Piracy, simply put.

StriderShinryu

New member
Dec 8, 2009
4,987
0
0
BiscuitTrouser said:
Which is why, knowingly or not, in your perfect world you are the only pirate.
Solid points all around, but I'd just like to single this statement out as I feel it deserves extra attention. It's all about numbers and scale in terms of piracy (and, if I do say so myself, used games). If it truly was only one person who pirated stuff then, no, piracy wouldn't have all that large of an impact.. but the fact is, it's not. When there are thousands or tens of thousands or millions of people pirating something, there is an undoubted impact.

Let's take the side of the pirates for a moment and say that only, I don't know, 10% of pirates would have actually bought the item anyway. When you look at that 10% as 10% of a million possible sales, that's 100,000 sales that didn't happen because of piracy. Small issue when taken individually, but quite large when all is considered.
 

RubyT

New member
Sep 3, 2009
372
0
0
BiscuitTrouser said:
I contribute to the economy.
So do I. Again: all my income spent. Really, it's not that difficult.

Jesus we are getting to the point where you just dont even try and argue with my points.
If you think, as a first world citizen, you put into the system as much as you take out, you are seriously naive.

You just want free shit and dont care at all that you give nothing back.
But I do give back. You seem to have a comprehension problem.

I do pay. I help. You do nothing.
I could correct you again, but I'm getting bored. I knew chatbots who paid attention better.

Mr gates knows because of this if i ever obtain a LOT of money ill be under the same rules he is.
And if I make more money, I'll buy more "shit", to speak in words you understand.

Now you are just lying. Dont even bother doing that, it just makes you look silly when i correct you.
You couldn't correct me if I said 1+1=3.

Where did i say you deserve less than me?
In just about every sentence.

Im saying your entitled to the same amount of free stuff as i am. Which is none.
But it's not free. Once you realize that, you'll finally get it.
 

Wintermoot

New member
Aug 20, 2009
6,563
0
0
piracy is breach of copyright not stealing it,s like me making my own wopper after studying a burger king wopper I,m not stealing one simply copying one.
also
most people pirate due to lack of legal source (out of print or region exclusives).
in other words the devs didn't want that money on the product anyway.
 

RubyT

New member
Sep 3, 2009
372
0
0
Mortai Gravesend said:
Not the same incident. He's talking about one where a guy broke the windows of a restaurant with a crowbar, police got called in, guy went outside with the police following him. One policeman tries to use a taser, it fails. He takes a few steps after that, then turns and starts to go towards the policeman with the crowbar kinda ready, other cop shoots him several times. The thread is here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.339667-Poll-Was-this-police-shooting-justified-in-your-opinion-Graphic
Ah. I'm not the biggest fan of the cops myself. After watching the video... gross.

This was the one I was talking about, just saw it on the news recently so I figured it was likely the same.
http://gothamist.com/2011/09/19/queens_woman_on_trial_for_killing_r.php
 

BiscuitTrouser

Elite Member
May 19, 2008
2,860
0
41
RubyT said:
BiscuitTrouser said:
I contribute to the economy.
So do I. Again: all my income spent. Really, it's not that difficult.

Jesus we are getting to the point where you just dont even try and argue with my points.
If you think, as a first world citizen, you put into the system as much as you take out, you are seriously naive.

You just want free shit and dont care at all that you give nothing back.
But I do give back. You seem to have a comprehension problem.

I do pay. I help. You do nothing.
I could correct you again, but I'm getting bored. I knew chatbots who paid attention better.

Mr gates knows because of this if i ever obtain a LOT of money ill be under the same rules he is.
And if I make more money, I'll buy more "shit", to speak in words you understand.

Now you are just lying. Dont even bother doing that, it just makes you look silly when i correct you.
You couldn't correct me if I said 1+1=3.

Where did i say you deserve less than me?
In just about every sentence.

Im saying your entitled to the same amount of free stuff as i am. Which is none.
But it's not free. Once you realize that, you'll finally get it.
Pirated stuff isnt free?! What? If youre paying for pirated stuff youre not pirating.

I stole these glasses but i bought this shirt. But the glasses werent "free" because i paid for the shirt.

Thats the logic i assume youre using?

You dont deserve less than me. Ive NEVER said this. I said you deserve the same as everyone else. You cant just say "always" and call it a day. Quote me. Quote a line where i said "i deserve more things than you" where the context DOESNT mean "Because i can afford them".

But you DONT give back when you pirate. You give back elsewhere. But you dont give back for that insance where you pirate something. If you pirate something nothing is given in return. You say you give back elsewhere but no one else does this. They give back every time. You dont just "sometimes" pay for things and say "im a good person because i pay for things". You pay for ALL the things you get and then you can say you really give back.

Way to ignore my arguements about how me paying for everything is giving back more than you paying for some things. Its not hard.

Lemme change this for you then. You give nothing back in the instances where you pirate

The creator gets NOTHING. You get SOMETHING; you take and give nothing. There.

I just did correct you, you falsly accused me of saying something i just didnt say. I just didnt say those things. Im very confused. Honestly where did i say you are less of a person than me, and deserve less than me in a fair society. Im saying you deserve what you buy and earn. Which i do. If you earn more than me you deserve more than me. Simple.

I might spend all my income and leech from somewhere else. Its good that you spend things, but you cant cancel out wrongs by doing a little right and its not hard to understand that paying for half the things you buy is definately damaging. Yes you buy things. It isnt special. Thats the DEFAULT. The things im talking about are the things you dont pay for. You dont pay for some things. Thats wrong. That damages the economy. ALl your "buying" doesnt excuse it. It doesnt mean you contribute extra special and that makes your taking fine. It means you give less than bare minimum.

Lets ignore the fact you buy washing machines and books and focus on the piracy.

Its not ok to take from the icecream man because you pay the guy down at the chippie.

In the case where you pirate a game you dont give back. Thats the reference i was making when i made these statements.

This isnt even covering the rights of the creator of the work you are taking against their will.

I am paying attention. Not to the cases where you buy, thats not noteworthy. The cases where you pirate are what im paying attention to. And piracy gives nothing back. Thats just true. You are not paying attention to the context of the posts.

If you steal some shirts, no one comments that you paid for the washing machine, you are deemed a leech on society for taking the shirts. It doesnt matter what else you paid for.

freakymojo said:
i mean, if youre entitled to free games surely i am too? and so are all my friends arent they? and my family? and my friends family?

oops the developer went out of buisiness. was a damn good game though.
Nicely said.
 

TheDooD

New member
Dec 23, 2010
812
0
0
Wargamer said:
No, piracy is not stealing. This idea has pissed me off for a loooong time, ever since the DVD manufacturers started that fucking stupid "you wouldn't steal a car!" advert.

No, I wouldn't steal a car, because someone is going to notice their car is missing and REPORT IT AS STOLEN!

No, I wouldn't steal a handbag. Handbags, by and large, belong to people who cannot readily afford to replace its contents and would fuck up their lives.

No, I wouldn't steal a movie; it's rather hard to take something out of a store without getting caught.

But Pirating a movie? Downloading a Digital COPY of a film that was made by a company whose annual profits are more than what most people make in a lifetime, which neither destroys nor removes the original version from which the copy was made? I can do that.

Video Piracy is NOT stealing. Video Piracy is copying, and distributing those copies, without express permission of the copyright holder. If I'm supposed to feel bad about breaking the law, you first have to A) prove what I'm doing is wrong, and B) use the right fucking terminology.



Now the people who claim that Piracy is wrong, answer me this:

Think of a game that is coming out in the future that you want to buy. Would you buy it if it cost you:
A) £60,000
B) Nothing.

In theory, we should have 0% answering 'Yes' to A, and 100% answering 'Yes' to B. Here, then, is where Piracy comes in.

Piracy is NOT "I don't want to pay so I'll steal". Piracy for the most part is "I don't think it is worth paying what they ask, so I'll steal."

How many of you who pirate mainstream games would do so if they were £30 new? How about £20? How about £10 and DRM free? What about £15 and all future DLC was free of charge for the rest of time?

That's how Piracy is fought. It's why iTunes and App stores charge about 70p an item. It's fuck-all money, so we don't really mind spending it. Investing 70p on a whim is easy, but investing £70 is not. Hence, the expensive stuff gets pirated.

In order to stop piracy, or at least curb it, you need to strike the balance. Most people who pirate won't do it if you offer them a fair and reasonable alternative. Major companies don't, by and large, do this.
I agree with this point $50+ isn't really impulse money unless you're buying more then one in my opinion. Investors and idiot businessmen will gripe about lowering prices. Yet it always pays off in the long run. Investors want the higher instant yield yet consumers want an affordable pricing. If they come half way at lease at $25 more people would be willing to spend their money on it.

Kinda with Pizza companies these days are giving out crazy good deals because yes at first it'll seem like they're losing out on money. Yet when you have something that a majority of people has access to they'll get more returning and new buyers because of it. Also fixing the weaknesses in said products to be much better then before is also a plus.
 

freakymojo

New member
Nov 18, 2009
77
0
0
i mean, if youre entitled to free games surely i am too? and so are all my friends arent they? and my family? and my friends family?

oops the developer went out of buisiness. was a damn good game though.
 

Signa

Noisy Lurker
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
4,742
0
41
Country
USA
RubyT said:
Signa said:
if you think that thug didn't deserve to be shot, then you are just completely misinformed about how the world works.
He didn't "deserve" to be shot.

I wouldn't blame the cop for shooting him once. I think the situation could and should have been resolved better. The guy just threatens the other cop, who himself retreats. He did to me not look to be in immediate danger. But the situation could have appeard different live. So I wouldn't blame the cop for one shot.

But he shot him 5 times in 1 second, paused for a beat, the thug turned around, then got shot another 5 times in the back, the last 1 or 2 shots hit him on the ground.

Yeah, I think policemen should be trained to handle a situation like this better than to basically execute a thug, even if that causes risks to themselves.

I usually side with cops, because my brother-in-law is one. There's a lot of "Taser"-vids on youtube and while often it seems quite an overreaction, my sentiment is usually "If the cops engage you - cooperate!"

The first quick notion that popped into my mind when the thug made his move was "Stupid!", but when that cop didn't stop shooting, I couldn't believe it.
You're entitled to your opinion, but let me let you know I have no love for cops and the shit I see them pulling on video. This one is completely a clear-cut case. There may have been less lethal alternatives to the situation, but there always are less lethal options if you get 30 cops to dog-pile a guy with a gun. But I don't think I need to tell you why that is not a real option.

Also, who gives a shit how many times he fired his gun. 1 shot or 100 shots, the thug needed to be stopped, and once the first shot was fired, lethal force was being used and his life was forfeit. If you don't think lethal force is the proper escalation for attacking a cop with a weapon, then you should ask yourself when is a cop supposed to use their firearm? After a blow is landed? It's not like he was using a foam water noodle that kids use for swimming with, it was a fucking crowbar!

Anyway, the reason why I'm derailing your thread about another matter entirely is how much of your argument was based on how piracy doesn't hurt anyone. How can I trust your opinion on this matter if you think that the thug wasn't hurting anyone enough to deserve lethal force? Your sense of what hurts people or not is clearly warped by the information you have presented.
 

AnarchistFish

New member
Jul 25, 2011
1,500
0
0
Mortai Gravesend said:
AnarchistFish said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
AnarchistFish said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
AnarchistFish said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
AnarchistFish said:
I honestly believe that when I pirate, I'm not doing something immoral, at all. Illegal? Sure, yeah, but that doesn't take into account the context.

All piracy has done is allow me to let me listen to as much music as I want, discover new bands that I would never have bothered with otherwise, and let me pick the albums I've then wanted to purchase physically. I haven't spent any less money on music than I would have if I were forced to purchase everything. If anything I've spent more, because this way I'm guaranteed to be contributing to an artist I genuinely like. And trust me, I spend a lot on music.
Oh yes, let's just look at what it's done for you. That's the way to determine whether something is ethical or not.

What's unethical is that you enjoy it for free, when those who own it do not wish to give it away. Doesn't matter how much else you spend on music, that bought you the music you got, not rights to other music.
So who's losing out? Who's directly losing out?
So, who's being resurrected from the dead? Who!?

Or in a more direct way of saying things, now with 100% less sarcasm... I never said anyone was losing out so don't ask me stupid questions. No one needs to lose out for it to be unethical.
I didn't say you said that, but as far as I see it, if the artist isn't actually being negatively affected by me downloading their music, I don't see why it's a problem. Maybe on the face of it it's unethical, but that's an extremely narrow minded way of looking at it.
Oh so you're only looking at benefit. Well that's a very narrow minded way of looking at it.

Oh wait, just saying something is narrow minded doesn't actually show that it is! Do I get a Nobel prize for this stunning discovery? I'll settle for a good argument for how it is narrow minded though instead of your worthless attempt at dismissal.
I've already said. It doesn't take into account the context.
You didn't say that. Look at your posts. Also, just saying "Context" is a horrible argument. Why, in this case, should the context change anything about it? The context doesn't necessarily give a different conclusion. Just saying 'context' is a lazy and unintelligent argument.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.339792-Piracy-simply-put?page=3#13749519
And before you say that legality is different to ethics; you're pretty much deriving that it's unethical from the fact that it's illegal.

I guess the thing here is that I'm taking a utilitarian stance here, and you're not. Nothing can really change that.

On a side note, why are you taking such a self-righteous and superior stance here?
 

Asehujiko

New member
Feb 25, 2008
2,119
0
0
Buretsu said:
Asehujiko said:
ablac said:
How bout this. Defending piracy is incredible arrogance. If everyone pirated games then there would be no games made as there would not be any money to support their development nor would there be any incentive to create them. This is irrefutable.
Argument refuted by the existence of freeware.
Argument refuted by the fact of most freeware being either really old programs or trial versions of programs that have to be paid for.
I can win discussions too by pretending reality contorts itself to fit what I'm trying to say too.
 

RubyT

New member
Sep 3, 2009
372
0
0
BiscuitTrouser said:
I stole these glasses but i bought this shirt. But the glasses werent "free" because i paid for the shirt.
Thats the logic i assume youre using?
Yes. It's different in the world of finite physical things, because there, money is used as a distribution tool. But it applies in the world of virtual goods, where only the original cost money to produce, but each copy is for free.

Quote a line where i said "i deserve more things than you" where the context DOESNT mean "Because i can afford them".
Ah. Suddenly there's context.

But you DONT give back when you pirate. You give back elsewhere.
Exactly.

Way to ignore my arguements about how me paying for everything is giving back more than you paying for some things.
Just like you ignored the argument that I had given all I could.

Lemme change this for you then. You give nothing back in the instances where you pirate The creator gets NOTHING.
But somebody else does.

Im saying you deserve what you buy and earn. Which i do. If you earn more than me you deserve more than me.
Well, in my philosophy, buying is not equal to earning. And earning is not equal to deserving.

You dont pay for some things. Thats wrong. That damages the economy.
No. If I were to take my money away from HP and give it to Valve, the economy would still be the same. THAT IS THE POINT.

It doesnt mean you contribute extra special
I never said that.

This isnt even covering the rights of the creator of the work you are taking against their will.
Frankly, if they don't want their creation consumed, they should not publish it.

And piracy gives nothing back. Thats just true.
Sure. But me not buying AND not pirating isn't giving back anything either.
 

Alterego-X

New member
Nov 22, 2009
611
0
0
Mortai Gravesend said:
The history of it does not invalidate it.
No, but it doesn't validate it either. Just because copyright law exists, that doesn't make it morally desireable. It needs to have a logical basis.

Several times in this thread, you were arguing that copyright infringement is unethical. But if there is no logical basis to justify it's existence, then basically you are just saying that "piracy is bad because it's illegal". That's just an appeal to the status quo, to leave everything as it is, just because it happens to be the current law.

Mortai Gravesend said:
It's just enforcing copyright. That is not an outdated business model in and of itself.
Copyright, as a whole, isn't. For example we can still enforce laws against plagiarism, or against commercially selling someone else's property. But not people downloading media. The problem is, that already a huge percentage of the internet userbase pirates. The idea of continuing to randomly arrest a few average internet users (who did the same thing as several million others like them), to make an example of them, is not just futile, but directly contradicts the Rule of Law maxim, that means:

...all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards. It requires, as well, measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
You can't arrest the entire world just to enforce copyright laws.

Multiple developed countries already declared that downloading copies of IP for personal use, is legal there. And nothing happened. Certain industry segments might have shown some arguable decrease there, but generally, media continued to be sustainable without insisting on extending copyright laws to what we now know as piracy, and easily get rid of that awful conflict in the legal system.
 

Uber Waddles

New member
May 13, 2010
544
0
0
Mortai Gravesend said:
Uber Waddles said:
Do I think charging $40 for a re-release of a game over a decade old is too much? I certainly do.
How would this be justification to pirate it instead of just doing without it?

Do I think you are justified to torrent a game if its DRM is holding it back, and a group of modders have removed it from the equation? I certainly do.
Are you at least expecting them to buy a regular copy? DRM isn't justification to get it for free.
To answer your first question, business integrity. Lets take the original Sonic. In its un-modified form, it can cost anywhere between $5-15. For a game thats over two decades old.

Alternatively, you can find an emulator and a ROM, and just go to town.

I used to be against such an idea, but really, I don't see why. Why should I be guilted into buying a game at an unreasonable price point, just because the developer thought "I would like to milk this cow again". This is done in increasing numbers in the industry, titles are being re-published for second, third, even fourth and greater helpings of profits, without ANY additional content being added. Thats a bit unreasonable to me, and shows no integrity on the developers part. As to your stance on "just dont play it", everything media related is something used for entertainment. Which boils down to the idea of "because I want to". Sounds like a bit of a childish arguement to make, but thats what it boils down to in the entertainment industry. So I don't think its unreasonable for a person to say "I want it, your asking too much for it, I'll find it elsewhere.". The beauty is too that with piracy, your not stealing it. Im not removing a copy from inventory that wasn't payed for. The only damage its doing is hypothetical.

As for the DRM issue, refer to the block of text above. Integrity. Ill use Assassins Creed 2 as an example. Remember when it had that DRM that forced you to be online to use it? I see no problem in pirating it, if you bought a copy or not. If you bought a copy, you are entitled to download one with the DRM stripped out of it. So go for it.

If you didn't, its a customer service issue. More of a "I will not support a company who employs this" kinda thing. Once again, one could simply go without it. I see no problem with the "I want it, your being unreasonable" arguement.

I have never pirated a game, like I said in my previous post. The only one I considered doing it for was Kingdom Hearts 2: Final Mix. I owned both the games it came with, they just had extras, and it is a region locked game - you can only get it in Japan. I payed for that game, I dont see why I should be excluded when the developer said "we want to milk more money from you, but wont release it over-seas". I would have gladly payed for it too.

To me, its all a customer service issue. The only reason I wanted to pirate that game was because I wanted it and it was unavailable to me. I would have gladly bought it full price, but it was not offered to me. And I look at piracy like that: I never bought AC2 for the PC because I perfer those types of games on the console, and had it on the console. If it didnt have that unreasonable DRM, and no Xbox, I would have purchased it. If I had the cash, but they used that ridiculous DRM crap, I would not buy it, but instead take it. I want it, I had the INTENT to buy it, but buying it was unreasonable. So I didnt.

Essentially, I judge the merits of pirates on their original intent, not their action. If I had the INTENT to spend the money, but the company was being unreasonable for whatever reason, I have no quarrels taking the content digitally. Like Ive said, its not stealing (in any sence of the word; legally, morally, physically), its down to copyrights.
 

ElPatron

New member
Jul 18, 2011
2,130
0
0
Erana said:
BrassButtons said:
RubyT said:
Piracy's not stealing, because nothing is taken.
You're right, it's not stealing. It's copyright infringement.
Which is illegal, just like Stealing.
So is murder.

Am I murderer for pirating? (hypothetical, I don't have the nerve to state I never committed copyright infringements like everyone else on the Escapist - because I sure did commit a lot of them back when we had music and VHS tapes)

Copyright infringement is not stealing, otherwise both would be the same crime and have the same sentences.

When you were a kid you noticed the fine print in the cover of your favourite album?

If you borrowed or lent someone a tap/CD/VHS you were committing copyright infringement. If you let your friends watch that film during a sleepover, you have committed copyright infringement.

Now, according to your logic you have been stealing.

Get off your moral high horse so I can steal it.
 

spectrenihlus

New member
Feb 4, 2010
1,918
0
0
Mortai Gravesend said:
spectrenihlus said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Uber Waddles said:
Do I think charging $40 for a re-release of a game over a decade old is too much? I certainly do.
How would this be justification to pirate it instead of just doing without it?

Do I think you are justified to torrent a game if its DRM is holding it back, and a group of modders have removed it from the equation? I certainly do.
Are you at least expecting them to buy a regular copy? DRM isn't justification to get it for free.
What difference is it to the publisher if you pirated something vs not downloading it at all. They don't get payed either way.
And? They'd rather you don't do it and it is their intellectual property.

A lot of publishers Are living in and old model. If they truly wished fight piracy they would stop selling all brand new games at $60.
If you truly wished to be taken seriously you wouldn't make such a stupid statement. They do want to fight it. Saying their methods are ineffective says nothing about motive.

Take for example a game of thrones I literally called up a hbo to find some way just to watch this show without buying all of hbo. I DON'T HAVE THAT OPTION I can only watch a game of thrones if I subscribe to hbo. This is unacceptable, I wish to pay for a product and I am unable to.
It's only unacceptable if you feel that you're entitled to it. But since you're not, it isn't unacceptable.
No I am not entitled to it however, the reason HBO developed the show was to create a profit. I offered to pay just to watch that show as I did not want to watch any of their other shows. Why do you think netflix is so popular, I can choose to watch a show that I want when I want for a VERY low monthly fee compared to satellite and cable. THAT is the future and if the publishers cannt change their system then they die simply put. What pirates are offering is a superior product simply put.