Poll: Is Piracy Really That Bad?

[LilithSlave]

I got a question for all those who are bleating about "Intellectual Property"....

...Nice avatar pic, did you buy it from the artist?

Ha, well put. I hate being every other post in this thread right now, but that's poignant.

Admitting to piracy on this site may be a bannable offense. But every single one of us here is guilty of "piracy" on some level".

This is what makes a lot of the moral banter on the subject so hypocritical and illogical. We all use things that we did not create and technically do not have any sort of special permission to use. But the world does not have time for such permissions. We simply use what we can and try to give back. That's all we can do.

 

[meryatathagres]

Between crazy cheap offers on Steam and GoG, I think software piracy is way too much of a hassle. Morally, I am rather neutral about it. Though I have one point to say. Why can't you just purchase the single player content for lower price? Titles like SC2 or MW3, yeah I might like to play the SP campaign but am not interested in multiplayer, nor am I interested in paying 50 euros for a short campaign.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

Spoiler: snip

There are a lot of items that you cannot "try before you buy" with no guarantees or return policies. Life is full of disappointment.

I ask you to name six items or industries that are not software where
1) You cannot try out the product before you agree to pay for it
2) You cannot return the item if after a reasonable period, you are not satisfied
3) You cannot get your money back, in store credit, or some type of compensation if you were disastisfied.
4) The industry is not heavily regulated to protect consumers from fraud, misleading information, and abuse.
5) The service or item is legal.



All I can think of is sporting events. Even there if you compained that you were sat behind a poll and couldn't see the game, you could probably get free tickets to the next game or simular compensation.

Face it, software and gamming in particular is about the only legal industry that gets away with behavior of this type.

Housing, Banking, Credit, Investing, Education, I'll even go one more and throw in Government.

But seriously, sure, that is kind-of a racket.

Here's the problem, and the first part of my post: there is no way to know how many people, after "pirating" a game, actually turn around and buy a copy, or honestly decide that they don't like it. For all intents and purposes, they are the same as "group 1" as far as the publisher is concerned.

I feel strongly that piracy is a direct response to having no return policy for games which in theory is justified by piracy.

Also, the game industry needs to take a page out of some of the larger software companies. Rather than seeing piracy as a lost sale, they need to look at it as a potential sale that has not yet converted. You could go crazy trying to prevent piracy, but if you could find a good value add for you legit users and then give people who (accidently) got a pirated version to get a legit version easy and quick and without accusations, then you might convert 25% of those 2million pirated version and really increase your proffit.

Where is the data that demonstrates 25% of pirates are "demo-ers"? That's the problem, yeah, maybe if they knew for sure it was 25% it would be worth it for the publishers to work on something, but it is unknown. It could only be 2%, and that isn't worth the publisher's effort. Good business decisions are made on solid information, not "maybe"s. The solid information is that there is a crapton of piracy out there, and that anything they do about it, "good" or "bad", is met with more piracy.

What is it that larger software companies do? They still have DRM (not quite as advanced, but still with the activation keys at least), and they also don't have return policies.

Are you suggesting something similar to Project $10, except for pirates? Because from what I understand, policies like that tend to encourage piracy as well.

This is my point: most reasons that people pirate are things that have been brought about because of piracy.

Here's what game companies do: demos, reveals, screenshots, videos, tons of promotional stuff. These are like samples of food at a restaurant. You can sample food, it's a bite. You can probably decide if you'd like a whole meal off of that one bite. However, if you decide to go ahead to order an eat a whole meal, "just to be sure", and then decide it was crap and demand a refund after cleaning off the plate, you're an asshole. You know within the first few bites, and you obviously didn't hate it if you ate the whole thing.

I mean, something that could work, like with Adobe and Microsoft, are the "free trials"; software that has some kind of limitation; time or features. So, what are demos and betas, then?

 

[LilithSlave]

Between crazy cheap offers on Steam and GoG, I think software piracy is way too much of a hassle.

For Windows? Definitely. Getting a game off of the bay can be a hassle to get to work. And for the time it takes, you could just work another hour at your job and rest assured, it will work.

But those two are just for Windows games. Consoles get all of the cool exclusives. Are we forgetting emulation? You can do that legally, but a lot of people don't.

And gosh, if you're an import gamer, Japanese games often cost almost $100 apiece. Sometimes, it's best to download a couple and emulating them before shelling out $80.

That's not unusual at all, by the way. I pay that much for a lot of my import games. For instance, Fatal Frame IV, a great game, I paid that much for. Probably more after shipping. I wouldn't blame somebody for pirating it and playing it on Dolphin first.

And oh gosh, I feel sorry people who don't own a copy of all the Keio Flying Squadron games like me. As Sega Saturn emulation, at least, is super hard. I tried emulating my copy and after you get to the haunted stage, it becomes unplayable on the emulator. And I doubt that Saturn modding is very easy. And I payed a heavy price for my Keio Flying Squadron games. And I doubt they're coming to the PlayStation Network or the like anytime soon.

I don't mean to spark a PC vs. Console argument. But as far as I'm concerned, console games > PC games. Whether you think the PC is superior or not or whether you have a point, as far as I'm concerned, consoles get much better games than Windows. And when Windows gets a game, it's usually multiplatform. And while the PC version of that multiplatform game may be better, console gamers tend to ignore those multiplatform games and instead play their nice console exclusives.

You know, like Nintendo. Probably the best game software company that has ever existed. Nintendo games are probably never coming for Windows, Linux, or Mac anytime soon. But they're must play games that leave the Windows platform in the dust.

And you know what that often means for PC users? Emulation. And often times, piracy. Because nobody can afford to buy every single Gamecube and Nintendo Wii game. But they can sure tempt themselves into it by pirating the games at a rom site!

Furthermore, piracy comes with undubs and all sorts of other goodies. Namco themselves seem to be quite comfortable with undubs, despite the fact that pretty much screams piracy. Especially if they own the games they're downloading the undubs of. Undubs, are, undoubtedly, piracy. But I think that Namco Tales Studio understands.

And oh gosh, who didn't pirate Mother 3? I bought the game like I should. I mean heck, Mother games are an artifact. But lots of people didn't feel like figuring out how to import something they were just going to patch immediately. So what did they do? The just downloaded the game, patched it. And then later they bothered with importing Mother 3 properly. Good for them.

And gosh, who could blame the frustrated people waiting for Project Rainfall to succeed, breaking out Dolphin and some kind of English patched version of the games?

And good luck finding Magical Pop'n on Ebay right now.

Oh, and you know what else is good about Piracy? Pirate games themselves.
This is a gem.

 

[x EvilErmine x]

Got to be quick....off to work now.

No, it's not a bad thing, piracy will always be of a lower quality than the original. It lets me try new things that I may not have bought. there have been many examples of a time where i have got something through illegitimate sources and enjoyed it so much that i then go and get a legitimate copy for the full expereance.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

I remember an article a while back that showed how copyright based companies were able to stay profitable during the recession whereas non-copyright based businesses were faring much worse. Take that as you will.

Here's the article by the way:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/piracy-problems-us-copyright-industries-show-terrific-health.ars

 

[Sander Seed]

IMO piracy = stealing is just counter intuitive to human perception. Stealing in the traditional sense means that there is a physical thing A which I take from person B. If I have A in my hand there is a A shaped hole in B's property and B can no longer make use of A because I took A from him. It's a zero sum game. If I have A, then B does not have A. It it intuitive to everyone why that would be painful to B. B maybe paid money for A and can no longer make use of A because I stole it.

Piracy however is copying. B has A and I have a copy of A. Both me and B can have fun with A.

Even if B is the creator of A and paid money to create A, from my POV he can still make copies of his A and sell it at no additional cost to himself. (note: of course this is a logical fallacy, I'm just saying why people don't experience copyright infringement the same they they experience stealing)

IMO a lot of genres would do well to rethink their approach to piracy/copyright and maybe consider freeing some of their stuff as free for personal use. Prime examples would be music and business software. Business software often already has implemented this approach where it is free for personal use (or optional donation only) but if a company wants to use it they have to pay a license. It could be similar with music, if you listen to it privately at home it could be free, but if you play it on the radio or as background music in your ad or tv show or movie you have to pay. In my eyes musicians should make most of their money off live playing/concerts anyway. Maybe before there was a justification where music companies had to still print records and cds, but not that everything is digital, what reason is there for music to be expensive? Just to fund expensive music videos?

I could see gaming moving more into the way of WOW. Where rather than the game having a free multiplayer attached to it, the game could be like the free advertising for a payable multiplayer. Again, this is much more intuitive. There is a server. It costs money. I take up "space" on that server. Ergo I "rent" that space. An approach like this would also reward good games because I would renew my subscription for yet another month if I'm still having fun. In fact, generally a "paying for playing" approach would be a sensible way for the industry to go in. Rather than paying 50 bucks up front you pay 5 dollars for each month (or let's say for a big scale action game per day). That would make the threshold smaller for people because they are only paying 5 bucks and it would reward games that are actually good past the first 5 minutes.

 

[w9496]

Why should they get something for free when I spend money on it?

No one is forcing you to spend money on it. Not to mention, you can do both, you know.

This sounds like terrible logic, as well. That because you like spending money, other people should spend the same money, too. That because you bought a game you like, someone else shouldn't check it out from the local library. And local libraries do carry games.

What, it's terrible logic to expect that if I pay for a brand new game that costs $60, a similar person can just download it for "demo purposes". I don't have a good computer, so I couldn't play a pirated game if I wanted to, but I wouldn't even if my PC could run todays games.

I know that nobody is forcing me to spend money on it, but I do because I like the game and choose to commit. It'll be a cold, icy day in hell before I knowingly pirate a game.

 

[spartan231490]

It's stealing. Stealing is wrong. Yes it is that bad.

Next: Please use the search bar, this thread is done like 3 times a week.

 

[The_Critic]

I don't have the money to buy 6 big releases in November for $60 each I am the 99%.

I think I'll protest and ***** about it and pirate games because wallstre er game companies are evil...

O wait were talking about games, I'm only allowed to ***** about fat cats on wallstreet, wrong post sryz...

 

[dickywebster]

When it comes to games, the only time id say i have no problem with it is when its for games that u cant really get anymore.
Now me and like 4 or 5 of my friends have at least one n64, snes, nes, megadrive, dreamcast etc between us and a very large pile of games for them we've all picked up over the years even if we dont own the consoles, cause we can go around to a friends and play them.
But some of these old games are near impossible to get ur hands on and as u cant by them new anymore (or for at least a decade in some cases), i see no problems as no one loses out and its the only way ud get to play some real gems from the past.

But previous generation or current, im against that as its still possible to get themfairly easily and play them. Also legally theres problems with it, maybe not so much last gen cause those are rarely sold new, but the ones that are sold new i dont think you should pirate really, ill admit prices can be a bit high when they first come out, but they come down.

And before anyone complains, i dont pirate, just think pirating games that are near impossible or very hard to get physical copies of due to been that old isnt really much of a big fuss, but from what ive heard most people go for newer games anyway so it doesnt really matter much.

 

[Strazdas]

I do also at times use so called "no cd-crack" and technically that is piracy depending on how hard you are with the laws...
Do I feel bad for using these "no cd-cracks"? No, because I bought it and I have not re-sold it or lent it to someone else so why would I? Because it is against the "need to check this box to install"(EULA) list. But the company that I bought the game from does not want to give me the possibility to play my game.

Technically, no-cd cracks are legal. the only thing you break is the eula and they cannot sue you for it. i dont know all world laws but American and European union allow usage of no-cd cracks for personal use. that however often does break multiplayer, but since it looks like most of escapist dont play online anyway....

i for one dont want to buy new cd-rom drive every 2 years because of idiots who figured it would be a good idea to ask for cd when starting a game.

...Nice avatar pic, did you buy it from the artist?

creating it yourself counts?

Where is the data that demonstrates 25% of pirates are "demo-ers"? That's the problem, yeah, maybe if they knew for sure it was 25% it would be worth it for the publishers to work on something, but it is unknown. It could only be 2%, and that isn't worth the publisher's effort. Good business decisions are made on solid information, not "maybe"s.

There was a study done by Tallin university that studied the amount of people that pirate games and the amounts of them that buy. The result was that around 11% of people who admited to pirate bought the games afterward and another 43% wanted to buy the games but said they dont have enough money for that. The rest 46% stated that they would not buy the games at any point. The study was done around 2 years ago or so and i havent kept the link to its online version. i helped with data gathering so i got to know it a bit

 

[SonicKoala]

The publisher and developer are denied money if you do not buy the game, NOT if you pirate it.

This is assuming that the individual who pirates the game was never, beyond a shadow of a doubt, going to pay any money whatsoever to play that game.

No, this is assuming absolutely nothing. Pirating the game does not, in any regard, prevent you from buying it. It simply facilitates the choice whether you buy it or not. Anyone who pirates a game can still buy it. Anyone who buys a game can still pirate it.

There is a possibility that you will not buy a game if you pirate it. It doesn't mean that if you pirate something, publishers automatically lose money forever. It's very plausible that they do, in fact, lose money, and everyone likes to assume that despite being no solid proof on the matter, but you still can't claim in certain terms that piracy hurts the industry.

Anyone who buys a game is almost guaranteed not to pirate it - why bother? It can work the other way, as well. Why would you spend money on a game you already own? Claiming it 'simply facilitates the choice whether you buy it or not' is profoundly naive. I'm not saying there aren't instances where someone who pirates a game ends up buying it - I'm sure there are - but I'm sure there are also instances where someone pirates a game, and that's the end of it. It is those people who I am opposed to.

And, actually, I can claim in certain terms that piracy hurts the industry - why? Because the industry believes piracy hurts the industry. Whether or not that is actually true is irrelevant; this idea has already become reflected in their business practices, the two most glaring examples being DRM and the utter lack of originality in the AAA world (I'm aware this second point isn't solely a result of piracy but is more so a result of the staggering costs involved in video game production; regardless, the belief that millions of people are going to end up playing your product without actually paying you for it would certainly compound the issue).

People who support piracy or see no problem with it are blatantly ignoring the detriment it causes to (undoubtedly) one of their favourite past times; the fact that honest individuals who don't pirate have to suffer as a result is even shittier.

 

[Strazdas]

Anyone who buys a game is almost guaranteed not to pirate it - why bother?

probably because pirated versions have no such thing as always-online, DRM and other annoyances and probably because they actually always work ubisoft

It can work the other way, as well. Why would you spend money on a game you already own?

because you want to support the developer of a game you like (and you found that out the illegal way)? Its like asking people why they buy 5 different editions of the same game.

 

[SonicKoala]

There's a much better argument for calling stark economic equality, or Capitalism, that leads to people not even so much as being able to afford a video game or any luxury item, when some people control billions of dollars and exploit third world starving nations, stealing.

I think you meant 'inequality'. And yes, there are inherent problems with the Capitalist system. I fail to see how that means taking something which doesn't belong to you is suddenly alright. Responding to injustice with another form of injustice is inherently flawed. You realise the real people being hurt by piracy (or at least, the detriment which is perceived by the industry to be a result of piracy) are the game developers themselves; those working long, difficult hours on relatively meager salaries.

That sounds like stealing, if anything, when you, a billionaire, exploit third and second world countries and make them even poorer. A practice that big businesses do all of the time. Not piracy.

I'm not a billionaire. I wish I were - that would certainly make things a lot easier :x

There's already enough food on the planet to feed everyone and every artist and media consumer happy. But we waste our resources. Media with copyright laws, often keeping education away from the poor. And many people get fat while others starve. And just because video games aren't necessary for life, doesn't mean they shouldn't be shared.

Alright, that's an interesting notion. Let's see how well you actually support this thesis of yours.

Downloading textbooks illegally is piracy, as well.

Yes, downloading textbooks illegally is piracy. How insightful of you.

And if anything, overvaluing mere data helps keep people starving and puts resources into the hands of the privileged instead of the poor. The overvaluing of data, is yes, detrimental to the poor.

'Mere data'? How can you make such a statement? It would be 'mere data' if it were randomly generated by a computer program, or something akin to that - it's not. This 'mere data', you speak of, in this case video games, as I mentioned above, is the result of thousands of hours of effort and hard work. To claim that the fruits of those labours are nothing but 'mere data' is ignorance of the highest caliber, and is blatantly disrespectful to those who worked so hard to provide you with that product.

To undervalue this product, something which is starkly reflected in the act of taking and using this product without providing those who made it any sort of compensation (which they are entitled to!), is detrimental to those same people, particularly the ones who actually need their job in order to sustain themselves.

And while it's a darn shame that some starve while others get fat. And much worse than anything to do with luxuries. Less than %1 of humans earn their luxuries than other humans don't have. And current copyright laws under capitalism do a terrible job of distributing media. Giving artists what they deserve and allowing art enjoyers what they deserve.

I don't really understand this section, as the grammar is atrocious. As for giving artists what they deserve, how is this going to be helped if what they create is given away for free?

"Supply and demand" is such an overstated idea. The media outlets shove media down people's throats and vy for attention, which is more valuable than money. Your time, is more valuable than your money. If you think that consumers are in control and that all is controlled by the demand, you're wrong. Big companies control everything.

Every person should pirate a little bit, and buy a little bit(I know a few users have apparently held my sort of position and gotten infractions. As this is such a anti-piracy site by those who moderate it, even ad-blocking of any sort is looked down upon. But I must defend my moral position). Buy what you can at full price, and what take priority in what budget you have, and get for free what you can the rest, whether relying on libraries, used sales, physical borrowing, or internet sharing. And you'd be better off sending the artists money in the mail.

If demand equaled supply, you wouldn't have people rounding people to certain areas like Fox News trying to control opinion. And you wouldn't have so much separation of what is available between countries.

You are entitled to media. Yes, you are. It's as simple as that. And no amount of saying you're not will change the fact. It doesn't matter what country you are born in, it is data. And no big company has the right to tell you what to watch, read, listen to, or play.

WHY are you entitled to media? Video games are a luxury - if you can't afford them, then that is too fucking bad. If video games were free to make, then fine - go ahead and pirate them. But they aren't. It costs a staggeringly large amount of money and time to make a video game, and you suggesting that people are entitled to simply take these things without providing the creators any compensation whatsoever is ridiculous. Those people are entitled to compensation given the time and labour they invested in that particular game.

All you did there is state how you believe supply and demand is an inherently flawed and inaccurate principle, and this somehow lead to you concluding 'yes, people are entitled to media'? That doesn't even make sense! Regardless of whatever flaws you perceive in the capitalist system, the fact remains it is the only economic system we currently have. Moreover, this isn't even about the flaws inherent in capitalism - this is about providing people sufficient compensation for something they worked so hard to produce. Yes, you can go on about how the CEO's or executives of these companies end up taking an uneven share of that profit, but when it comes down to it, the people you are going to truly be hurting through piracy (or, as I mentioned before, the harm which is perceived by the industry as being a result of piracy) are the game programmers working 10 hours a day (or longer) at 50,000/year.

A much better idea is to buy what you can afford, and then stop buying!. And stop with your bullshit 'it is data' notion. No, it is not simply data. It is a product whose creation was dependent upon the concerted efforts put forth by hundreds of people.

 

[SonicKoala]

Anyone who buys a game is almost guaranteed not to pirate it - why bother?

probably because pirated versions have no such thing as always-online, DRM and other annoyances and probably because they actually always work ubisoft

Continuing to pirate the game is only going to result in more of these same practices being enacted.

because you want to support the developer of a game you like (and you found that out the illegal way)? Its like asking people why they buy 5 different editions of the same game.

I didn't say this never happened - what I said is I'm sure there are just as many (if not more) instances where someone pirated the game, and that was the end of it.

 

[Jumpingbean3]

I don't know I'll ask someone.

Hey man, is stealing really that bad?

I take a very EC (jumpingbean3 has been permanently banned for mentioning Extra Credits-Escapist Moderators) approach to piracy in that it's only acceptable if there's no other way to obtain the game (or if the person pirating the games is Johnny Depp).

 

[esperandote]

It is bad and whoever says otherwise is in denial. Other than that, I won't say anything that gets me banned but... har, har, har.