Team Meat "Doesn't F*cking Care" About Pirates

[incal11]

Is Piracy good? No.
Is more publicity a good thing? Yes.
Does it justify Piracy? No.

How is something that brings more publicity be at the same time good and not justified. Because it's not following the law ? please.
I agree, murder on the high seas is never good or really justified (see, mods, I'm not defending piracy).
But the digital "piracy" you're thinking of actually is not absolute evil, in fact it is good most of the time. "it's against the law" ain't the moral high ground you think it is. Fair use is in the law, but it's fought by the wrong people (not the artists), for the wrong reasons (not your own good).

Don't let the majors tell you what to think, read all those links, think about it, and come back to me. I will look to any hard opposing evidence you may have.
Please, make me have faith in humanity again by not just answering "nah, it's 'RONG *turns back*". Show me your intelligence and independance of though.

1 hour documentary with actual artists giving their opinions, and food for though. Don't let the funny clip deter you.
http://questioncopyright.org/minute_memes/cint_release

Handy links provided by Dexter111
http://moreintelligentlife.com/story/internet-piracy-is-good-for-films-1
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070312/165448.shtml
http://www.teleread.com/copy-right/comic-book-artist-finds-increased-sales-after-4chan-piracy/
http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.com/2010/07/sometimes-its-ok-to-steal-my-games.html
http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-is-theft-ridiculous-lost-sales-they-dont-exist-says-minecraft-creator-110303/
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/valve-game-software-pirate,6865.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8337887.stm

 

[Doom-Slayer]

How is something that brings more publicity be at the same time good and not justified. Because it's not following the law ? please.
I agree, murder on the high seas is never good or really justified (see, mods, I'm not defending piracy).
But the digital "piracy" you're thinking of actually is not absolute evil, in fact it is good most of the time. "it's against the law" ain't the moral high ground you think it is. Fair use is in the law, but it's fought by the wrong people (not the artists), for the wrong reasons (not your own good).

Just to point out I specifically said "Piracy is not good" and then you just said "How is something that brings more publicity be at the same time good and not justified", ie piracy.

Let me structure this the way I do for my philosophy essays

1. Piracy results in a game being more widely known and therefore more popular.
2. A game being more widespread and popular is a good thing.
3. Therefore one of the results of piracy is a positive.

I never stated "Piracy is good" I was simply stating that there are in fact positives that arise from piracy, something having a positive DOES NOT MAKE IT POSITIVE.

Also I'm fully aware of the difference between law and moral and I never mentioned it at all. I just made the generalization that Piracy is bad because I believe it is.(no I am not going to write a page to justiy that)

/clarification

 

[loodmoney]

What always worries me with this sort of thing is that the take-home message for some people will be, "Well, Team Meat is okay with piracy, so you, [name of different company here], should be as well." And then proceed to feel okay about pirating [name of different company here]'s game. Kind of like the "well Radiohead did it" argument [http://www.toothpastefordinner.com/092810/record-labels-adopt-the-radiohead-model.gif].

Instead of, you know, simply respecting the developers' decisions about how they make their game available.

 

[incal11]

Just to point out I specifically said "Piracy is not good" and then you just said "How is something that brings more publicity be at the same time good and not justified", ie piracy.

You did say "does it justify piracy? no."

Let me structure this the way I do for my philosophy essays

1. Piracy results in a game being more widely known and therefore more popular.
2. A game being more widespread and popular is a good thing.
3. Therefore one of the results of piracy is a positive.

Then what are the other results of piracy ? bootlegging and actual maritime murder nonwithstanding. And what are your proofs that those other results exist ? Because I did bring my own proofs, that you refuse to consider while not giving any of your own.

I never stated "Piracy is good" I was simply stating that there are in fact positives that arise from piracy, something having a positive DOES NOT MAKE IT POSITIVE.

You shouldn't forget it works both way.
I don't deny that there are (very few) situations where "piracy" had bad consequences, likewise this does not make it negative.

Also I'm fully aware of the difference between law and moral and I never mentioned it at all. I just made the generalization that Piracy is bad because I believe it is.(no I am not going to write a page to justiy that)

It is my experience that those who say piracy is not justifiable with no proof or reasoning have a strong moral bia on the issue, and that this moral bia is not grounded in reason.
I'm not asking you to write a whole essay, simple points like you just did is enough. So, what are your points for saying "piracy" is not justifiable ? If there are any beyond one good side not making something all good.

Instead of, you know, simply respecting the developers' decisions about how they make their game available.

I maintain that there is nothing to respect there. Once an idea is left out in the open it belongs to everyone, how the artist is rewarded depends on his talent. That's how it always worked up until last century.

 

[loodmoney]

Instead of, you know, simply respecting the developers' decisions about how they make their game available.

I maintain that there is nothing to respect there. Once an idea is left out in the open it belongs to everyone, how the artist is rewarded depends on his talent. That's how it always worked up until last century.

The artist is awarded depending on talent whether or not their work is pirated. If a work is good and not pirated, then people will discover it is good, buy it, and read/watch/play/&c. it. The artist will be rewarded. If a work is good and pirated, then people will download it, read/watch/play/&c. it--then, presumably, pay for it. The artist will be rewarded. Vice versa for bad works.

The only difference is that without piracy, an artist has a slight chance of cheating their audience out of their money, while with piracy, the audience has a huge opportunity to cheat the artist out of their reward.

As for "That's how it always worked", I suggest you read up on your art history [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage]. Nor does that argument stand up, even if it were true. One would not advocate paying labourers based on "talent" (as decided by the employer, obviously) because a similar system was used for serfs and slaves.

Also, if you could explain the reasoning behind "Once an idea is left out in the open it belongs to everyone", that would be greatly appreciated. At the moment, it just looks like weak rationalisation.

 

[Doom-Slayer]

-snip-

Okay quite simply you seem to be confused. You're arguing against my point of "Piracy is not justifiable". That's not what my post was about. I was arguing against the point of "Piracy has no good side" and I stated why it does and that was that. The reason for me stating that piracy is not justifiable is because that is my opinion and the person I was critizing was of that opinion too, it was not something debate worthy in that context. I'm sure you want to debate that issue however I do not.

 

[hexFrank202]

Alright everybody, say it with me...

"probably borne in large part out of sheer helplessness."

DICK statement!

Come on, EscapistMagazine.com editor, give game-makers more credit than that. Maybe they say these things because they actually believe them. Or, dare I say it, because they might actually be true!

The creators of South Park--even though it's a cartoon and not a game--have many times said that their show helped to reach its popularity early on with all the people downloading it and sharing it illegally through late 90's sloth-ter-net.

 

[Iscin]

They really don't f*cking care!
http://i.imgur.com/Umily.png

 

[incal11]

The reason for me stating that piracy is not justifiable is because that is my opinion and the person I was critizing was of that opinion too, it was not something debate worthy in that context. I'm sure you want to debate that issue however I do not.

"Piracy" is entirely justifiable and I gave you proof. Still there you are :
"it's stil 'RONG *turns back*"
This is a forum, if anyone decides it's a debate then it's a debate. A debate you lost.

The artist is awarded depending on talent whether or not their work is pirated. If a work is good and not pirated, then people will discover it is good, buy it, and read/watch/play/&c. it. The artist will be rewarded. If a work is good and pirated, then people will download it, read/watch/play/&c. it--then, presumably, pay for it. The artist will be rewarded. Vice versa for bad works.

If a work is good and not pirated it will have less publicity, despite being good which is a shame and a waste. As proven by the links I gave in a previous post. That's it.

The only difference is that without piracy, an artist has a slight chance of cheating their audience out of their money, while with piracy, the audience has a huge opportunity to cheat the artist out of their reward.

Curently it's the majors cheating the audience more than the artists, and they do it massively. And bribing governements for laws than can only limit everyone's ability to create.
The audience does not "cheat", the audience rewards the artists according to their talent. Restricting access to the creation only limits the size of the audience, and thus the amount of reward it can give.

As for "That's how it always worked", I suggest you read up on your art history [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage]. Nor does that argument stand up, even if it were true. One would not advocate paying labourers based on "talent" (as decided by the employer, obviously) because a similar system was used for serfs and slaves.

Artists, actual artists, are not "labourers", many would be greatly vexed by your choice of words. There was a whole culture beside patronage, it never needed copyrights to thrive.
your trying to liken reward for talent with a feodal system is inane. Have a look at the majors and at how they treat artists, by the way.

Also, if you could explain the reasoning behind "Once an idea is left out in the open it belongs to everyone", that would be greatly appreciated. At the moment, it just looks like weak rationalisation.

Why don't you try to explain how a mere idea can be controlled ? That's what looks insane to me. Copyright is the weak rationalisation, just try to give me an explanation of what it is supposed to do and how. I dare you.
I'll tear it to pieces.

 

[grigjd3]

Never stolen a game but I certainly stopped buying anything with the more egregious types of DRM. These guys have figured out the way to get my money while so many other companies miss out.

 

[ProjectTrinity]

"The duo also apparently believes that shame will motivate at least some of the people who downloaded the game without paying for it."

^ Ahahahahahahahahahahaha. Let me tell you the percentage of 200,000 who will actually buy it after getting it for free.

...

Now notice how I didn't even bother to post a percentage. If anything makes a pirate pay for it, it's the fact that they read this article and thought "they're on our side - FINALLY. A company who knows the positive side of piracy!"

Drivel. Jim had it right from the getgo.

 

[Sizzle Montyjing]

But they can't afford to deal with it or be nice!
THEY MUST BE GREEDY!
GREEEEEED!!!
Were's the profit in being nice anyway?
Fools!
/ massive amounts of sarcasm

 

[Andy Chalk]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_253/7532-Gamers-of-the-Third-World

Yes, because third-world gaming is clearly what we're talking about here, and not pudgy dipshits who have somehow concluded that "it exists, therefore it is my right."

 

[Andy Chalk]

I agree with the widely-held sentiment that most pirates will not be put off by shame, because people who pirate games on a regular basis tend to be shameless douches.

 

[Fulbert]

I bought Super Meat Boy and hated it. I think it makes up for one of those 20000 people who enjoy the game without paying for it.

 

[godofallu]

Honestly the reason people pirated this game so intensively was because it had a poor price point. They could have sold it at a lower price and increased the quantity of actual sales enough to pull out ahead it seems.

I think this happens for a lot of smaller indie/arcade games. 15 dollars is just too high of a price point for impulse/throwaway buys. Trine was a huge flop as well until it hit the Humble Indie Bundle and all of a sudden they are raking in the cash for a game which was only fun for a few hours. Meatboy should have been 5-10 dollars, and could have used a more modern day advertising plan to spread the word for free.

Just my thoughts of course.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

Fine when you're a small company, and your next sale depends on people seeing your videogame, rather than buying it. When you're a big company losing millions through piracy and you can't find a legitimate reason to fund your next game? Not so much.

A big budget Triple-A title will typically be budgeted at 15-20 million dollars, not including marketing and sales cost. If it doesn't make at least that much back off sales, why would the studio or publisher want to put another 20 million into a sequel? It might be the most popular game ever, every single person who owns a console might have a copy, but if it didn't make back 20 million because it was pirated, then none of that matters.

An indie game is considered extravagent if it costs more than perhaps 10,000, including marketing and sales costs. Not only does it have to sell less, cheaper, but the games are typically a labour of love rather than a finanicial concern, and so the developer will of course sink another few thousand into his sequel, because he believes it's a story that needs to be told.

So no, this is not the same as Activision saying 'we don't like pirates,' this is literally another ball game entirely. The big companies and the indie companies are so separated from each other it would be like comparing me making a web show on my computer with a webcam and it failing, and then saying that's just like how Green Lantern failed. They might both be largely pointless filmed experiences with an actor involved, but it's hardly the same.

 

[incal11]

A big budget Triple-A title will typically be budgeted at 15-20 million dollars, not including marketing and sales cost. If it doesn't make at least that much back off sales, why would the studio or publisher want to put another 20 million into a sequel? It might be the most popular game ever, every single person who owns a console might have a copy, but if it didn't make back 20 million because it was pirated, then none of that matters.

I see that argument a lot, but it does not explain how the most successful high budget title are also the most pirated. Do you really think that without "piracy" they'd sell even more ?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4831-net-music-piracy-does-not-harm-record-sales.html
I have plenty more like that if you want.