"Pirating" a game that was never released in your country/language

[LilithSlave]

Right, but the 5 year old would know that it's wrong

Not if they're a sensible 5 year old that knows better.

Oh boy, here come the strawmans.

That's not a strawman. You said, "you don't get to enjoy media you don't pay for". Radio is listening to music without paying for it.

If you don't actually believe or want to make a claim like "you don't get to enjoy something without buying it", don't make it.

Also, music is copyrighted, just like video games. Pirating music is not different than pirating video games. It doesn't make a bit of difference whether it's possible to play video games over the radio or not.

So pirating a game is the same as playing it at a friend's house?

No, but it's the same as playing something without buying it. I said nothing about pirating a game being the same as playing it at a friend's house. This was a part of a rebuttal to the statement, "you don't get to play it if you don't buy it".

Again, if you don't want people to discuss and argue against claims like that, don't make them.

No, we're actyually back to the same fucking stupid arguments that pirate apologists use all the time.

The arguments for piracy are logically founded. Not all of them are, but the combined moral assessments of the issue lie in favor of pro-piracy, not anti-piracy. I have never seen an anti-piracy argument that was logically sound. And you're certainly not bringing one to the table.

outdated sharing concepts

What on earth are you talking about?

Telling people what they already know is ordering them around?

They don't "know" this, there's no reason for them to "know this", because it's a ridiculous and untrue claim.

Well fuck. Here I was thinking that you need to have money to buy something was something everyone learned.

Piracy isn't buying or stealing. It is downloading copyrighted content. Or rather, sometimes broadly enough defined as any copyright infringement.

Spoken like a true fucking pirate. Good job, sir. Good job.

Good job just responding to someone you disagree with, with sarcasm. Instead of making any kind of rebuttal.

I actually don't pirate video games. I have enough money and desire to buy every game I play. But I do have an immense and well earned respect for file sharing and the spread of information. So to say I'm speaking like a "true pirate" is a wonderful complement. File sharers are often fairly selfless people who spend thousands of dollars out of their own pockets, to share various copyrighted media, when they could have just kept it to themselves. With no other benefit from the action of spending all this money, than knowing they did the right thing.

From what I can tell from your posts here, they're deserving of respect a lot more than you.

Yes, I am wrong for telling you not to bypass the price tag on something.

Yes, you are.

....what!?! A. There is a price tag. B. You ignored the price tag.

Charging a price for something, does not mean that it should not be copied. Or that is it wrong to seek a free avenue to attain it.

emotional speeches

No I haven't. And you're really one to talk, given your emotional tirades of outrage against piracy that amount to telling people what they can and can't do, instead of why.

"you can't tell me what to do NYAH NYAH NYAH".

That's not an argument for piracy I'm making. That's an argument against your authoritative downtalking as an argument instead of logical reasoning. Instead of telling why you believe that piracy is immoral, you tell people what to do. This is becoming a very old and sad form of argument by anti-pirates.

That was so fucking stupid I don't even know how to get my head around it.

I think you should tone down on calling claims other people make "stupid".

B, did you really just fucking that illegal ways to play it for free are still morally correct?

Of course, something being illegal does not mean it is immoral.

Wow. I thought you were just a generic pirate.

Calling someone a pirate is not an insult. File sharers are filled with many great people who spend thousand of dollars on things, just so they can give them away.

Yeah! Fuck my sense of twisted morality. How DARE I suggest it is wrong to circumvent payment for something that is meant to be paid for so blatantly.

Cars are meant to be paid for, that doesn't mean we shouldn't copy them and protect scarcity.

Why does something having a price tag, mean it shouldn't be copied and used for free? A house has a price tag on it, and if someone invents some kind of "copy-gun" that allows you to quickly copy an entire house, it will allow you to circumvent the price tag of that house. But that doesn't mean it's immoral. It was "meant to be paid for", but that doesn't mean it necessarily should only be used when paid for, and kept scarce.

So, by your logic, then nothing is worth anything because you previously said all video game piracy is justified and moral. Got it.

This isn't a response to the words you quoted. And I don't even know where you pulled this argument from. Also, as I stated before, I think anything worth of any value is worth copying. If something is not worth endlessly copying, it is worthless. And it's value is only artificially created due to scarcity. Like gold or diamonds. Gold and diamonds aren't as valuable as many pieces of art, is they are possible to copy. Their value is thus much weaker. If you could copy Gold, the more you copied it, the less valuable it would be, because most of the point of gold is in it's scarcity. If you could copy gold, there would be hardly any need to copy it, aside from the uses gold actually has(like various electronic components).

If something is not worthy copying, it is honestly not worth buying. Especially if it is possible to copy it.

You realize YouTube has tons of privacy agreements in place to combat or adapt to the pirated nature? I once uploaded the final clip of "Religilous" and using digital fingerprinting, they knew what it was/ Lionsgate sent me a YouTube message saying a copyright notice will be posted on my video page and I won't be able to embed it.

So you're now admitting to piracy, after all that unjustified disrespect towards them?

But according to you, its is perfectly justified, acceptable, and morally ok. Got it.

I didn't say I agree with people not buying music. I said I understand piracy, or file sharing, as morally correct. I understand that piracy increases sales, not decreases it. Piracy is largely a hobby of those who are emotionally invested in media, and statistics show that heavy to pirate means heavy to buy. And that most pirates spend more money on media than non-pirates.

Piracy disappears, interest and investment goes down, and sales go down. As someone who wants sales of media to remain healthy, I am grateful for piracy because it increases sales. The worst thing a media can ever be for sales, is irrelevant.

I won't drop to your pathetic level.

And I buy ever single video game I play. But I won't drop to the level of claiming that piracy is wrong or morally unjustified. When there is no logical basis for it.

I spend hundreds of dollars per month on video games. I've no need to pirate them. But I understand the value of piracy.

And this whole thing of arguing that something is wrong, because "you're just trying to justify YOURSELF" is illogical, and another argument far too often used by anti-pirates. It's no better than calling people for marijuana legalization, and pro-marijuana folks of being "druggies", who are just trying to "legitimize" their bad habit. You don't have to be a marijuana user to be for the legalization and recreational use of it, and you don't have to be a pirate to be pro-piracy.

I won't try and convince myself that what I do is alright.

If you think it's wrong, then you shouldn't do it.

I will say "fuck this shit, I want it for free". Pirates need to grow some fucking balls.

That's an incredibly sexist phrase and I hate it.

And you're just being anti-intellectual about an issue with a lot of intellectual merit worth discussing. And you shouldn't ever think like that. You are attacking maturity itself about the issue, and adherence to morals. If you do not think that something is moral, you should not do it, if you think it is, you should. Just because many pro-pirates have maturity about the issue and interest in the ethics/morals about the issue on an intellectual level, does not make them inferior. If anything, the people who are pro-piracy that pirate, should spend less time pirating, and more time talking about the issue.

 

[Hosker]

Nah, it's no lost sale. Victimless.

 

[Klagermeister]

[vimeo=1665301]

Hey, look, Ubisoft designed a bench!

Is this relevant to the topic at all, in any form? Let me answer that: nope.
Seems to me you just found a funny(?) video and wanted to share it and make a stab at Ubisoft without any actual relevance.

OT: It's their game and they own the rights to it. If they decide you can't have their game, then you can't have their game. Simple as that.
So yes, it's wrong to do that. Go play another game and forget about it.

I want stuff that I can't get too. So I deal with it and move on. You can't have everything you want, especially if what you want is copyrighted.

 

[Quaidis]

I treat it like I'd treat anime.

There is a ton of anime out there in Japan. 90% of it will never leave the country.

Anime that's been licensed in your country should be honored and purchased.

Anime that has not been licensed in your country can be acquired through fan-sub with no legal bearing. *

Anime that has been fan-subbed, but is also licensed in your country should be honored and purchased.

After acquiring a fan-subbed copy of an anime that was later licensed, it is typically fair to buy the legit version if you are fond of the anime and wish to support those that made it.



* The fact that it has no legal bearing all corresponds to your country not having the item for purchase. However this only stands in 'fair-game' use if it is translated by fans for fans, and given for free to those in countries not with-standing to the license agreement. If you go out and seek/buy bootlegged items, direct rips, or rip the item yourself and sell it to others to turn a profit, it is illegal and morally wrong.



So therefore, if you are certain no one is going to buy the license to this game and it is being fan-subbed/translated for free, it is okay to acquire. However, before you do - if you feel so morally unsteady on the issue - check common JRPG contractors to see if they have plans to buy (or have already bought) the rights to the game for the US. I mean, the last two years have been crazy for Japan. They've been saying left and right that certain games will never make it to international shores... And then you find that Nintendo decided to bring over stuff like Last Story after all. Level 5 has been playing a particularly grand part in bringing stranded DS games to other parts of the world.

That and there's always a 2 to 3 year gap between Japan release and the release to other nations. This goes for almost everything, including games, anime, and manga. Stuff's expensive to translate, dub, and all that stuff - especially games with heavy dialogue like jrpgs.

 

[coolbeans21]

Sorry Lilithslave, I'll jump into your discussion with liquidsolstice, if you don't mind.

That's not a strawman. You said, "you don't get to enjoy media you don't pay for". Radio is listening to music without paying for it.

Listening to the radio is in no way like piracy, Artists/labels receive payment for music played on the radio, and in my country at least, I pay a TV/radio license each year which gives me permission to listen to music on the radio.

....what!?! A. There is a price tag. B. You ignored the price tag.

Charging a price for something, does not mean that it should not be copied. Or that is it wrong to seek a free avenue to attain it.

What right do pirates have to break the law, charging a price for something absolutely means it should not be copied, the creators of the content have decided on the worth of the creation, its not for anyone to ignore this. If you disagree with the assigned worth of the creation then do not partake in it.

"you can't tell me what to do NYAH NYAH NYAH".

That's not an argument for piracy I'm making. That's an argument against your authoritative downtalking as an argument instead of logical reasoning. Instead of telling why you believe that piracy is immoral, you tell people what to do. This is becoming a very old and sad form of argument by anti-pirates.

Personally I believe piracy is immoral, I believe that content creators should be paid for their time and effort, I believe that laws should be upheld, until I hear cold hard statistics that PROVE that piracy aids an IP as you claim I will continue to believe this.

B, did you really just fucking that illegal ways to play it for free are still morally correct?

Of course, something being illegal does not mean it is immoral.

In most cases it does though, I don't believe the exceptions include piracy.

Wow. I thought you were just a generic pirate.

Calling someone a pirate is not an insult. File sharers are filled with many great people who spend thousand of dollars on things, just so they can give them away.

It is not the filesharers right to decide that they can operate outside of the law and wishes of the content creator.

Cars are meant to be paid for, that doesn't mean we shouldn't copy them and protect scarcity.

Why does something having a price tag, mean it shouldn't be copied and used for free? A house has a price tag on it, and if someone invents some kind of "copy-gun" that allows you to quickly copy an entire house, it will allow you to circumvent the price tag of that house. But that doesn't mean it's immoral. It was "meant to be paid for", but that doesn't mean it necessarily should only be used when paid for, and kept scarce.

You can't bring imaginary "copy guns" into this debate, because when you do the entirety of our economy collapses, why would I create anything when within minutes it can be copied and
I receive nothing for it.

If something is not worthy copying, it is honestly not worth buying. Especially if it is possible to copy it.

If everything is copied for free then nothing will be created, games developers are not creating these things for the sake of art, they are doing it to be paid for it.

I didn't say I agree with people not buying music. I said I understand piracy, or file sharing, as morally correct. I understand that piracy increases sales, not decreases it. Piracy is largely a hobby of those who are emotionally invested in media, and statistics show that heavy to pirate means heavy to buy. And that most pirates spend more money on media than non-pirates.

Piracy disappears, interest and investment goes down, and sales go down. As someone who wants sales of media to remain healthy, I am grateful for piracy because it increases sales. The worst thing a media can ever be for sales, is irrelevant.

Can you provide some evidence that piracy increases sales, One of my collegues is a prolific pirate, more so than anyone I have ever met, he is not heavy to pirate, heavy to buy, he hasn't paid for a movie or game in the four years I have known him, yet feels entitled to all the latest releases, this is despite the fact he could easily afford to buy them, not one of the guys I went to uni with, who downloaded more music than you could listen to in a lifetime have purchased a cd or paid for an itunes download.

 

[Sandytimeman]

No one but you said it was personal. They opted not to make it available where he could purchase it, and made it so the only way to obtain the game would be illegal.

They only opted not to make it available where it would be most convenient for him to purchase it.

The opted also not to make it in his language. That's a pretty clear indication that they don't want anyone who can't read Japanese to play that game.

 

[UberNoodle]

You shouldn't have to pirate the game or even use an emulator. I bought Fatal Frame for the Wii and then the translation patch and I run it on my Wii. I don't need a ROM. I just put in the disc. The technology for it is open source and available to any other backyard translators. Subverting region restrictions, though construed as a crime in some 'free countries' is not in mine, and therefore I have never felt that the lack of domestic version is reason enough to pirate. That goes for DVDs, HD DVDs, Blu Rays and CDs, though the latter has no region restrictions. ANd for movies which didn't have English subs, I just downloaded soft subs from the Net and added them in realtime with my PC player.

And no, the developers are not saying, by the lack of release, that they don't want you to play. Of course they Want you to. The issue is entirely financial and resource lack.

 

[Vegosiux]

The opted also not to make it in his language. That's a pretty clear indication that they don't want anyone who can't read Japanese to play that game.

Yes, I'm sure that's exactly the reason it's not been released outside Japan. They just wanted to give a big middle finger to anyone who can't read Japanese! Yeah, that's it.

...seriously.

Could we knock off this nonsensical talk about developers "not wanting someone to get their game"? You know, I can't read Japanese very well, but I still managed to get through a few games in Japanese back on SNES. Hah! TAKE THAT, NINTENDO!

 

[Sandytimeman]

The opted also not to make it in his language. That's a pretty clear indication that they don't want anyone who can't read Japanese to play that game.

Yes, I'm sure that's exactly the reason it's not been released outside Japan. They just wanted to give a big middle finger to anyone who can't read Japanese! Yeah, that's it.

...seriously.

Could we knock off this nonsensical talk about developers "not wanting someone to get their game"? You know, I can't read Japanese very well, but I still managed to get through a few games in Japanese back on SNES. Hah! TAKE THAT, NINTENDO!

But did it have the same experience of playing through it to the point where you could understand whats going on? Would Final Fantasy 3 (6 in Japan) have been as touching and moving if you had no idea what was going on? No it wouldn't have been.

Nintendo isn't playing the bad guy on purpose there just isn't enough interest in those games to warrant a release outside of Japan. Even when hundreds of thousands of people petition to have it sold in their country, I'd assume sometimes its just not profitable to translate a game for just a few hundred thousand sales.

In said case, what I would do to make things ethically right is buy the game. IE import it. And then download the version with the user created translation.

 

[Smeatza]

What right do pirates have to break the law, charging a price for something absolutely means it should not be copied, the creators of the content have decided on the worth of the creation, its not for anyone to ignore this. If you disagree with the assigned worth of the creation then do not partake in it.

If one wishes to recieve monetary compensation for the use of their creation that is fair enough. The moral grey area comes from the fact that a potential customer might be prepared to pay this compensation but is not provided with a way to do so. So by pirating this creation the pirate has not denied the creator anything.
Of course if a way of paying for this content was provided at a later date the pirate would be morally obliged to use it.

Personally I believe piracy is immoral, I believe that content creators should be paid for their time and effort, I believe that laws should be upheld, until I hear cold hard statistics that PROVE that piracy aids an IP as you claim I will continue to believe this.

If the creator of something decides that there will be a charge to use it, is it not up to them to ensure that people who wish to use it have the oppotunity to pay the charge? Labeling something "piracy" and making it immoral by default is all well and good but such rigid and narrow focused rules are rarely applicable to each individual situation.

I'll give you an example. I watch an anime called Bleach every week, fansubbed. I have done so for a few years now and each time I have watched it has technically been piracy. However I purchase each English release of the Bleach DVD's as soon as I notice them come out. Is it truly immoral that I watch the programme every week? knowing that in the future, when the opportunity is provided, I will legitimately pay for my viewing pleasure.

Of course, something being illegal does not mean it is immoral.

In most cases it does though, I don't believe the exceptions include piracy.

The law should follow morality though, not the other way round. If the general populace's attitudes towards piracy and intellectual property have changed then the law should change to accomodate that.

You can't bring imaginary "copy guns" into this debate, because when you do the entirety of our economy collapses, why would I create anything when within minutes it can be copied and
I receive nothing for it.

And yet the majority of the world's servers are run on a linux based operating system.

It has been proved that an open source business model can work with often better results than the conventional models. Economies are a fluid and ever changing thing that ultimately humankind controls, not the other way round and any effects that the economy would feel from open source business' are easily dealt with and temporary.

If everything is copied for free then nothing will be created, games developers are not creating these things for the sake of art, they are doing it to be paid for it.

Is that really true though? It's kind of a chicken and egg situation, but what comes first, the desire to create an engaging, exciting, involving game, or the desire to make money by doing so?
I myself have fantasised many a time about the game I would make with unlimited money and resources, but not about making a game that would provide me with money and resources.

In fact when I think about it, I get the feeling that truly creative and innovative games, such as Minecraft are created with monetary gain as a secondary concern. Where as the cash cows like COD, that are actively damaging to industry creativity and innovation seem to have money as the one and only concern.

 

[ErmaFranca]

Then charge 50$ for the game, and 10$ for the code. They already did this with ME 2.


They're not trying to stop piracy, or recoup costs, with this method. They're trying to generate extra profit.

fish games [http://www.fishferous.com/en-US/]

 

[coolbeans21]

What right do pirates have to break the law, charging a price for something absolutely means it should not be copied, the creators of the content have decided on the worth of the creation, its not for anyone to ignore this. If you disagree with the assigned worth of the creation then do not partake in it.

If one wishes to recieve monetary compensation for the use of their creation that is fair enough. The moral grey area comes from the fact that a potential customer might be prepared to pay this compensation but is not provided with a way to do so. So by pirating this creation the pirate has not denied the creator anything.
Of course if a way of paying for this content was provided at a later date the pirate would be morally obliged to use it.

Personally I believe piracy is immoral, I believe that content creators should be paid for their time and effort, I believe that laws should be upheld, until I hear cold hard statistics that PROVE that piracy aids an IP as you claim I will continue to believe this.

If the creator of something decides that there will be a charge to use it, is it not up to them to ensure that people who wish to use it have the oppotunity to pay the charge? Labeling something "piracy" and making it immoral by default is all well and good but such rigid and narrow focused rules are rarely applicable to each individual situation.

I'll give you an example. I watch an anime called Bleach every week, fansubbed. I have done so for a few years now and each time I have watched it has technically been piracy. However I purchase each English release of the Bleach DVD's as soon as I notice them come out. Is it truly immoral that I watch the programme every week? knowing that in the future, when the opportunity is provided, I will legitimately pay for my viewing pleasure.

I'll admit the majority of my argument is aimed more at piracy in general, rather than the on topic discusion of pirating things not available in your country, I went off topic and its my bad, I feel strongly about piracy.

The law should follow morality though, not the other way round. If the general populace's attitudes towards piracy and intellectual property have changed then the law should change to accomodate that.

Its my view that in most cases the law does follow morality, The cases where it doesn't, generally have people campagning to change them.

I don't think the general populaces attitudes towards piracy have changed a great deal, if you feel they have and live in a democracy, you should run for office and attempt to change them working within the political system, not ignoring the laws in place because the are inconvenient.

You can't bring imaginary "copy guns" into this debate, because when you do the entirety of our economy collapses, why would I create anything when within minutes it can be copied and
I receive nothing for it.

And yet the majority of the world's servers are run on a linux based operating system.

It has been proved that an open source business model can work with often better results than the conventional models. Economies are a fluid and ever changing thing that ultimately humankind controls, not the other way round and any effects that the economy would feel from open source business' are easily dealt with and temporary.

I have no problem with an open source business model, However I feel its the creators choice as to whether or not their product becomes open souce, not a group of unregulated people who in their belief it would be better if everything was free.

If everything is copied for free then nothing will be created, games developers are not creating these things for the sake of art, they are doing it to be paid for it.

Is that really true though? It's kind of a chicken and egg situation, but what comes first, the desire to create an engaging, exciting, involving game, or the desire to make money by doing so?
I myself have fantasised many a time about the game I would make with unlimited money and resources, but not about making a game that would provide me with money and resources.

In fact when I think about it, I get the feeling that truly creative and innovative games, such as Minecraft are created with monetary gain as a secondary concern. Where as the cash cows like COD, that are actively damaging to industry creativity and innovation seem to have money as the one and only concern.

I believe it is true, gaming is a business. People may wish to go into gaming to create an engaging, exciting and involving game, but you can't live without money, no investment means no resources, and without these that exciting and involving game remains stuck in the realms of fantasy.

I stand by my point, even if these gamining creators would wish to create something for arts sake, they are going to need something to pay the bills, therefore they are going to need paying.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

I think it's painfully obvious that (to put this respectfully), LilithSlave and I have very, very differing ideas as to what is right and what is wrong. I'm no coward, I won't run away from an argument, but I can't see this discussion becoming anything more than a back-and-forth slap-fest between the two of us. I don't think he(she?) is on the same level as I am on this topic (not vertically, horizontally-- that is to say, neither better, just highly different).

I think coolbeans21 seems to have nailed my stance on piracy as a whole.

If one wishes to recieve monetary compensation for the use of their creation that is fair enough.

Evidently, it's not fair enough for some people.

The moral grey area comes from the fact that a potential customer might be prepared to pay this compensation but is not provided with a way to do so. So by pirating this creation the pirate has not denied the creator anything.
Of course if a way of paying for this content was provided at a later date the pirate would be morally obliged to use it.

I find this judgement to be acceptable, but if one cannot take the effort to attempt to purchase something legally, what guarantee or even good faith is there that said person will jump at the opportunity to purchase it?

If the creator of something decides that there will be a charge to use it, is it not up to them to ensure that people who wish to use it have the oppotunity to pay the charge? Labeling something "piracy" and making it immoral by default is all well and good but such rigid and narrow focused rules are rarely applicable to each individual situation.

Yet unfortunately, attempting to paint piracy in a good light by bringing up very niche examples such as regionally restricted material is also a narrow generalization.

I'll give you an example. I watch an anime called Bleach every week, fansubbed. I have done so for a few years now and each time I have watched it has technically been piracy. However I purchase each English release of the Bleach DVD's as soon as I notice them come out. Is it truly immoral that I watch the programme every week? knowing that in the future, when the opportunity is provided, I will legitimately pay for my viewing pleasure.

And this is the problem we inevitably keep coming to; there is no "knowing" anything. Money is a cold, hard, and proper statistic. The ambiguous and sometimes hypocritical (but ultimately unknown) idea of a fan's dedication to something does not translate.

The law should follow morality though, not the other way round. If the general populace's attitudes towards piracy and intellectual property have changed then the law should change to accomodate that.

Perhaps, but there are already many organizations attempting to do so. The fact that said organizations have not yet achieved their goal does not make it any more acceptable to continue piracy.

And yet the majority of the world's servers are run on a linux based operating system.

I don't understand how this is in any way relevant whatsoever? The fact you're most likely accessing a linux server is completely unrelated. You're accessing content on these servers. What operating system those servers run are almost never even noticed or cared about by content consumers.

It has been proved that an open source business model can work with often better results than the conventional models. Economies are a fluid and ever changing thing that ultimately humankind controls, not the other way round and any effects that the economy would feel from open source business' are easily dealt with and temporary.

This is a mix of opinion, wishful thinking, and incompatible reasoning. When was the last time you heard about a successful open-source game?

Is that really true though? It's kind of a chicken and egg situation, but what comes first, the desire to create an engaging, exciting, involving game, or the desire to make money by doing so?

This is an unfair question. Money has always been (and will always be in whatever form it comes in) the unquestioned form of compensation for a service or product. You don't need to tell your boss why you should be paid, right?

In fact when I think about it, I get the feeling that truly creative and innovative games, such as Minecraft are created with monetary gain as a secondary concern.

And yet there are legions of people out there (me included) who think Minecraft is not innovative or entertaining. Opinions on a game only bias your opinion on the development of future games (as you demonstrate below).

Where as the cash cows like COD, that are actively damaging to industry creativity and innovation seem to have money as the one and only concern.

I don't find this true. At all. I generally avoid those who criticize the CoD franchise mainly because of the poor reasoning behind it. While it's obvious Activision is very much aware of the potential money being made on their game series, I don't think money is there only concern. To this day, excepting Battlefield 3 and perhaps the Halo series (but even that is getting "eh"), I have yet to play a fast-paced, satisfying, and instantly-gratifying online shooter experience that matches the quality provided to me by the CoD series. The gameplay is tight, the rewards are constant, the balance appears to be more or less spot on (as opposed to other games; looking at you, 12G Frag Rounds from Battlefield 3). I have CoD Elite, but only because of the DLC benefits and the fact I purchased the Hardened edition (Which I will be honest, the material you get with the Hardened edition is quite possibly the most amazing and well done bit of CE material I have ever owned). Would I renew it? Probably not. Am I aware that many other people will and Activision is counting on it? Oh yeah.

I don't think it's "dragging the industry down", I believe the popularity of gaming in general (and it's dramatic increase over the past few years) is "dragging it down". Nowadays, it's about accessibility, not so much complexity and depth. One only needs to see how dramatically different Splinter Cell Conviction was from Splinter Cell Chaos Theory (a game which I regard today still as being one of the greatest games ever made).

I think it's easy to blame the popular crowd for what's happened to something you love, but I don't think it's the right thing to do.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

[vimeo=1665301]

Hey, look, Ubisoft designed a bench!

it works like its was designed for.
so i doubt ubisoft designed it..

Strange. Ubisoft designed Splinter Cell Conviction. I just put the disk in.

...and it played just fine. HOW COULD THIS BE.

 

[GamemasterAnthony]

I think we can use the iTunes model to explain this. Pirating music was somewhat rampant via sites like Limewire due to it being accessible and easy to use. Once iTunes came out and proved to be easier and more accessible, people were more than willing to pay for the music.

So...how are people who are willing to pay good money for games supposed to do so when the companies won't even localize said games?

In a way, I'd say acquiring the ROMs for games that were never localized are kind of a way of telling the companies "You blew it!" If Operation Rainfall is any indication, there are plenty of people out there willing to buy the games WITHOUT needing to pirate...all they need is for the games to be available. Unfortunately...the companies just aren't doing so, so the only option for gamers is to look for a ROM.

As for the legalities...since the ROM is really nothing more than a fan translation and technically not a product of the company itself since they never released a localized version, I'd say it's a gray area.

 

[CrystalShadow]

[spoiler ="Hidden for lack of relevance."]

So used games exist, publishers lose money through this venue, its legal and it sucks that the industry suffers because of it.

However the argument that because used games exist, its ok to suck more money out of the industry by pirating them is bollocks.

You paid your ISP for bandwidth to use in a legal manner, ditto with the computer retailer

You could argue that reselling whilst bad for the games industry, is good for the economy in general as cash is circulating.

Pirating a game doesn't even have that benefit.

You kind of missed my point, even if I did make it poorly due to it being late at night for me and I should have been in bed. I was mainly mocking those who say that Piracy is stealing because the developer/publisher doesn't get paid. If you buy used, the developer/publisher also does not get paid, regardless of it being a legal transaction. So from the developer/publisher point of view, piracy is just as bad as buying used.

As for the second part, I'm not even sure what I was trying to say, looking back at my comment. Like I said before, I was tired. And Piracy does have a benefit. For those of us who aren't jerks, it allows people a chance to see if they're getting their money's worth from a game. If I could have pirated the first set of .hack// games for the PS2, I would have. That was the biggest waste of $120 I have ever made. If I pirate something and I like it, I'll actually buy it legally. I'm more likely to buy something if I know it's going to be good.

Would I have known that Iced Earth was an awesome band without downloading a song from them at Random? Most likely not, and I wouldn't legally have almost all of their albums right now.

I dont understand the point you are making, because developers/publishers lose money through a legitimate channel (used sales) We should all accept that piracy is fine and they lose no money from it?

Devs and publishers have to live with used sales, as its legal, they can do things to impinge them (day1dlc for new copies, online passes etc) But the end of the day its something they have to accept.

Piracy they do not have to roll over and take though, as it, unlike used sales, is not permited under law.[/spoiler]

You also missed the point that although used games do not help the industry, they do help the economy. Piracy only benefits the pirate as he thinks he's entitled to things without paying for them.

[spoiler = "other stuff"]
As to the point about piracies benefits, perhaps if all people were like you andbought the game or music, then fine, however they are not and its naive to think that they are, the vast majority of pirates are scum who like to take things for free.

How many people who pirate the game "just to see what its like" delete it straight away when they realise its not great, I imagine the majority think "don't want to pay for it, but might as well play it, i mean i went to the trouble of downloading it after all"

Gaming is a luxury, people don't have a right to demo the entire thing before they decide if its "worth it" in their opinion, if the publisher doesn't offer a demo, then the options are to wait for reviews, take a chance on it or not buy it.[/spoiler]

Right... So the only thing that matters in life is the economy right?
Do you know why copyright terms were originally limited to just 25 years at most?

Do you know why those same laws declared that to benefit from copyright in the first place you had to agree to your work being in the public domain as part of the bargain?

Do you know why the effects of ever-increasing copyright terms are in effect having the complete opposite result from the one copyright laws were intended to accomplish?

Do you even know what those original goals were?

But hey. Endless patent litigation helps the economy too right? Even though frequently the lawsuits cost far more money than the commercial value of the patents...

Or how about that copyright laws are essentially an unfair legally imposed monopoly that while benefiting anyone who holds copyrights, is in effect potentially abusive towards anyone whose income derives from sources without such legally sanctioned monopolistic rights?

But, hey... As long as it helps the economy right?

Did I say say the only thing that matters is the economy? no I didnt, don't put words in my mouth.

I cited the benefit to the economy as its the only benefit of the used games industry, some people insist that because used games exist and games companies lose money this way then, there is no issue with piracy, that they are the same thing, despite the fact one is legal, and has this marginal benefit and the other is illegal and benefits noone but the pirate.

I couldn't care less about the specifics of copyright law, they have never impacted my life in a significant way, possibly because I buy my games.

Eh. Sorry about assuming something.

However, you obviously don't create anything either. For anyone that does, the way copyright handles 'derivative works' can be a legal minefield. (Especially since you can be accused of copying something you didn't even know existed if you're not careful.)

However, since we did start with economics, I'd have to say it's not at all as clear as it seems. When a specific industry says something 'hurts the economy', you need to take a very close look at what they're saying. Because often it doesn't hurt 'the economy', just that specific industry.

To illustrate this, let's look at piracy in purely economic terms, without considering the morality of it.

Since 'piracy' as 'copyright' infringement duplicates something without destroying or directly affecting the original, there is no way for piracy to cause a direct economic loss to the owner of copyrighted material. Any losses incurred are hypothetical 'potential losses'.
This might not seem significant, but it has some implications for the effect on the economy taken as a whole.

To see this, let's look at theft, as a point of comparison.
If a person steals something, they deprive it's original owner of it.
They gain something, the original owner loses it.
Bad for the original owner, but for the economy as a whole it is an entirely neutral event. (Nothing is gained, nothing is lost overall.)
In practice it is frequently a loss to the economy simply because most thieves are rather reckless, and cause a lot of damage in the process of stealing something. The theft itself is economically neutral, but the damage caused incidentally harms the economy.
(The idea that destroying something helps the economy because it would then need replacing is a long-known fallacy, because the resources to replace what was destroyed would have to come from somewhere, and in having to replace something, you lose the resources required to do something else instead. At least with a clean theft, someone benefits, even if it is morally questionable.)

For piracy, the 'loss', to the owner in the above scenario ceases to be relevant. (Potential loss doesn't count.)

This gives us two possible scenarios. (Notwithstanding someone distributing pirated works for profit, which is an additional complication.)

Scenario 1. Someone pirates something they would never have paid for.
(I realise some consider this unrealistic, but this isn't about how believable something is, merely about it's consequences.)
- In this scenario, the owner of copyrighted materials would have gained nothing from this person either way.
While morally questionable, the pirate has gained something without cost. Consumers have a limited budget, but since the pirate did not pay for it at all, whatever money they have, will be spent on the same things regardless of if they have the pirated item or not. (Remember, we are assuming they would not have paid for it under any circumstances.)
This means the pirate has gained something, while the owner has lost nothing.
The net effect on the economy as a whole, is that the economy is better off by however much the pirate has gained from this item they pirated.
Summary
-> Good for the pirate. (benefit without cost)
-> Neutral for the Owner of the material. (No measurable loss)
-> Good for the economy as a whole. (Equivalent to the gain for the pirate)

Scenario 2. Someone pirates something they would otherwise have paid for.
- In this case, while the pirate gains something, the owner of the material they pirated has lost whatever they would have paid if they hadn't been able to pirate it.
So far, so simple. But what about the economic effects?
Since the resources of the pirate are fixed (for practical purposes in an example like this anyway), they still have the money they would have paid for the pirated item. This money doesn't just vanish, so clearly, they will spend it on something else instead.
This means the effect on the economy is simply that the resources that would have gone to the owner of the pirated item would simply end up being displaced into a different part of the economy. Again, since the pirate gains something without cost, the overall economic effect is positive, to whatever value the pirate gains from having this item.
However, in this case the effect on the owner of the pirated material is definitely negative. They lose out on money they would otherwise have gotten.
Summary:
-> Good for the pirate. (benefit without cost)
-> Bad for the owner of the material. (loss of income they would have gained from the pirate.)
-> Good for the economy as a whole. (Money pirate didn't spend displaced to other industries. Economy is better off by whatever benefit the pirate gained.)


Now, obviously, none of this says anything about the morals of if it is OK to get something without compensating the owner or creator.
But Economics and morality certainly aren't the same thing.
And the irony of this is, that letting people get away with piracy isn't necessarily bad for the economy, although it is almost certainly bad for the industries that create the items being pirated.

 

[coolbeans21]

Snip

Thats a well thought out piece of reasoning, I congratulate you.

You are right I don't create anything of particular note, hence the reason I am not overly concerned with copyright laws, If I were ever to take my writing in a more serious direction, I would become more interested in the legalities.

Lets not get sidetracked by the economy issue, I only mentioned it as a minor benefit of used games industry, its not the meat of my argument that piracy is bad.

So can we agree that Piracy whilst being legally wrong is moraly wrong as it damages the industry that creates the pirated items?

-edit-

I didn't mean that first sentance to sound sarky, I genuinely thought it was a well thought out piece of reasoning, damn internet.