for the 15 copies.

What happens if the game flops and the store can't sell its 15 copies? The same thing that happens when people pirate instead of buying; The store loses the money it paid for its copies and doesn't order more.

Either way, the developer isn't losing money, the store is.

I'm not saying that the store losing money is better than the developer losing money. I'm just trying to make people understand that the "piracy hurts the developer" argument isn't true.

As I've said before; Piracy isn't even denting the profit developers are making. They're lying about their numbers to gain sympathy for their cause. You can't measure what piracy does to a developer.

But the store doesn't buy more copies from the developer due to piracy. Yes, the store loses money because they didn't sell out, but the developer loses money too because they can't sell more copies to the store.

Other thoughts I don't feel like sharing at the moment. I've partook in music-related file sharing and snes rom downloading, but that's somewhat besides the point.

Disclaimer: All things said here are based on nothing than what comes from my head, which may or may not be influenced by facts.

 

[Colonel Alzheimer's]

Also, the argument that developers lose money from piracy is ridiculous. Companies such as Gamestop, Wal-mart, Best Buy, or whoever stocks these games, have bought them from the developers. Any sale after that goes to the store you bought it from, not to the developers. The development company has already been paid for each copy out on the shelf.

What you're hurting is the store that carries the games. They have purchased the games and raised them to the high prices we all hate(they have to profit from the sale. If they sold them for what they bought them for, they would just break even).

Uhh, this is completely wrong. Here's the scenario without piracy
Store A buys 15 copies of Game A from Developer A. Store A sells out of copies. Store A then buys more copies of Game A from Developer A.
If the game gets pirated, this is the scenario:
Store A buys 15 copies of Game A from Developer A. Store does not sell out of copies due to piracy. Store A does not buy more copies of Game A from developer A.
See the difference?

You just reinforced what I've said. The store is losing money, not the developer. The developer was already paid for the 15 copies.

What happens if the game flops and the store can't sell its 15 copies? The same thing that happens when people pirate instead of buying; The store loses the money it paid for its copies and doesn't order more.

Either way, the developer isn't losing money, the store is.

I'm not saying that the store losing money is better than the developer losing money. I'm just trying to make people understand that the "piracy hurts the developer" argument isn't true.

As I've said before; Piracy isn't even denting the profit developers are making. They're lying about their numbers to gain sympathy for their cause. You can't measure what piracy does to a developer.

But the store doesn't buy more copies from the developer due to piracy. Yes, the store loses money because they didn't sell out, but the developer loses money too because they can't sell more copies to the store.

 

[-Samurai-]

But the store doesn't buy more copies from the developer due to piracy. Yes, the store loses money because they didn't sell out, but the developer loses money too because they can't sell more copies to the store.

Then they're not losing money, they're just not gaining more.

Losing money would imply that they had it, but spent it and didn't make it back. In this case, they never had the money. You can't lose what you don't have.

 

[Geekosaurus]

You also failed to answer my question. Is it theft if I use the seeds of an apple that I bought from a store to create an orchad and share the fruits for free with everyone else? Should it be illegal for me to grow my own orchad and share the fruits for free with everyone?

This doesn't work though, because you haven't bought anything. Unless you're saying that you are just benefiting from the additional 'apples' form the orchard.

Besides, you are still dodging blatant facts: you're justifying committing a crime. You're fully aware that what you're doing is financially and morally wrong yet you're still twisting theories to justify your actions.

Somebody, somewhere down the line is losing out because you're committing a crime. That's all there is to it.

 

[Geekosaurus]

In this case, they never had the money. You can't lose what you don't have.

And what is the reason for them not having the money? Because you didn't give them the money. If you didn't give them the money then you shouldn't be allowed to play the game.

Essentially you are in debt to them because you have failed to pay. Therefore, they have lost money.

 

[-Samurai-]

In this case, they never had the money. You can't lose what you don't have.

And what is the reason for them not having the money? Because you didn't give them the money. If you didn't give them the money then you shouldn't be allowed to play the game.

Essentially you are in debt to them because you have failed to pay. Therefore, they have lost money.

They don't have it because people don't just hand it to them for nothing. Simply put; They don't have it because they don't have it. It isn't really that difficult to understand.

Of course I don't give them money. The same way you don't give them money. No one just hands their money over to them. That would be stupid. We pay the store for our games.

If a store sells out of a game and decides not to order more, is the developer losing money? No.
If a game doesn't sell and the store can't get rid of the copies they have, is the developer losing money? No.

The store paid for the copies, the developer was already paid. They don't lose anything. They just don't gain more.

It's exactly as I said; You can't lose what you never had.

Honestly I'm getting sick of going in circles like this.

We've already established that developers aren't losing out, stores are(which isn't better, but it isn't worse). We've established that piracy isn't theft, it's copyright infringement.

The only thing anyone can do is state wether or not they morally object to it, which has been done. So, let's leave it there.

Since you're so big on anti-piracy, it's safe to assume you that paid George Lucas for that avatar? The Stormtrooper is copyrighted. Unless you've paid for it, you pirated it. By your logic, that means LucasArts is losing money because of it. Piracy isn't just video games, music, and movies. It's pictures too.

 

[Geekosaurus]

In this case, they never had the money. You can't lose what you don't have.

And what is the reason for them not having the money? Because you didn't give them the money. If you didn't give them the money then you shouldn't be allowed to play the game.

Essentially you are in debt to them because you have failed to pay. Therefore, they have lost money.

They don't have it because people don't just hand it to them for nothing. Simply put; They don't have it because they don't have it. It isn't really that difficult to understand.

Of course I don't give them money. The same way you don't give them money. No one just hands their money over to them. That would be stupid. We pay the store for our games.

If a store sells out of a game and decides not to order more, is the developer losing money? No.
If a game doesn't sell and the store can't get rid of the copies they have, is the developer losing money? No.

The store paid for the copies, the developer was already paid. They don't lose anything. They just don't gain more.

It's exactly as I said; You can't lose what you never had.

Honestly I'm getting sick of going in circles like this.

We've already established that developers aren't losing out, stores are(which isn't better, but it isn't worse). We've established that piracy isn't theft, it's copyright infringement.

The only thing anyone can do is state wether or not they morally object to it, which has been done. So, let's leave it there.

Since you're so big on anti-piracy, it's safe to assume you that paid George Lucas for that avatar? The Stormtrooper is copyrighted. Unless you've paid for it, you pirated it. By your logic, that means LucasArts is losing money because of it. Piracy isn't just video games, music, and movies. It's pictures too.

I never ever stated that piracy takes money from developers or publishers. Just because it takes money from shops doesn't make it right.

And you can lose money you don't have, because you owe them. You are in debt to them. If you do not pay your debt then the person you owe has lost out.

It's not a case of 'losing something you don't have', it's 'losing something they should have'.

 

[-Samurai-]

I never ever stated that piracy takes money from developers or publishers. Just because it takes money from shops doesn't make it right.

And you can lose money you don't have, because you owe them. You are in debt to them. If you do not pay your debt then the person you owe has lost out.

It's not a case of 'losing something you don't have', it's 'losing something they should have'.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I'm not going over this over and over.

Though I am curious as to why you dodged the paragraph about your avatar.

 

[Terramax]

Except the part where you miss the fact that when watching something on TV you don't only pay your cable bill, but also get to watch advertisements, which in world of commercial televisions are form of payment. With public TV stations you usually pay some additional fee too, and those money are supposed to be used for further production. Also any broadcaster has to buy quite expensive rights for public display of given movie, limited in number of times they can play it.
Your broadband bill goes only for providing you access to internet, nothing more and ISP doesn't pay any share of this to game developers.

That's the fault of the entertainment industry for not capitalising on the internet, and fighting their potential customers than working with them.

You snooze, you lose.

 

[Keava]

That's the fault of the entertainment industry for not capitalising on the internet, and fighting their potential customers than working with them.

You snooze, you lose.

So you're saying that piracy would justify something like ten times more expensive internet access costs so ISP's could buy the rights for sharing the games? And what if some of them wouldn't do it? Would they be blocked by telecommunication companies from the cables? Should Telia block internet in whole Europe ?

Or maybe you would rather have to be forced by your ISP to watch 5 minute long commercials every 25 minutes you are connected to net?

Long before broadband there was piracy already. You could buy copied CDs, diskettes, tapes or cartridges of pretty much everything from shady guys on the streets. Seizing the internet would not solve the issue at all, would just make it slightly more expensive for pirates but in the age where every DVD drive has a writer option i doubt the cost of 3-5 $ would really be a factor stopping people from buying illegal copies.

 

[Geekosaurus]

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I'm not going over this over and over.

Though I am curious as to why you dodged the paragraph about your avatar.

Because image copyright is completely different to piracy. Not to mention it was immature and was only used to create further argument.

We will have to disagree. I'm just glad I'm on the right side of the law.

 

[secretsantaone]

Firstly, the whole is piracy = theft argument is wrong.

"Theft (noun): the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another."

You are required to pay for it and you didn't. It's theft.

Nope.

Theft, as you've so kindly defined, is 'the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another'.

With piracy, you are not taking and carrying away anything physical. You are not stealing a physical copy of the game from a shop. You are making a virtual copy of it.

If you'd have stolen the game, the developers would lose the cost of creating the disk, packaging ect.

With piracy, it doesn't technically cost the developer any money but the cost of the hypothetical sale, which may or may not have taken place.

Theft is theft.
Piracy is piracy.

I do apologise, but I must butt in here to disagree. When you pirate a game, you are taking the data, and the experience that the game brings, without paying for it. Essentially, it does not matter that the game has not been physically taken; it matters that you have experienced it without giving any money to the developers or the publishers of that game. It's the equivalent of standing in the back of the cinema without buying a ticket, or sneaking into a gig. You're technically not stealing; but you're not paying for the experience it offers.
I'm not going to lie to you or myself; pirates do sometimes decide to pay for the product that they have pirated. But that doesn't excuse the pain developers have trying to make a living, when so many pirates take the experience, and move on. One of my friends used to be a developer in a low-key Indie Team. He's not now though, as he just couldn't make any money. I don't think I need to go into how many sites I've seen, where you can download his game now without paying for it. He's out of a job; and as a result, I have little sympathy for pirates.

How many people do you think would have actually bought his game if piracy wasn't an option?