Piracy, simply put.

[CrazyMedic]

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.

finally someone reasonable I for the most part think most pirates are self entitled tw*ts but I agree with you which is why every developer should have a donate button on the page, like my friend who pirated assassins creed 2, brotherhood, and revelation made sure to buy amount of ubisoft games new(or off steam) up to the amount each game was worth, I almost don't even consider that piracy I think that is more akin to jailbreaking an Iphone, I also would have no problem with piracy if it was something the ARTIST(not publishing company or MPAA) says it is ok to pirate for what ever reason, I am too lazy to pull up examples but it has happened, I think Elvis Costello said something along those lines with a new box set that was coming out.

 

[Random Fella]

So many replies to a trolling thread
I mean seriously? Common, you've got to know this is a troll right?
Damn I'm just adding to the replies D:

Such a ridiculous attitude to take. How is he trolling? How is actually engaging your brain and thinking about the problem trolling? or are you another one of these people who cannot possibly imagine that piracy isn't all bad?

Did you... See what he wrote?
Seriously I can tell one when I see one, the problem is sometimes trolls aren't in your face about it, but do it sneakily and laugh at you respond.
He was comparing piracy to buying a game at a cheaper date, common, how can you even think that's related to piracy?
You sir should learn more about trolls. Of course I can imagine piracy is this bad, I'm not a big game pirate as I mostly play console, but I can understand the damage it has upon small business that release pc generated games especially.

 

[Alterego-X]

He was comparing piracy to buying a game at a cheaper date, common, how can you even think that's related to piracy?

Buying older, cheaper games causes harm to developers, by giving them less profit than if buying the game when it is new. The only difference between it and piracy, is that it is legal.

That argument is a good starting point for how "it means not giving money to publishers" doesn't inherently prove that something is immoral, as long as you are eventually willing to support the industry.

 

[Random Fella]

He was comparing piracy to buying a game at a cheaper date, common, how can you even think that's related to piracy?

Buying older, cheaper games causes harm to developers, by giving them less profit than if buying the game when it is new. The only difference between it and piracy, is that it is legal.

That argument is a good starting point for how "it means not giving money to publishers" doesn't inherently prove that something is immoral, as long as you are eventually willing to support the industry.

It's not piracy it's not like you're spendi...
Nope, nope i'm not going to get trolled today good sir
But I do commend you on your skill, 9 pages of replies is a good troll by my standards.

 

[Alterego-X]

He was comparing piracy to buying a game at a cheaper date, common, how can you even think that's related to piracy?

Buying older, cheaper games causes harm to developers, by giving them less profit than if buying the game when it is new. The only difference between it and piracy, is that it is legal.

That argument is a good starting point for how "it means not giving money to publishers" doesn't inherently prove that something is immoral, as long as you are eventually willing to support the industry.

It's not piracy it's not like you're spendi...
Nope, nope i'm not going to get trolled today good sir
But I do commend you on your skill, 9 pages of replies is a good troll by my standards.

It's plain ignorance to pretend that popular arguments in favor of piracy and/or copyright liberalization don't exist. If you assume that everyone with an opinion radically different from yours is a troll, you might feel comfortable in your knowledge that you are not getting trolled, but you risk that your viewpoint is getting warped.

 

[b3nn3tt]

my friend who pirated assassins creed 2, brotherhood, and revelation made sure to buy amount of ubisoft games new(or off steam) up to the amount each game was worth, I almost don't even consider that piracy I think that is more akin to jailbreaking an Iphone.

So you don't consider it piracy that your friend got two games for the price of every one game he bought? I'm afraid I don't understand the logic there at all.

OT: I'm aware that I'm very late to this thread and most of what I'll say has already been said, but it still bears repeating. One thing I do find interesting is that the main focus of the piracy argument has shifted to whether or not piracy is theft, which seems a bit tangential from the actual crux of the argument. To quickly address that; no, piracy does not fit the legal definition of theft. However, people who pirate are gaining access to something for free which they ought pay money for. Many people consider this to be theft, hence confusion. Personally, I sit in the latter camp; I am aware that piracy is not theft by a legal definition, but I use the term stealing to mean 'obtaining something for free which ought be paid for.'

I will preface this next bit with the caveat that I consider piracy a black and white issue, with the exception that I see one grey area: if there is literally no way for you to legally obtain something where you live, I wouldn't have a problem with you pirating it. Any situation other than that, though, and I remain unconvinced that you have any grounds in which to argue that you are justified in what you have done.

Apart from the exception noted above, I have yet to hear a single argument that has convinced me that anyone is entitled to pirate something. I think that all of the arguments that I have heard ('I wouldn't have bought it anyway', 'I couldn't afford it', 'I'm pirating it in protest') are ridiculous. I'm not going to try and argue that every instance of pirating is a lost sale, because I have absolutely no evidence that could back up that claim, but the way I see it is if you wouldn't have bought it then why are you playing it? You obviously attribute some value to the experience, or else you would have no interest in playing it. Maybe you disagree that it is worth the same value as the publishers think, but that in no way means that you should just get it for free. Same goes for if you can't afford it; games are a luxury, not a right, if you can't afford it you don't get it.

I feel that I've gone on for far longer than I intended to with this reply. So I will end it there. Before anyone quotes me to tell me how wrong I am, I appreciate that there are many different views on piracy and that many people will disagree with my view. I just simply cannot understand the idea that someone can feel entitled to something that other people have created and have asked for money for, for free. If someone can actually explain that mindset to me, I'm all ears.

 

[Khada]

The entire monetary system is inherently flawed.

 

[Red Is Dead]

Long time lurker here. Just registered to say this:

I'll stop downloading games when publishers will remember that demos are a great promotional tool. No, I'm not going to buy a car without giving it a test run first. Same with a game. Demos allow me to make my own idea of the gameplay - It also allows me to guesstimate how long it'll take me to finish the game, and judge how much I'm willing to spend on the product. - I'm not going to spend 60 euros on a 4h long game.

If there's no demo, i'm going to pirate your game. If it's good, i'll buy it. This is non negotiable. Before you tell me about reviews, I'll just point you towards metacritic and laugh.

Obviously, if the game is shitty, i'm not going to keep playing.

I buy games. I've bought quite a lot of games, actually, and will probably buy even more games in the future. I have 200+ games in my Steam library. I also own quite a lot of DVD boxes and even some direct download stuff. I have a current backlog of 20+ games I need to play, because of the goddamn steam winter sales and the HIB/RIB. I just don't feel like being shafted by shoddy publishers who couldn't care less about my experience but oh god do they want my money so much.

People who look for reviews don't go for the abyss that is metacritic, and you know that. You shouldn't use the weakest example of a source for reviews in order to condemn reviews as a whole.

While pirating for a demo is reasonable, how far in the game will you get before you decide that it isn't for you? What if it's a game that you're on the fence about? If you experience a third of the game's content before deciding you don't like it, does that still make it a demo?

You usually get a good idea of a game's gameplay after one or two hours (depending on the amount of unskippable cinematics - aaargh) on them. Running through the tutorial (if there's one available) is also generally enough. That's usually when I decide "hey, i'm willing to spend X euros on that." If the game's more expensive than that, i'll throw in my wish list and wait for it to get either on a sale or a price drop. I only recently bought Tropico 3 - and wouldn't own 4 if it wasn't for the -75% it got during the steam winter sales.

 

[Alterego-X]

I am aware that piracy is not theft by a legal definition, but I use the term stealing to mean 'obtaining something for free which ought be paid for.'

Before anyone quotes me to tell me how wrong I am, I appreciate that there are many different views on piracy and that many people will disagree with my view. I just simply cannot understand the idea that someone can feel entitled to something that other people have created and have asked for money for, for free. If someone can actually explain that mindset to me, I'm all ears.

My personal stance on this, is that what "ought to be" payed for, is ultimately a lot more subjective than most people would think, and their stance is pretty much based on "whatever happens to be legal right now", but that is simply based on how the history of copyright happened to turn out.

What if a game creator wishes to get money for screenshots made in the game? They can't do it, because it is Fair Use. Or if a TV broadcaster wishes to stop you from making VHS records, they can't do that. And most people are OK with that, or even want to further limit the IP owner rights, such as decreasing the public domain time limit.

I don't think that the idea of respecting creators' wishes not to copy is particularly *wrong*, it's just not a very objective stance.

People who want to limit IP owner rights rarely want to *completely* deprive them off ALL rights, just the specific right to limit the making of copies.

And people who want to protect artist rights, rarely want to empower IP owners to do literally anything with their IP, (like banning fair use, or not allowing it to move into public domain), just keep the specific right of limiting copies.

In a sense, it's similar to abortion debates, where each side compares the other to murder and slavery, while they are arguing about setting an arbitary and subjective line at a slightly different place, based on their personal ideological leanings.

 

[Red Is Dead]

[...]
If there's no demo, i'm going to pirate your game. If it's good, i'll buy it. This is non negotiable. Before you tell me about reviews, I'll just point you towards metacritic and laugh.

Obviously, if the game is shitty, i'm not going to keep playing.[...]

Would you buy a kitchen appliance without "test-driving" it? They can often cost more than videogames, after all, and you're likely to use your appliance farm more than 4hrs.

The proper response to a lack of demo is to not attempt to play a game that doesn't have a demo. The ideal response is to tell the publisher this.

Here's a hint: There are various ways developers track piracy. One of which is simply by counting downloads through the torrent sites. When you pirate a game, that download metric effectively tells some bean-counter up in the office that people like this type of game, but extra security software needs to be put up to keep cheap-o pirates from downloading it. They can't tell that you didn't like it, and that you deleted it 10 minutes after you got it. They just see that whatever they put out there was enough to get your interest in it.

So if you want games with demos, DON'T PIRATE OR BUY GAMES WITHOUT DEMOS.

That's the only way the message will ever get through to the beancounters, which is the only way that developers will be given the time to create a demo for the product.

I would love to test kitchen appliances before buying them too, but there's no real way to do that. Since I can't break in a store to steal one and return it if it doesn't fit my needs, and get away with it (which is the important part, really) - well, i'm SOL.

I'm fully aware that piracy isn't helping the gaming industry at all, and I fully understand why they're trying to get rid of it.

As for review, I pointed at Metacritic because it represents some of my problem with review sites. They're usually plastered with game company ads - which makes me wonder about their integrity -, but the real problem is that they're generally not in depth enough, and usually only reflects the opinion of the reviewer. They would often quickly go over flaws like inability to change controls or not simply never mention it.

I made the mistake to buy Assassin's creed without trying the demo before, based on some of the raving reviews it got. The control scheme sucks ass and I didn't get through half of the game. Fool me once... Some games like Skyrim get raving reviews from EVERYONE where the bugs and flaws are barely mentionned in a one line sentence in 15 pages reviews with 14 pages of the same screenshots handpicked by Bethesda.

So yes, review sites are good to get a general idea of a game, but I personally need more than a general idea of a game before spending all my money on it. Enter demos, or, when they're unavailable, piracy.

 

[RevRaptor]

The bastards try to tell me I can't lend my game to my friends for a bit, I really don't think the game company's have the moral high ground in this argument. I used to love buying games but now with all the crap that comes with buying a game it's no wonder people are looking for alternative means to get what they want.

I remember Doom you got the first third free and you could do what you damn well liked with it, then if you wanted the full game is was only a small cost. It was a good system, it worked. Now you barley get a demo and the bloody games cost 140 dollars.

My loyalty and support - they has it not

 

[morrowind_lover]

Tell me, have you actually bothered to look at the positives that can come from piracy? There are plenty of articles from artists etc who think piracy is a good thing, who see it as a form of getting their work out there and enjoyed by more people who then become fans and buy their stuff, see their shows etc. Not to mention the studies which show that people who pirate music actually spend MORE money on music than people who don't pirate. Again, because they have access to more content they wouldn't ordinarily have been exposed to and know what they like. Someone posted a video from an author who found that when he put his book online for free the sales for his other books jumped 300% and he realised that that's how people find their favourite artists, by sharing material with each other, which they then go and buy.

There are systems of releasing material in a free manner they are called Open Source and Public Domain. However, in relation to Open Source, the producer relinquishes ownership of the creation as long as they are referenced in subsequent releases. Whilst this is philosophically an interesting idea it is by no means a perfect system. In an Open Source community producers survive on donations meaning that not only must the user like the project enough to download it and use it but they must have incentive to return to the site so that they can donate. About artists who think piracy is a good thing, I believe they are actually claiming that free distribution of selected works is a good tool for generating interest. I'm certain artist don't want fans going out and downloading their entire discography through a piracy site.

I wouldn't be so sure about that last point. If people download their music then go to their shows, buy merchandise etc then I don't think they would see that as a problem. Take Joss Stone for instance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCkX0KcNwrI and she's not the only one. You're right when they see it as a tool to generate interest, but when that interest is generated it spreads. Just think, how many of your favourite authors, directors, artists have you come across through getting access to their work somehow for free? People by their nature want to support the things they like. Yes, there are people who will only download and never give back, but if you stop those people from downloading they will most likely not start paying either so it's a waste of effort.

Normally I gain the opinion of trusted sources, Booksellers, movie and video store owners, friends to assist in my decision to purchase work from produced by specific Authors, Directors/producers/actors, artists, and singers/composers. My music choice in modern music is also influenced by what I hear and watch in the media (radio, and video hits shows) this however is in no way free as radio stations and TV channels pay recording studios to exhibit their works.

 

[Pebblig]

I don't see why people need to justify why they pirate to other people. Surely the reason most people pirate is simply because they don't give two shits?!

 

[Alterego-X]

I don't see why people need to justify why they pirate to other people. Surely the reason most people pirate is simply because they don't give two shits?!

Probably. But also, usually at a political revolution, most people on the streets are just angry and hungry and want to break some shit. The ones who are justifying it by talking about democracy and justice, and ideologies, might be the minority, but that doesn't mean that they are wrong, or that they shouldn't try to explain how the angry mob can be turned into a force of good.

This also means, that piracy can't be stopped by arguing on the Internet. You dont have to convince a few pro-piracy activists in forum threads to stop doing it, but several million people who do it every day without even thinking.

I think it's very implausible to do that, so it makes more sense to get accustomed to that new world, than to argue against it.

 

[yukshee]

I call shenanigans and fakery!!

The OP should man-up and stand by his immoral stance on such economic activities; this pathetic wheedling and ill-thought out litany of excuses is a betrayal of The Pirate Code...aaargh!

I'll bet ya a ducat that real pirates don't give a monkey's hoot about robbin'n'stealin'.

As if you're gonna be getting any self-justifying posts like the OP's from those Somalian water rats.

Excuses + justification = "plastic pirate"

Black Spot to yaaa....aaargh!

aaargh! (just clearing my throat)

 

[magicmonkeybars]

There was a decent point made here, as far as producers of entertainment are concerned, whether you pirate or don't buy makes no difference to them, because they don't get paid either way.
The real difference lies between the person who does does pirate and those who don't.
By pirating entertainment you stay culturally informed and relevant, you can discus the content you pirated as an informed party.
As a person who doesn't pirate, you'll become alienated from your own culture and ultimately diminish it through your ignorance.
Culture needs to be consumed if it wants to survive and the more people consume it the better.
Who hears the song, can sing the song, so others can hear it as well.

The real problem isn't that some 15 years old kid in his mothers basement downloading songs.
The problem is we don't have any purpose, our world doesn't have a purpose, our society doesn't have purpose.

Nothing is lost when people pirate because we don't seek to achieve anything of real value.