Piracy, simply put.

[Wargamer]

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.

Ah, so here we go. The real deciding factor is simply whether you can get away with it. Thanks a whole lot. So basically you're saying that the software companies are right. They simply need better DRM to keep you from being able to get away with it. And so when they add things that require constant online for a single-player game, we can look directly at you as to the cause of why.

What an amoral, selfish piece of work. I sincerely hope that no good people are your friends, because they're obviously going to get hurt one day when it poses some minor benefit for you.

I can usually return an appliance for store credit. I cannot return a PSN download for PSN credit, or return a downloaded mp3.

That's one of the reasons people pirate; we're being asked to risk our money WITH NO CHANCE OF REFUND if we are not satisfied.

 

[Alterego-X]

The answer is not to look at those two conditions because, and here's the key, you don't get to unilaterally decide what a fair price is. You see, fair implies there's two sides to the equation, and you're completely disregarding the side that actually went to the trouble of creating the product. The difference is like between being a decent, moral member of society, and being a selfish twat.

If the side that is creating the product has unreasonable demands, then a decent, moral member of society should ignore those.

Otherwise, they would get to unilaterally force bad systems on us.

 

[Quakester]

People can make the argument that piracy is stealing potential but the problem is that more often than not, it's stealing that potential for good. A small percentage of people who pirate games may purchase later on but that is more the exception and not the rule.

Not having a guarantee of enjoyment in no way excuses piracy. There are more than a few products that you can't return for your money back. Try going to a movie theater and then ask for your money back because you didn't like the movie.

 

[Quakester]

The answer is not to look at those two conditions because, and here's the key, you don't get to unilaterally decide what a fair price is. You see, fair implies there's two sides to the equation, and you're completely disregarding the side that actually went to the trouble of creating the product. The difference is like between being a decent, moral member of society, and being a selfish twat.

If the side that is creating the product has unreasonable demands, then a decent, moral member of society should ignore those.

Otherwise, they would get to unilaterally force bad systems on us.

They are not forcing a bad system on anyone. If they were making a product that you needed to have then they would be forcing it on you. You don't have to buy their product.

 

[Alterego-X]

The answer is not to look at those two conditions because, and here's the key, you don't get to unilaterally decide what a fair price is. You see, fair implies there's two sides to the equation, and you're completely disregarding the side that actually went to the trouble of creating the product. The difference is like between being a decent, moral member of society, and being a selfish twat.

If the side that is creating the product has unreasonable demands, then a decent, moral member of society should ignore those.

Otherwise, they would get to unilaterally force bad systems on us.

They are not forcing a bad system on anyone. If they were making a product that you needed to have then they would be forcing it on you. You don't have to buy their product.

They are forcing it on society as a whole.

The Internet made copy control obselete, and the overwhelming majority of the digital native generation considers it natural to download without any limits (while also supporting artists whenever they can).

Yet they insist on laws like SOPA, and slowing down Internet's evolution as much as they can, and arbitarily arresting a few random people for doing what everyone else around them does, as a scare tactic, just to uphold the status quo and preserve their rights that once made sense, but don't do any more.

 

[AnarchistFish]

why would I think you're someone who can be convinced?

How would you know unless you gave me your argument?

Plus your horrible arguments and how you whine about me attacking your argument

Haha I'm not whining about anything, but you're putting your whole effort into just insults.

suggests you're not someone who would listen regardless of what argument I had.

Really? This seems to me like you're trying to find excuses to avoid giving a substantial argument.

Tedious details? Lol. Great way to ignore problems you can't address. Don't address them, demean them!

What problems I can't address?

You seemed pretty intent on placing your argument on that I hadn't mentioned "context" before, when I clearly had. Seem to have briskly forgotten about that.

Oh and if this is the core of your argument:

What's unethical is that you enjoy it for free, when those who own it do not wish to give it away

No, if I enjoy it, then I'll go on to buy it physically and follow the artist. That was actually one of the first things I said.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

Plus, one is completely capable of, oh, I dont know. Watching Video Reviews, reading Text Reviews, chatting to folks who own the Game, and Previews, and Trailers, and whatnot. Plus, it takes *less* time than getting a pretend Demo that happens to not be a Demo.

Which would be true, but one is also completely entitled to wanting to experience a title *personally*, and well before release. The only way to do that legally is through a demo. Feel free to disagree, but I've always tried to form my opinion based on what snippets of playable data I could legally access along with video reviews, the opinion of my friends and the sound of complete strangers having a collective nerdgasm. It's getting rarer, but when an opportunity comes up, I claim it. Rentals come far too late for my liking.

Like the Kingdoms of Amalur demo, for instance. The previews didn't sell it to me, the board member comments didn't do it either. The demo did. Forty-five gated minutes of near-complete gameplay. It's far more than I could've asked for.

Don't even try to pull that demo crap. Thats the biggest load of BS out there, if you want to try it, rent it.

That demo BS is complete shit. A demo gives you a teaser of things not always in the game, not the whole fucking game you'll never uninstall.

Again, rentals don't suit me. Demos do. I've only rented games I couldn't sample in one legal form or another, and it usually feels frustrating to me. Waiting for rentals to pop up means you miss pre-order deals. In the case of multiplatform games, it means holding out on the Steam Sale your expected game is a part of, which is pretty stupid.

 

[b3nn3tt]

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.'

The reason why people, myself included, get frustrated with people calling it stealing is partly because, as you quite rightly say, it doesn't meet the legal definition of theft, but also because it's misleading, doesn't add anything to the discussion and is far more emotive. The main reason though is that we already have a term, copyright infringement, which everyone seems completely reluctant to use and it's very frustrating. Also, calling it stealing inevitably leads to ridiculous analogies to physical property (mainly with cars, there's a surprise!) which again, don't help the discussion and result in arguing over the validity of stupid analogies than discussing the issue on the merits alone.

I can understand that it's frustrating when you're coming from that perspective, but then it's also frustrating from the other side. When someone is trying to argue against piracy, it can be very annoying when the argument comes back that piracy isn't really stealing, because it feels like their opponent is attempting to undermine the argument without really offering any counter-argument.

I agree with you that comparisons to car theft are foolish, as it's not the same thing at all.

 

[Alterego-X]

The answer is not to look at those two conditions because, and here's the key, you don't get to unilaterally decide what a fair price is. You see, fair implies there's two sides to the equation, and you're completely disregarding the side that actually went to the trouble of creating the product. The difference is like between being a decent, moral member of society, and being a selfish twat.

If the side that is creating the product has unreasonable demands, then a decent, moral member of society should ignore those.

Otherwise, they would get to unilaterally force bad systems on us.

No, they don't get to force anything on us. They get to make an offer that we can refuse.
You're the one who is forcing your system on them. And for some reason it's okay if you do it, but not if they do? Perhaps you should look up the definition of hypocrite.

I get to force my system on them because it's not just "my system", it's the reality of the XXIth century, while theirs is just an obselete ideal. There are no morals in that issue, just practicalities.

I wouldn't have any problem with copyright enforcement a few decades ago, when the only way to create a large number of pirated games, or say, books, was to make your own illegal underground factory, that is quite unfeasible.

But now, the copyright industry, is basically going against the fact that the Internet exists and it is here to stay, and how it's userbase sees the Internet and it's purpose.

 

[b3nn3tt]

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.

I'd never really thought about it in those terms before. I am anti-piracy, but I certainly wouldn't want fair use policies to change. Which does actually leave a difficult position of where the line ought to be drawn. I honestly don't know where I think fair use should end and it should become copyright infringement. I do still believe that downloading a copy of a game that is readily available where you live, and that the publishers are asking for money for, is wrong. Much as I don't want to allow corporations free run over the market, and I hate the idea of proposals like SOPA and PIPA, I still cannot find the idea of downloading a game for free acceptable.

Like I said, I am yet to hear an argument about why someone should be entitled to that game (or movie, or music) for free, unless they have specific permission from the person/company who controls the distribution of it.

 

[Quakester]

The answer is not to look at those two conditions because, and here's the key, you don't get to unilaterally decide what a fair price is. You see, fair implies there's two sides to the equation, and you're completely disregarding the side that actually went to the trouble of creating the product. The difference is like between being a decent, moral member of society, and being a selfish twat.

If the side that is creating the product has unreasonable demands, then a decent, moral member of society should ignore those.

Otherwise, they would get to unilaterally force bad systems on us.

They are not forcing a bad system on anyone. If they were making a product that you needed to have then they would be forcing it on you. You don't have to buy their product.

They are forcing it on society as a whole.

The Internet made copy control obselete, and the overwhelming majority of the digital native generation considers it natural to download without any limits (while also supporting artists whenever they can).

Yet they insist on laws like SOPA, and slowing down Internet's evolution as much as they can, and arbitarily arresting a few random people for doing what everyone else around them does, as a scare tactic, just to uphold the status quo and preserve their rights that once made sense, but don't do any more.

Again, they aren't forcing anything on anyone. They are producing a product for entertainment purposes and stating, "This is what we think is fair for what we did." That's not forcing, that's presenting.

By your logic, as long as group of people think it is okay to do something, that makes it legal. So if a large enough group decided that personal property was a thing of the past then everyone could steal at will.

 

[Stainlesssteele4]

Both sides of this argument are starting to get really annoying. You have all those people on their moral high horse that weren't exposed to it early, and are fed lies by the media into thinking everything is evil. But on the other side, you have low life pirates that use the valid ideas of others to cover their own asses.
We can argue this point until we're all blue in the face, but is it going to stop? No.
People pirate things. It happens. Its easy, costs nothing, and has a very low risk, high reward factor.
I pirate things too, but do I still contribute? YES! I have 168 games on Steam. Besides the few free games, I used my actual money to purchase those games. But guess what, about 50% of them, I pirated first.
Am I going to justify it? Not really. I just pirated them. I wanted to play them, and I used the means that were available to me.
Every day people engage in illegal activities, some more harmful than others. These are what should be argued about, or at least take a higher priority than kids downloading video games.
Threads like this need to stop. Both parties need to stop. Besides, what has this flame war proven? Has anyone actually walked away from the computer with a different opinion than they walked in with? I highly doubt it. As humans, its only nature to back up our opinions and stand by them, so don't bother trying to change someone elses. Especially when a thread spawns a back and forth lasting 10 pages. Enough is enough.

 

[Denamic]

Everyone's a pirate.
Don't assume 'piracy' is just downloading shit for free, because it's not.
Piracy is unlicensed use of licensed material.
Ever borrowed a game, movie or music cd? Pirate.
Watched movies at a friend's place? Pirate.
Heard a quote from a movie you haven't paid to see? You fucking pirate.
According the current copyright laws, everyone, and I stress EVERYONE, is a criminal.

 

[Alterego-X]

Again, they aren't forcing anything on anyone. They are producing a product for entertainment purposes and stating, "This is what we think is fair for what we did." That's not forcing, that's presenting.

By your logic, as long as group of people think it is okay to do something, that makes it legal. So if a large enough group decided that personal property was a thing of the past then everyone could steal at will.

By "they", I also mean the government.

2DBoy once did that, offering World of Goo for whatever you want to pay for it, with a suggested price. That is presenting. But when law enforcement is involved, that *is* forcing.

And as long as group of people think it is okay to do something, that makes it legitimate. If they also happen to be the majority of a fully democratic sovereign territory, that should logically also make it legal. The only reason why piracy is still not legal is partially that old people who don't even use the internet, and didn't grow up in the crowd that considers it legitimate are still a majority, and that the copyright industry is anti-democratically lobbying.

 

[Quakester]

Again, they aren't forcing anything on anyone. They are producing a product for entertainment purposes and stating, "This is what we think is fair for what we did." That's not forcing, that's presenting.

By your logic, as long as group of people think it is okay to do something, that makes it legal. So if a large enough group decided that personal property was a thing of the past then everyone could steal at will.

By "they", I also mean the government.

2DBoy once did that, offering World of Goo for whatever you want to pay for it, with a suggested price. That is presenting. But when law enforcement is involved, that *is* forcing.

And as long as group of people think it is okay to do something, that makes it legitimate. If they also happen to be the majority of a fully democratic sovereign territory, that should logically also make it legal. The only reason why piracy is still not legal is partially that old people who don't even use the internet, and didn't grow up in the crowd that considers it legitimate are still a majority, and that the copyright industry is anti-democratically lobbying.

What 2DBoy is doing is also presenting just in a different way. They are letting you pay what you like for their game. It wouldn't be any different if they said the price is $10 or $20. Stating a price is perfectly legitimate.

I think you believe that far more people pirate material than actually do. And what you propose would destroy the game industry. People get into business to make money. There are a good number of indie games and older games being sold for under $10. If you want to save money, go get those. If you want the AAA titles, then pay for them. I can guarantee that if pirating ever gets so bad that the game companies start losing enough profits that, they'll simple stop making the games and move into a different business.

I know I don't go to work just so someone can take my work because a bunch of people think it's okay to do.

 

[Alterego-X]

The answer is not to look at those two conditions because, and here's the key, you don't get to unilaterally decide what a fair price is. You see, fair implies there's two sides to the equation, and you're completely disregarding the side that actually went to the trouble of creating the product. The difference is like between being a decent, moral member of society, and being a selfish twat.

If the side that is creating the product has unreasonable demands, then a decent, moral member of society should ignore those.

Otherwise, they would get to unilaterally force bad systems on us.

No, they don't get to force anything on us. They get to make an offer that we can refuse.
You're the one who is forcing your system on them. And for some reason it's okay if you do it, but not if they do? Perhaps you should look up the definition of hypocrite.

I get to force my system on them because it's not just "my system", it's the reality of the XXIth century, while theirs is just an obselete ideal. There are no morals in that issue, just practicalities.

I wouldn't have any problem with copyright enforcement a few decades ago, when the only way to create a large number of pirated games, or say, books, was to make your own illegal underground factory, that is quite unfeasible.

But now, the copyright industry, is basically going against the fact that the Internet exists and it is here to stay, and how it's userbase sees the Internet and it's purpose.

So your defense is simply that you're right in your own mind, and anybody who disagrees with you is obviously wrong, so you can do whatever you like. Gotcha.

Yeah.. we're done here.

In a certain sense, I guess that's what every opinion in the world boils down to.

At least I'm pretty confident that mine is right, based on observation of public opinion, the technical abilities of the Internet, statistics from countries that legalized filesharing, the models of various industries that don't rely on limiting content, and a conclusion from the combination of these.

So far, every counterargument I have seen boils down to these:

A) Piracy is wrong because it's illegal.

B) Whatever rights copyright holders happen to have right now are their Rights, and limiting Rights is always immoral.

C) The tragedy of the commons, the Industry will collapse if unauthorised copying happens.


From my own conclusion, I'm pretty sure that all of these are false.

 

[BlazeRaider]

Again, they aren't forcing anything on anyone. They are producing a product for entertainment purposes and stating, "This is what we think is fair for what we did." That's not forcing, that's presenting.

By your logic, as long as group of people think it is okay to do something, that makes it legal. So if a large enough group decided that personal property was a thing of the past then everyone could steal at will.

By "they", I also mean the government.

2DBoy once did that, offering World of Goo for whatever you want to pay for it, with a suggested price. That is presenting. But when law enforcement is involved, that *is* forcing.

And as long as group of people think it is okay to do something, that makes it legitimate. If they also happen to be the majority of a fully democratic sovereign territory, that should logically also make it legal. The only reason why piracy is still not legal is partially that old people who don't even use the internet, and didn't grow up in the crowd that considers it legitimate are still a majority, and that the copyright industry is anti-democratically lobbying.

Your definition of "force" seems way to broad imo, the people who made the product should have a right to charge what they want for it, by your logic people at the grocery store are "forcing you" to buy their goods because they sell them a a price they decide. I disagree with your perspective of force, if you don't think the price is fair, you don't have to buy it, assert your opinion by taking your business elsewhere, but don't use it as a justification to take something that isn't yours.

 

[Alterego-X]

I think you believe that far more people pirate material than actually do. And what you propose would destroy the game industry.

According to the first google results for "piracy rates", 59.9% of software is pirated. That includes office software, though businesses tend to play more safe than individuals.

And countries like Switzerland or the Netherlands already legalized filesharing, without any significant drop in media profits.

There also several industries that don't rely on getting everyone in the audience to pay, for example TV broadcasting, that uses ads, or the anime industry, that airs the shows for free, and then relies on a core fandom buying the DVD boxes, as a form of merchandize.

Even if piracy would cause harm, the gaming indstry could just invert the razor-and-blades model, and rely on hardware sales.

 

[Alterego-X]

Your definition of "force" seems way to broad imo, the people who made the product should have a right to charge what they want for it, by your logic people at the grocery store are "forcing you" to buy their goods because they sell them a a price they decide.

Technically they do, the only difference is that they can get away with it, and even justify it logically.

But if there would be an easy way to cheaply create my own grocery, and then the store owners would try to make it unavailable, I would also complain that they are forcing an obselete business on me.

 

[Quakester]

I think you believe that far more people pirate material than actually do. And what you propose would destroy the game industry.

According to the first google results for "piracy rates", 59.9% of software is pirated. That includes office software, though businesses tend to play more safe than individuals.

And countries like Switzerland or the Netherlands already legalized filesharing, without any significant drop in media profits.

There also several industries that don't rely on getting everyone in the audience to pay, for example TV broadcasting, that uses ads, or the anime industry, that airs the shows for free, and then relies on a core fandom buying the DVD boxes, as a form of merchandize.

Even if piracy would cause harm, the gaming indstry could just invert the razor-and-blades model, and rely on hardware sales.

This isn't going to change your opinion so I'm not going to argue any further but I will leave with this.

If you are going to quote statistics, you really should add them all. 59.9% is an average of software piracy across the globe, including countries where it is running rampant. The statistic is also for "software" piracy, not just games. Many popular programs like the Microsoft Office suite and Adobe Photoshop are in there.

Those industries are not the same as the game industry. Many game developers work for a year or more on a title. They don't hope to keep your attention for 30 minutes a week for a few weeks. Many gamers expect games to last about 20 hours if they are in a huge hurry. And this is an interactive media, unlike television and movies. Gamers are focused on what's going on and not advertisements. How many gamers do you know that would mind a game pausing just to run 2 minutes of commercials? That kind of ploy doesn't work well with this media.

Leaving the games industry to depend on hardware sales is bad or a few reasons. One, only the hardware developers would profit and it would destroy the third party market. Two, it would drive the price of hardware through the roof. The PS3 sold for a profit in the beginning and it barely sold. At it's launch it was the worst selling console of the big three. Even then, gamers buy 1 console every few years. What then? If their profits are low for the games, even if they sell a decent amount for each console, there really is little incentive to make great games.

Lastly, look at it this way. Assume you made a great game, something absolutely fantastic. Would you give it away or sell it? Because by your own argument people should either pay whatever they feel like paying for it or, if you decide to set a price you think is fair, take it for free because they disagree with your price.