To anyone who thinks piracy is ok

[jaketheripper]

Honestly, i respet the gaming industry enough to buy my games, but not my music, the only music i buy is from artists that are good people, like the lead singer of disturbed, a guy in a wheelchair fought thru the mosh pit and david(the singer) saw that, brought him on stage, and let him backstage after the show to have a beer with them, i respect that. ive also met him and he is genuinely cool. but if an artist(musical or otherwise) is a corrupted dickhead(s)(*cough* gene simmons(i dont like kiss but hese a good example)) then they dont deserve anything more than a cardboard box, therefor i dont buy their shit. thats my view on piracy, it just a personal thing for me.

 

[InnerRebellion]

My friend pirates everything, and I mean everything. I don't even borrow games from him once I found out all of his games are illegal...mainly cos I'm a paranoid nut.

I can see why companies hate pirates, but at the same time, I don't see why it's so bad.

 

[Iwata]

People who approve of piracy are people who've never lost a job because of it, like I, and many others, have.

Fuck piracy, and fuck pirates.

 

[newwiseman]

Bottom line, the studies have shown that most individuals that engage in piracy are low income. Thus never really capable or purchasing said product in the first place.

The American consumer culture likes to lead people into mass credit debt by telling them that they need things: cars, shoes, music, movies; when what they really need to do is pay their rent and feed their kids.

I've never much liked the idea of someone who does nothing but sing makes more money than the guy who cured polio. I really don't like that chemists and physicists don't make a fraction of what Keanu Reeves makes by saying "whoa".

The entertainment industry is bloated, and actor pays have skyrocketed. Any harm ultimately done to the industry should be good for the consumer; costs and budgets will come down, ingenuity will have to go up, and hopefully we'll end up with good thoughtful movies instead of mindless flicks that only do well because people like the lead actor.

Piracy has always and will always be around, it's one of the fundamental market forces that helps balance what things are really worth, even if that means some people pay a lot and others pay nothing.

The real enemy are the bootleggers; the ones who actively sale and profit from pirated products. I really don't care if their strung up and filleted.

 

[kouriichi]

They charge to much these days. :/
The economy makes it so most people cant afford theyer games.
"When things are out of reach, people get a broom." When you cant afford a game, and your really want it, you use something to get it for you.

While im not saying piracy is ok, neather is what theyer charging. $60 a peice, plus the cost of internet and subscription fees. If you own an Xbox, your paying 200 bucks of the system ((at minimum)), 60 bucks of live, 60 bucks of the game, and then 60 bucks for your internet so you can enjoy the game iteself.

Its not the 1 thing thats the problem, its the pile of things.

Hypothetically, in the past, i might have pirated a game or two. Why would i have done this? ((hypothetically ofcourse)) because i was horribly strapped for money. Having to pay 800 bucks a month on my rent, plus over $100 for my internet and cable. I was practically live on ramen that month because of my extra bills. I had only 30 dollars to spare :/ but guess what? The sims 3 is 60 bucks. I could eather wait a month to get it, not get it at all, or download it via bittorrent. ((hypothetically ofcourse))

If they charged less for theyer games, or even allowed us to pay over time, there would be no problem. I mean, what if they let you pay for your game over a couple of months? 20 bucks a month over 3 months.

Im sure that piracy rates would drop quickly if people could accually afford the games they would have downloaded.

 

[Killbot]

First of all, i never said its a sample! I said if your truely a fan of a game you will buy it. For instance, i hate halo, so ill never buy it.... i might get a pirated copy though! No incentive to buy you say? Have you ever downloaded a pirated game? Its full of complicated installations, bugs, software incompatibilities! Sure its free but its like getting a mongrel in a box, sure hes kinda cute in a mangy kinda way but it makes weird noises and humps about a bit and just isn't really the real thing you wanted. And its NOT the whole game now, maybe 5 or 10 years ago, but now that every multiplayer/co-op modes need special activation you actually get, the single-player so.... 50% of the game... maybe more.

My heart bleeds for you, and how difficult it is for you to get hold of something illegally to which you are in NO WAY entitled. And this whole mess of "if you're truly a fan, you'll buy it"--please. There is NO DATA to back up that claim, because it's just not happening on any scale large enough to care about.

If you get it for free, you HAVE IT. FOR FREE. You're not going to go back and retroactively pay for it, and you're not going to pay for the sequels. Why? Because you've just learned you can get it for free. The evidence is ALL OVER the data.

And its not other peoples stuff, its YOUR stuff, you paid for it, why can't you share that with people?

No, it's not. Read the EULA--you're not "buying" the rights to copy and/or distribute the software. You're buying a license to use THIS SINGULAR COPY of the software. You never have to pay again, but that doesn't mean the software itself "belongs" to you. That's like saying, 'Hey, this book I bought belongs to me, so I can use, copy, and distribute copies of all of its contents as though they were my own.' Not true.

And sure, if you pirate it, you don't have to accept the EULA. That's because you've ALREADY STOLEN IT. It's like going to a car rental place, taking a car without asking, and then claiming it's yours because you never filled out the form. It's ridiculous, has nothing to do with any logic or reason, and it's illegal.

If you can't pay for it, why pay? The company wouldn't make any money from you anyway so there is literally zero harm in you downloading it. Your not killing the system, your just taking what you can get.

If you can't pay for it, why should you have it? What gives you the right to have it? You already know you're absolutely wrong about "zero harm." You've just convinced yourself the people you're harming aren't good, hard-working folks. You just paint long black mustaches on them in your mind and say, "Evil, greedy corporations!" like so many other pretended activists. No, you're contributing to stealing from the developers themselves in so many ways that you may as well be sneaking into their houses at night.

No evidence? Screw evidence,

See? There's your problem.

its a well known fact that piracy while "infringing on copyright" reduces income from the multi-million publishers (boo-hoo, taking candy from a fat candy stuffed baby...with plenty of more candy on hand) thus effecting the makers, but still garners support for the makers (see TPB)! Not just for gaming but music. THAT'S GOOD! There's plenty of evidence online to support this - google is your friend.

This "well known fact" is bullshit. And you have absolutely no evidence to support this claim, because there is none. Simply pointing me toward google is your way of saying, "I don't know jack shit about what I'm talking about, and you're supposed to do the work for me." I already have. I've considered all of the evidence, and the conclusions match up with reality. Yours do not.

TPB? Really? You don't keep up much with news. Why don't YOU go to google and find out what they're up to now because of the game they've been running--begging people for donations while raking in millions in advertising dollars. Really. Your complete ignorance on the topic is showing.

How many artists have given up because of the photograph?

This is called a non sequitur. The logic you're appealing to doesn't follow from the conversation we're having. This isn't about people not "keeping up with digital media," or artists claiming that downloading is affecting their art. This is about developers (artists) that are not happy that their software (art) is being downloaded BY PEOPLE WHO REFUSED TO PAY ONE RED CENT FOR IT.

The rest of your bullshit is just you trying to convince yourself you're not stealing right out of their pockets. Just cop to it, and we could have a little more respect for you that this, "Sharing is caring" pigshit.

You embody everything that's wrong with this planet. But won't stoop to your level of insolence, I'll let you eat up the corporate propaganda in peace. Furthermore just because I may support piracy doesn't make me a pirate, I own all my software and I paid for it, like I said I'm a supporter of Steam. And lets please not pretend that games are "art" they have a long way to go yet to be considered an art form - oh... art galleries are free. Perhaps your wide knowledge of internet gained grammar might find that to also be a "non sequitur" - I suggest using that more than your crass vocabulary.

Games are business, like the music or film industry. Although I will not argue that some artists can produce rather artistic pieces, I doubt anyone can argue that it's more out to make money than an outlet of such suppressed artistic flare.

You really didn't bother looking for any evidence did you? (Granted, in this relentless Anti-Piracy Campaign, it can be hard to find.)

And seriously, chill out... high blood pressure kills.

 

[tjcross]

in all seriousness if they charge £8 to watch a film and a further £6 for a snack and beverage and stop you from bringing your own then they are the criminals

that kind of annoys me to since I'm technically a criminal because i went to a movie with a coffee crisp in my pocket got hungry and ate it. it's my damn food.
anyway on topic piracy is a problem but there are a few things i do that would make me a pirate but i think the reasons are good enough to not get me sued to death by game makers
1)pirating a game if you already purchased it is ok.(my sister broke my copy of jade empire so i pirated it instead of hunting down another copy and buying it would you consider that piracy? i don't)
2)if the product no longer makes the company money it's ok.(i consider buying a used game equal to piracy since the only money being made is by the seller and not the company who made the game) so if i can buy it off steam i would
if those rules are flawed and make me look like a cheap ass who doesn't care about the industry then so be it but i value my opinions more than yours(not directed towards shootthebandit).

 

[Jez Supreme]

Piracy isn't a good thing, but, eh, what are you going to do?

Can't beat it, and nobody has ever stopped people breaking the law by writing articles, regardless of how in-depth or unbiased.

Actually, I stopped pirating games based on articles written on the escapist and penny arcade, several years back.

 

[D_987]

The developers don't fund projects, publishers do. So you want to take what devs get (which is less than publishers) and then claim they have to use that money on other projects. That's like saying that the few cents a cook gets for making your Big Mac is funding a Big Mac next week. It's the lions share of the money that McDonalds gets that funds the Big Mac next week, the cooks money is his to take home and spend.

Well your analogy is completely inaccurate and over-dramatic in comparison but I'll let that slide because the point you make is just incorrect.

Publishers fund project yes, but the process by which they fund them is not as it may appear. Certainly some companies pitch a game to a publisher, and receive payment per deadline, but there're other companies [take CD Projekt] that have openly admitted to creating a game without a publisher; and then finding one when the game is at a decent stage [as they have done with The Witcher 2] as to hold more creative freedom. Furthermore; the current age of developers and publishers will come to and end; it's getting insustainable - furthurmore; many dev houses gain bonuses based around eventual sales etc etc.

 

[RiddleRage]

I'm ok with pirates. As long as they really can't purchase the game because they don't have the money to, or the currency differences make the prices so unfair, it's unreasonable to buy any game.

 

[TurtleBay]

DO me a favor. go to youtube and look up your favorite song BAM you just pirated. >.=.>

Umm, assuming it is on VEVO the artists have licensed it and have a cut... not piracy.

 

[D_987]

If my analogy is inaccurate, then maybe you shouldn't "let it slide". Tell ya what, how about I say that your entire post is just wrong but I'll let it slide? What's the first thing that comes to your mind?

I'll bet it's "you're letting it slide because you can't really prove it". Yep, that's what I am thinking too.

Prove that comparing a Cook in McDonalds to a video-game company in terms of the way they are paid is ridiculous as the situations are completely different; as are the pay methods? Do I really need to go on?

Cook in McDonalds earns a fixed rate per hour.
Games Companies [the whole company, not the worker, as that's what we're discussing] earns money in installments from publishers; or funds the project themselves [see Valve, Square-Enix, EA].

About your post, you are right that sometimes developers fund a project and then seek out publishers but is that what happens most of the time?

No, not yet; there's a mix of that and self-publification; publishers have begun buying developers instead. Which makes the price argument even more interesting. If a game doesn't sell enough for the game to become profitable [and selling at a low price will not make a game more profitable; in fact it's seen as a stigma] the developers don't gain the money they need to keep jobs, and could eventually close down if the publisher sees fit.

 

[Lord Honk]

Holy bonkers this thread struck a nerve lol

On a more serious note, while I think that piracy in general is a bad thing (bad for the developers, publishers, other gamers that actually payed etc), it's not like it's ever gonna vanish, just like illegal drugs and black markets will always find a way into the system.

All you can do is try to reduce the spread, but as long as the idea of getting something for free is something good, it will continue. "There is no such thing as a free lunch"

 

[TurtleBay]

On a more serious note, while I think that piracy in general is a bad thing (bad for the developers, publishers, other gamers that actually payed etc), it's not like it's ever gonna vanish, just like illegal drugs and black markets will always find a way into the system.

It came close to vanishing when games went from cassette tape to cartridges in the early 1980s. I bet that the next phase of piracy almost vanishing will be either the dropping of PC titles by major publishers or the development of really good "phone home" online based DRM.

 

[Setsuri21]

By the way, I LOVE the game S.T.A.L.K.E.R, and happily pre-ordered the sequel Clear Sky. When I saw it would include TAGES copy protection (the game can only be installed 5 times) I cancelled the order and refused to buy the game, even for £2 on Steam during the sale. The developers deserve nothing but faeces for including that garbage, which was cracked a couple of hours after the game was released anyway.

Why did you not buy it because you can only install it five times. Why would you need to install it more then five times?

Being able to install a game only five times can be bad in the long run. Buying new computers, reinstalling after hardrive problems, etc. can, if you have a unusually unlucky streak or if you want to play it multiple times, on and off.

 

[Dastardly]

You embody everything that's wrong with this planet. But won't stoop to your level of insolence, I'll let you eat up the corporate propaganda in peace.

1) Really? I'll take "overstating my feeble case" for $400, Alex.

2) "Insolence." I'm not sure you know what the word means, as you're not using it correctly. Or you just haven't made your context clear. Either way, it's your fault that your meaning hasn't been effectively communicated with that word.

3) Corporate propaganda. The numbers I'm using were collected FROM TPB THEMSELVES. It's based on available torrents and recorded downloads of those torrents FROM TPB THEMSELVES. Unless you're claiming that TPB is trying to make piracy look like a bigger problem than it is, or that they are trying to undermine the phony reasons people give for pirating, you do not know what you're talking about.

TPB is the MAIN SOURCE of the numbers I'm talking about. Not gaming companies, anti-piracy initiatives, none of it. This is the pirate-recorded information, unaltered or doctored in any way. Read the damned article, it'll clear up a lot of your evident stupidity on the matter.

Furthermore just because I may support piracy doesn't make me a pirate, I own all my software and I paid for it, like I said I'm a supporter of Steam. And lets please not pretend that games are "art" they have a long way to go yet to be considered an art form - oh... art galleries are free. Perhaps your wide knowledge of internet gained grammar might find that to also be a "non sequitur" - I suggest using that more than your crass vocabulary.

You're right. "Games are/aren't art" isn't a part of this discussion, so bringing it in is exactly an example of a non sequitur argument. More appropriately it's just a "WTF, left-field, 'That's not what we're talking about' argument."

You really didn't bother looking for any evidence did you? (Granted, in this relentless Anti-Piracy Campaign, it can be hard to find.)

I'm not here to do your homework for you. You can find a link to the numbers I'm talking about... actually, MANY links... in the article in the OP. I have gone and verified those myself, though they are all very inflated now because of the time that has passed. They are still proportionately increased, meaning that the relationship between the numbers is still a valid and perfectly accurate means of comparison.

Until a single word you say is backed up by a single shred of sourced data, you're just billowing plumes of smoke from some bizarre face-rectum creating something far worse than conjecture--it's just outright lies. You're making things up completely. You're not even "twisting the facts," you're just not using any, available though they may be.

Support your claims with data. Or abandon them and bow out. That's how reasoned, logical discussion works. Those who make up the rules as they go, spin lies and sell them as "well-known facts," and generally just ignore any code of logical discussion are of no use to anyone in the intellectual world. Until your noise has any support (and thus any meaning), you're just a loud, annoying party favor that's funny for the first couple minutes, but grows tiresome really quickly.

 

[Dastardly]

If my analogy is inaccurate, then maybe you shouldn't "let it slide". Tell ya what, how about I say that your entire post is just wrong but I'll let it slide? What's the first thing that comes to your mind?

I'll bet it's "you're letting it slide because you can't really prove it". Yep, that's what I am thinking too.

Prove that comparing a Cook in McDonalds to a video-game company in terms of the way they are paid is ridiculous as the situations are completely different; as are the pay methods? Do I really need to go on?

Cook in McDonalds earns a fixed rate per hour.
Games Companies [the whole company, not the worker, as that's what we're discussing] earns money in installments from publishers; or funds the project themselves [see Valve, Square-Enix, EA].

About your post, you are right that sometimes developers fund a project and then seek out publishers but is that what happens most of the time?

No, not yet; there's a mix of that and self-publification; publishers have begun buying developers instead. Which makes the price argument even more interesting. If a game doesn't sell enough for the game to become profitable [and selling at a low price will not make a game more profitable; in fact it's seen as a stigma] the developers don't gain the money they need to keep jobs, and could eventually close down if the publisher sees fit.

Actually, mate, so that you know, for the sake of your point... that actually IS what is happening most of the time. There are TONS of small, independent studios out there performing "labors of love." They work during free time, invest money in the necessary hardware and software, all in the (sometimes naive) hopes that it will get big enough to catch a publisher's notice... or even get big enough they won't need one.

The reason it SEEMS like those are few and far between is simply because MOST of them completely fail to materialize. Sometimes they even finish the product, only to find no one wants it... not because it's bad, but because it's not a "sure bet," and they're not a "known name." But there are tons upon tons of indie "studios" (whether in name or not) making games on their own funding, who plan to eventually seek out a publisher--they're just not as well publicized without a publisher.

So your point is stronger than you might think.

 

[saruman31]

The law enables me to pirate everything as long as i don`t make a profit after it and only use it for myself. It`s perfectly fair. Get over it, nobody cares.
-Unless your the CEO of Activision or something.
You are not, obviously!

 

[Turbo_Destructor]

Firstly, sorry about quoting the wrong person. However, the 'illustration' is still at the very least incorrectly labelled - if you wish to display the revenue/sales of the software title/game/whatever, you should label it so, because it's current label implies that you are trying to show a contrast between a number of people and an amount of money.

I'm not exactly sure what this illustration is promoting, and whether or not you agree with it, but in the hypothetical world of free information - your capitalists do not actually make any money - if he is not allowed to put a dollar value on his product - rather, he must give it away - he is not making money, he is losing it by paying his developers to produce the product. Therefore, where the hell is his incentive to make the product in the first place?

Replies:

-

However, the 'illustration' is still at the very least incorrectly labelled - if you wish to display the revenue/sales of the software title/game/whatever, you should label it so, because it's current label implies that you are trying to show a contrast between a number of people and an amount of money.

Reply:

The cost of production illustrates the cost as compared to the sales from the customer group (blue), as you can see there is a margin of profit on both hypothetical capitalist worlds.

Clarification: The green bar represents the amount of people needed to buy the information to cover the cost of production.
-

but in the hypothetical world of free information - your capitalists do not actually make any money

Reply:

There is no profit in the hypothetical world of free information, because there is no sale of commodities, only the payment of those who produce the information.

More on this topic: The third hypothetical world is not necessarily a capitalist one. A market economy hinders intervention.
-

See that I could reply mostly by using the reply you replied to. I will explain further, but please attempt to read what I say, then ask the questions regarding what I said.

Please don't try to tell me i didn't read your reply. When i said that those who make the product (or finance the development) don't make any money - that was not the point in and of itself. I built on that to say that he is not only NOT making money, he is LOSING money: an important distinction. I then went on to ask where is the incentive for producing software if it will only cost you money. And it begs another question - where did our producer get his money from in the first place? if producing software costs money, and makes none, so where does he get his money from?

You have explained some of the inconsistencies of the illustration. But one inconsistency has been replaced by another - if the blue bars depict revenue, i will assume that the grey piracy bar reflects the value of the total downloads. So why do you have a gigantic red "Everyone" bar in the middle? If all the others are reflective of amounts of money, and therefore not actually even vaguely reflective of the amount of people buying the software, why do you have a bar that is not reflective of money, but of people instead? It seems a little propaganda-ish to me.

 

[AdmiralMemo]

Piracy is not OK, but I think some games should have better demos for me to check out whether they're worth paying for or not. I've only really "pirated" a handful of games in my entire life, and, really, I was only doing it to find out whether they were any good or not, because the demo didn't tell me enough, or didn't even exist.

Those games, most of the time, I ended up buying, so I don't consider that to truly be piracy, since they got their money. The few I didn't buy, I deleted, because I thought they were crap and didn't want to continue playing them. So there was no money lost on the publisher's end, due to me not wanting to play the game after I saw it was truly like, and not keeping the pirated copy I had, so there's no extra "unpaid-for copy" floating around.