Sims 3 Leaked Online
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Piracy is unjustifiable, period.
Still, I'm reminded of the quote from Full Metal Jacket, in response to Private Pyle leaving his footlocker unlocked: "If it wasn't for dickheads like you, there wouldn't be any thievery in this world, would there?"
And let's all remember that pirated software isn't like stolen gas or money, it's like stolen youth or stolen innocence. It's the Schroedinger's cat of theft; would the pirate have or have not purchased the game? It's just a cloud of probability, eternally unknown.
Still, I'm reminded of the quote from Full Metal Jacket, in response to Private Pyle leaving his footlocker unlocked: "If it wasn't for dickheads like you, there wouldn't be any thievery in this world, would there?"
And let's all remember that pirated software isn't like stolen gas or money, it's like stolen youth or stolen innocence. It's the Schroedinger's cat of theft; would the pirate have or have not purchased the game? It's just a cloud of probability, eternally unknown.
I'm always a bit mystified when people accuse The Escapist of being "too anti-piracy." Maybe this is a poor analogy but isn't that kind of like accusing Car & Driver of being "too anti-carjacking?" Or National Geographic Magazine of being "too anti-tropical deforestation?"Sparkky said:
Are you seriously surprised that a website dedicated to coverage of the videogame industry has an anti-piracy bias?
Comparing car theft to video game theft is a silly argument.
Its accepted that there are some differences:
-When you steal a car the owner loses it, when you steal a game the owner does not.
-When a car is stolen there is a value lost to the producer because that car is unable to be sold, in a video game it is still sellable.
So in that regard I'm accusing you of making terrible metaphores.
Looking back at your "anti-piracy" bias, it was a jab you put at the end of you news post to further your own personal opinion.
An opinion that you have yet to justify with anything other than "its stealing" and a false metaphore.
The facts are that when somebody pirates a game, they get to play all or part of what that games has to offer without supporting the company. But the major differences lie in that in the situation the player never intended to buy the game, no actual loss was incurred by the company.
Infact, you could argue (and many have) that the company actually gains in this situation because their product is now being played and their brand/game is being established. People who wouldnt normally be introduced to their product are now being introduced, and because of the p2p nature of piracy the company pays nothing for the distribution if the game.
Imagine now, 5 years down the road that same 15 yearold kid is now 20, and has enough money to buy games. So, being that hes a fan of Sims 1 and Sims 2, and now that he has a job, and can afford to just go pick the game up, he grabs the Sims 3 rather than another game because he is familiar with the game.
In this situation the company has incurred a profit because of piracy.
Now, what we cannot find, is the magical numbers that tell us just how many people pirate the game who never would have bought it, people who bought something because of something they pirated, or sales lost because a customer who would have payed pirated.
We don't know those numbers. Nobody does.
So to say piracy is bad for financial reasons is faulty logic.
Now if you are to further explain that theft is the result of loss.
In this situation we aren't even sure a loss in incurred, which means we have to be unsure if this is actually theft if we are to follow the traditional meaning of theft.
So you can see that it all hinges on the lack of our ability to determine if piracy actually does damage, because it has the potential for both good and bad, and we have absolutly no way to determine that magical ratio at this time.
Furthermore if we are to say "well why doesn't the industry see it this way?" I can tell you very easily why.
Imagine two situations here.
A)Piracy hurts the companies
- The company negate losses by increasing prices or alternate revenue methods.(such a extra cost tacked onto games to cover losses such as what is done with mp3 players to help deal with the lost revenue to music producers)
B)Piracy helps the companies.
- The company gets to increase their profits buy adding additional costs onto items labeled as the "piracy cost"
As you can see, by saying "its hurts us" the industry gets to make more money, regardless of the effect of piracy. So from their angle it doens't matter, either way if we say it matters, there is money to be made (see music industry).
So when you blindly support the idea that piracy is bad many people miss our on this large, glaring piece of information nobody has. A piece of information which is pivotal to the financial and ethical arguments.
This is why I personally refuse to pass judgment on piracy, as the gains/losses cannot be accurately measured and in either situation large companies like EA stand to gain from claiming it hurts them.
Its accepted that there are some differences:
-When you steal a car the owner loses it, when you steal a game the owner does not.
-When a car is stolen there is a value lost to the producer because that car is unable to be sold, in a video game it is still sellable.
So in that regard I'm accusing you of making terrible metaphores.
Looking back at your "anti-piracy" bias, it was a jab you put at the end of you news post to further your own personal opinion.
An opinion that you have yet to justify with anything other than "its stealing" and a false metaphore.
The facts are that when somebody pirates a game, they get to play all or part of what that games has to offer without supporting the company. But the major differences lie in that in the situation the player never intended to buy the game, no actual loss was incurred by the company.
Infact, you could argue (and many have) that the company actually gains in this situation because their product is now being played and their brand/game is being established. People who wouldnt normally be introduced to their product are now being introduced, and because of the p2p nature of piracy the company pays nothing for the distribution if the game.
Imagine now, 5 years down the road that same 15 yearold kid is now 20, and has enough money to buy games. So, being that hes a fan of Sims 1 and Sims 2, and now that he has a job, and can afford to just go pick the game up, he grabs the Sims 3 rather than another game because he is familiar with the game.
In this situation the company has incurred a profit because of piracy.
Now, what we cannot find, is the magical numbers that tell us just how many people pirate the game who never would have bought it, people who bought something because of something they pirated, or sales lost because a customer who would have payed pirated.
We don't know those numbers. Nobody does.
So to say piracy is bad for financial reasons is faulty logic.
Now if you are to further explain that theft is the result of loss.
In this situation we aren't even sure a loss in incurred, which means we have to be unsure if this is actually theft if we are to follow the traditional meaning of theft.
So you can see that it all hinges on the lack of our ability to determine if piracy actually does damage, because it has the potential for both good and bad, and we have absolutly no way to determine that magical ratio at this time.
Furthermore if we are to say "well why doesn't the industry see it this way?" I can tell you very easily why.
Imagine two situations here.
A)Piracy hurts the companies
- The company negate losses by increasing prices or alternate revenue methods.(such a extra cost tacked onto games to cover losses such as what is done with mp3 players to help deal with the lost revenue to music producers)
B)Piracy helps the companies.
- The company gets to increase their profits buy adding additional costs onto items labeled as the "piracy cost"
As you can see, by saying "its hurts us" the industry gets to make more money, regardless of the effect of piracy. So from their angle it doens't matter, either way if we say it matters, there is money to be made (see music industry).
So when you blindly support the idea that piracy is bad many people miss our on this large, glaring piece of information nobody has. A piece of information which is pivotal to the financial and ethical arguments.
This is why I personally refuse to pass judgment on piracy, as the gains/losses cannot be accurately measured and in either situation large companies like EA stand to gain from claiming it hurts them.
So what you're saying is, we should all be able to download and play games without any of us having to pay a single penny because there's no loss to the developer or publisher?
Also, I have yet to hear any justification for game piracy that isn't greed and/or entitlement, so you know the drill.
(PS. The comparison was of the coverage of the respective industries by related journals.)
Also, I have yet to hear any justification for game piracy that isn't greed and/or entitlement, so you know the drill.
(PS. The comparison was of the coverage of the respective industries by related journals.)
no I'm saying the effects of piracy and the audience of players that pirate is unknown.
The effect they actually have on the bottom line is unknown.
There is no logical reason you can pass a judgment while such pivotal pieces of information are unknown.
Why its not greed or entitlement? how about curiosity, boredom. Its not greedy to be bored and want to try something.
I haven't heard any justification why piracy hurts the industry, so you know the drill.
There is no comparison ,is what I'm saying, because piracy and car-theft are far to dissimilar to even compare.
The effect they actually have on the bottom line is unknown.
There is no logical reason you can pass a judgment while such pivotal pieces of information are unknown.
Why its not greed or entitlement? how about curiosity, boredom. Its not greedy to be bored and want to try something.
I haven't heard any justification why piracy hurts the industry, so you know the drill.
There is no comparison ,is what I'm saying, because piracy and car-theft are far to dissimilar to even compare.
"We fucked up big. Both with this leak, and with the stupid DRM we did before. Please have mercy on us. As reward for our devs who didn't leak, we're letting them have complete creative freedom with their next 2 titles. And we're giving back the versions of the game that we stole from people. We realize now that was a dick move. And free sims 3 expansion pack for everyone who actually buys this game."Malygris said:
Hang on a second, you might have a point about the financial cost of piracy being hard to quantify, but the ethical argument is easy.Sparkky said:
[li]Do you have the game? - Yes [/li]
[li]Did you pay for the game? - No[/li]
[li]Should you have paid for the game? - Yes[/li]
[li]In that case, you have done something unethical[/li]
See? Easy.
You missed the part where you explain having something you didn't pay for is unethical.nilcypher said:
Killing somebody is unethical for obvious reasons.
Stealing from somebody is unethical... unless its to save a life, or it was stolen in the first place, or.... etc.
Nowhere will you read that having something that you didn't pay for is unethical.
Pay is a very broad term. Maybe the payment is the fact that a 14 yearold child whose parents would never buy him a video game is now going to grow up to be a videogamer because he pirated games growing up and got to play them.
You can't simplify it so much and call it unethical, its a very complex issue and again there are many issue which we do not have the information to make the leap to "damage is done" which is what the "ethical" question hinges greatly on.
I've always seen The Sims titles appealing to a more casual gamer, the ones that don't tend to use torrent sites, and a lot of them don't know what a torrent even is. I think EA has a problem with a leak, a very big leak, a very big problem, but I'm not so sure if it'll cripple their sales.
Ah, I see where you're coming from now.Sparkky said:
"This is little Timmy. Timmy's parents won't buy him video games, so his only option is to pirate them. How can you say that piracy is wrong when it's the only way that poor Timmy can play the Sims 3? Fortunately, by the time Timmy has his own income, he will love games so much that he will stop pirating and buy them instead."
I'm sorry, but that is so much nonsense. The chances that little Timmy will stop pirating games is pretty minimal. Let's face it, if he had that much of a conscience, he'd have saved up his allowance or got a paper round back when he was 14. Timmy isn't going to grow up to be a gamer, he's going to grow up to be a pirate.
The ethical question is only complicated if you're trying to dodge it.
Again, your making the assumption that Timmy will continue to pirate with no proof. I have already addressed this as the point of unknown. that the proof to make this very claim is non-existent and thus basing claims off it is illogical.nilcypher said:
Many of these arguments I'm bring up were ones brought up in a fourth year computer ethics course with a professor who specializes in the ethics of law, and a great interest in computer ethics.
As well, to simplify my entire argument to an example of small child who will(obviously for reasons you decided not elaborate on) pirate until the day he dies.
If it was simple, there wouldn't be Philosophy PHDs publishing papers on this very topic.
In all honesty if this is all you can contribute to the discussion Nilcypher please don't bother replying. Your ability to build and argue a straw man is great, but they call arguing a straw man a logical fallacy for a reason.
See, this is why nobody takes you seriously.Sparkky said:
On that note, unless somebody comes up with something new to say, I'm out of this conversation. I think the point has been made pretty clearly.
For an anecdotal example, I got a copy of Warhammer Online for free, as well as Skate 2 because the VP of EA came to my class for a guest lecture. I didn't pay for them, yet most people do. Circumstance makes a huge difference here.Malygris said:
As I said previous Malygris, most of these issues are ones that were brought up in a fourth year computer ethics course. Aswell, to be frank there is only two people who apparently don't take me seriously, and neither of them have given me any reason to take them seriously.
Neither of you have put forth any sort of actual counter argument to any of my points.
You just said "That's why nobody takes you seriously" without actually saying why that statement is wrong. That's just an insult, you contributed nothing, gave no reasoning, presented no argument, just insulted.
It's not a straw man fallacy, it just looks that way because your argument is so ridiculous.Sparkky said:
Let's turn this round shall we? What evidence do you have that Timmy will stop pirating games? For the sake of this little thought experiment, let's expand the premise. Timmy pirates his way through high school, and after a while, it's just something he does. He graduates and goes to college. His budget is limited, so he keeps pirating games. By the time he gets his degree, he's been pirating stuff for the best part of ten years and he doesn't see any reason why he should stop, after all, the publisher isn't losing anything and it's not like he stole a car or something.
Can I prove this scenario with a slide rule and graph paper? No, I can't, but it seems pretty likely doesn't it?
Oh, and the fact that philosophy PhD's can't see that taking something without paying for is wrong says more about them then it does about me. Like I said, it's only difficult if you're trying to dodge it, or I suppose if you're going for a degree in thinking about things.
Anyway, unless your counter-argument is significantly different than your previous posts, I'm done with this.
Your example falls short, in those cases you were entitled to them as they were a kind of gift given by someone in a legal position to do so.Sparkky said:
And it's much more then two people, just most don't care enough about you to actually take the time to respond.
I don't have that evidence, nobody does; and that's my point. My argument has never been that he will buy the games. My argument has been that we don't know if he will or won't.nilcypher said:
I'm saying that fundamentally we don't know the effect, be it positive or negative on the sales in the industry. So basing arguments on the fact that it is true is wrong.
It also seemed likely the world was flat, that when the magician cuts the guy in half it looks real.
It seems likely that a lot of things happen, yet until we know the facts you shouldn't make claims based on it.
In this case saying it hurts the industry you are making a claim based on something we don't know/understand.
For example, an anecdote about my life that counters the Timmy example. I grew up in a poor family near my dads office where he worked with high tech. I was allowed to use the computers but my family couldn't afford games. I buy my games now because I can, but for 8+ years of my life I pirated games because I had no other way to get them.
I now took a computer science degree because of my love of computer games and work on small projects. I am a real world example that counters the example of Timmy stealing games for the rest of his life. Because i was able to pirate, the video game industry has made more money off me. Now what % of kids grow up to be me, and what % grow up to be Timmy is again, unknown.
Because its unknown you can't make claims about the damage, which means saying piracy is good/bad based on the fact that is does damage to the company is illogical when you can't support it fundamentally.
As for the value of the PHDs in philosophy arguing it. Philosophers are the ones who work on policy, they want to get something into policy before legal precedent decides for us if it is right or wrong. its widely accepted that there is a policy vacuum in regards to the law and the internet and that's a problem we are dealing with right now.
Its circumstance, what about when the kid couldn't afford it or get his hands on it because he lives out in the middle of nowhere. I'm simply saying its not cut/dry and in my case there was circumstance that made it okay to have it without paying.Varchld said:
As well the idea that its much more than two people is very similar to the very argument I'm making about piracy. Its an unknown. There might be hundreds of people who read my post and agree, but don't feel the need to post because they think my argument holds. There might be a thousand people who disagree but don't post. We don't know, so you couldn't make the argument "hundereds of people agree with you Sparkky, they just don't post, so keep posting."