UK Devs: Piracy Is a Problem, Doesn't Threaten Survival

[Miral]

So what if instead of the devs uploading it themselves they release the game and pull a Batman on the pirates that does the exact thing xscoot is saying? Just one nasty little line of code hidden somewhere in there that if you are using a cracked version it fries your PC/console or puts a box in the middle of your screen that plays porn or a message or something? No entrapment. And you got what you paid for. WIN/WIN.

Except that anything they do which causes damage to the PC or the files contained therein will get them sued -- since after all they are intentionally releasing it knowing that people will install it; whether people pay to receive it or not is immaterial.

They can get away with uploading an impaired-functionality version of the game (except that if someone can then patch it to be a not-impaired-functionality version [without using files from the full version] then the entire thing is perfectly legal all the way through; no piracy occurs). They can't get away with having that version break the PC, or show illegal images, or show pornographic images without verifying that there aren't minors present.

 

[shadowbird]

Getting worse? We have our first un-hackable and hard-to-hack consoles (PlayStation 3, XBOX360 that regulary bans modded consoles) since a few years ago, digital distribution is on the rise (murdering not only "piracy", but second-hand/pre-owned markets as well) and more people are aware and against "piracy" than ever, thanks mostly to overstatements and outright lies in anti-piracy propaganda. ISPs are fighting every day to avoid being forced to spy on their users and/or to disconnect people without trial at the behest of anyone who tells them their work has been "stolen". Yet it's "getting worse"? Give me a break, we're closer to stamping out piracy than we ever were.

And numbers don't mean a thing without context, the same Internet boom that gave rise to wide-spread file sharing also gave developers and publishers markets they couldn't have dreamed of before. If a while ago 1000 people bought your game and 100 copied it without permission, is that really better than 100`000 buying it and 100`000 "pirating"? How can you have "lost" revenue when you have no way of knowing if you ever had any chance of actually getting it in the first place?

 

[Leroy Frederick]

Yeah, capping / getting rid of broadband will solve it. Great idea. Why didn't something think of it sooner.

Who were these developers, politicians / MPs, reptiles, anti-game lobbyists or something?

Epic Fail.

 

[Murlin]

Throttle broadband? I can just see the headlines:
"U.K. to Become Internet 'Black Hole'"
"English Suffer YouTube Deprivation"
"Welshman Sentenced for Parallel Internet Connections"

Too late for the English! the French already completely cut your internet of when you download using a P2P system (not that that would really help as a vast amount of piracy is done just by copying cd's and selling them or giving them out)

 

[squid5580]

Why, it's simple. The devs simply need to release a version of their game on all the illegal piracy sites. However, the version they leak has a deadly virus. Three months after the game has been officially released, the virus will spring into action. Everyone's computer, or console, gets completely destroyed, and the screen continually shows disgusting videos, such as a picture of a dead baby, or gay bondage.

On a scale of 1 to Really Illegal, how bad do you think such an idea would be?

[sub]Hint: Quite a lot.[/sub]

Enjoy going to jail and/or getting sued into the ground.

Eh, what can I say? I'm a theatrical person. I'm sure there are much better ways of stopping pirates, but this way was the most extravagant and out there I could think of.

How about this. Instead of a horrible virus that messes you and your computer, after three months it just secretly uploads your IP to the devs site so they know who stole their game?

Anything they can do to identify a user, without their prior consent, and using that to punish them is in essence entrapment, and thus cannot be used in a court of law. It's why police can't, for example, run a fake child porn site and prosecute everyone who subscribes.

It's even more difficult, criminally they cannot even use evidence collected without authorisation, as at that point it's here say and can't be proven either way, and thus is only used in civil courts, which is why most caught infringing copyright are sued.

So what if instead of the devs uploading it themselves they release the game and pull a Batman on the pirates that does the exact thing xscoot is saying? Just one nasty little line of code hidden somewhere in there that if you are using a cracked version it fries your PC/console or puts a box in the middle of your screen that plays porn or a message or something? No entrapment. And you got what you paid for. WIN/WIN.

Criminal Damage, and Computer Misuse Act Crimes. That is a virus.

Jail time.

They would then be sued by every person afflicted by it, and they WOULD win without doubt. Bearing in mind, some peoples PC's are required for work and house important data you shouldn't doubt that each case would be hefty payouts, and lets face it.

But ignoring the fact that the company clever enough to come up with this entirely idiotic idea wouldn't also be clever enough to accidentally release the game with it in to all customers.

And lets face it... release groups decompile the game to defeat copy protection. Code that 'could' destroy a PC by running it, would be obvious... and somehow people here seem to think it's one line of code? What shutdown -t 1 -explode 1? Ridicolous. Best way would be destroying BIOSes, but you'd need to much code to identify and access it doesn't even bare thinking about, same for Graphics Cards. So many variations. All so obvious to the release groups, and would be trimmed. Ironically, the pirated version would be safer to use.

It's a stupid idea on so many levels.

So many here spout about the evils of piracy anyway without having the faintest clue about how pirates go about their business.

Escapist Policy:

Pirate: Arrrrr, hahaha. I be playing for free Jim Lad. Bring Wenches and Rum!
Counts as a Lost Sale to Company: Yes
Counts as a Real Lost Sale: Yes

Actual Pirate Policy:

#1 Pirate: This game rocks, i think i'm going to buy it!
Counts as a Lost Sale to Company: Yes
---- Why Yes? It was downloaded!
Counts as a Real Lost Sale: No
---- Why No? Pirate bought the game anyway.

#2 Pirate: This game sucks, i think i'm not going to buy it!
Counts as a Lost Sale to Company: Yes
---- Why Yes? It was downloaded!
Counts as a Real Lost Sale: No
---- Why No? Because they wouldn't have bought it without downloading it.

#3 Pirate: Meh, it's alright/good. I'll buy it when it's cheaper
Counts as a Lost Sale to Company: Yes
---- Why Yes? It was downloaded!
Counts as a Real Lost Sale: No
---- Why No? It was bought when a price that the Pirate thought it was worth.

#4 Pirate: I'm a cheapskate, i know it
Counts as a Lost Sale to Company: Yes
---- Why Yes? It was downloaded!
Counts as a Real Lost Sale: Maybe
---- Why Maybe? It's unlikely they would have bought it anyway.

The assumption by Developers is that the person who pirated it, would have bought it if they hadn't got it for free. It implies they CAN afford it. The way people value media is different, and largely that's piracy that has done that. I personally don't think any game without a solid multiplayer element is worth any more than £20.

However, people are also alot less patient and you can't expect a hyped game to be waited for when it's available. If it's a hyped game that's shitty, you can also expect it will have large downloads, but few sales.

There are many in the freeloader camp, but what is not generally understood is that they won't buy it anyway, if they can't get it for free. They might be people who can't afford it, they might just not care enough.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not advocating piracy, but it seems many on this forum do just not understand really the symantics of it, and as such make blanket statements like the Escapist Pirate Policy above.

I do understand the excuses. I just don't believe them. Loss of a real sale? See it shouldn't matter if they would or could have bought it or not. This should be treated like any other product on the market. If you can't or won't buy it you don't get the priviledge of enjoying it. Instead of making them choose between working for it or stealing it we call it piracy and everything is ok as listed above because it wasn't a "real sale". There is another thread created in OT I think (I wish I could remember the title). Anyways to make a long story short some kid got a DS with R9 (or something like that) and was having a moral dilema. On one hand he didn't feel comfortable pirating the games. On the other the easy accessibility and a lack of funds were also a big factor. And that is the bottom line. Pirated games are to easy to access. And for some reason that makes it excusable. Some even call it right. And since the law hasn't caught up with the times people can make excuses like that without having to worry about things like having to save up or get extra work to be able to enjoy them.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Why, it's simple. The devs simply need to release a version of their game on all the illegal piracy sites. However, the version they leak has a deadly virus. Three months after the game has been officially released, the virus will spring into action. Everyone's computer, or console, gets completely destroyed, and the screen continually shows disgusting videos, such as a picture of a dead baby, or gay bondage.

On a scale of 1 to Really Illegal, how bad do you think such an idea would be?

[sub]Hint: Quite a lot.[/sub]

Enjoy going to jail and/or getting sued into the ground.

Uh, Amnestic...Already happened. The original pirate of LSL had a copy of the Jerusalem virus that nearly decimated the business community due to disc swapping, back in 1990.

 

[Amnestic]

Why, it's simple. The devs simply need to release a version of their game on all the illegal piracy sites. However, the version they leak has a deadly virus. Three months after the game has been officially released, the virus will spring into action. Everyone's computer, or console, gets completely destroyed, and the screen continually shows disgusting videos, such as a picture of a dead baby, or gay bondage.

On a scale of 1 to Really Illegal, how bad do you think such an idea would be?

[sub]Hint: Quite a lot.[/sub]

Enjoy going to jail and/or getting sued into the ground.

Uh, Amnestic...Already happened. The original pirate of LSL had a copy of the Jerusalem virus that nearly decimated the business community due to disc swapping, back in 1990.

I was born in 1990. Such things were, sadly, before my time. Interesting to know though.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I was born in 1990. Such things were, sadly, before my time.

Just........shush.

 

[shadowbird]

This should be treated like any other product on the market.

And yet it's not. When you buy a chair, nobody forbids you to make your own copies of it, and even give/sell/rent them to your friends. It's your chair, you are allowed to do pretty much anything you want with it. When you pay for a game, you only get a very limited permission to play that game. You don't even own the copy, all you own is the fragile plastic disc and a permission to read data from it, and even that on one single set of hardware. That's the exact same thing as "selling" you a bike, while actually only allowing you to keep it in your house and use it, but absolutely forbidding you to sell, rent or even repair it (if/when it breaks, you have to buy a new one). Also, before buying you are rarely allowed to even test ride it before paying full price, and when you are (demos), it's a special model with 1 speed instead of the 18, only one brake (the front one), you cannot turn left and it stops working after the first 100 meters.

See it shouldn't matter if they would or could have bought it or not. [..] If you can't or won't buy it you don't get the priviledge of enjoying it.

Yes, but if you can't buy it but enjoy it anyway, how exactly does that create a loss for the seller and "destroy the industry"? Of course it's wrong to infringe on someone's rights to tell you how to use their work, and it pisses of authors that consumers of their work don't do what they want, but the problem is that nobody talks about it the way it is - copyright infringement, instead it's all "losses", "stealing", "destruction", "piracy", "doomsday and death for the entire industry". I never stop being amazed at how the loudest crybabies are the ones in the most successful industries in the world - videogames, music and movies. The only three industries that barely even feel the economic problems are same ones that keep crying impending death of their business while making more money each year.

 

[squid5580]

This should be treated like any other product on the market.

And yet it's not. When you buy a chair, nobody forbids you to make your own copies of it, and even give/sell/rent them to your friends. It's your chair, you are allowed to do pretty much anything you want with it. When you pay for a game, you only get a very limited permission to play that game. You don't even own the copy, all you own is the fragile plastic disc and a permission to read data from it, and even that on one single set of hardware. That's the exact same thing as "selling" you a bike, while actually only allowing you to keep it in your house and use it, but absolutely forbidding you to sell, rent or even repair it (if/when it breaks, you have to buy a new one). Also, before buying you are rarely allowed to even test ride it before paying full price, and when you are (demos), it's a special model with 1 speed instead of the 18, only one brake (the front one), you cannot turn left and it stops working after the first 100 meters.

See it shouldn't matter if they would or could have bought it or not. [..] If you can't or won't buy it you don't get the priviledge of enjoying it.

Yes, but if you can't buy it but enjoy it anyway, how exactly does that create a loss for the seller and "destroy the industry"? Of course it's wrong to infringe on someone's rights to tell you how to use their work, and it pisses of authors that consumers of their work don't do what they want, but the problem is that nobody talks about it the way it is - copyright infringement, instead it's all "losses", "stealing", "destruction", "piracy", "doomsday and death for the entire industry". I never stop being amazed at how the loudest crybabies are the ones in the most successful industries in the world - videogames, music and movies. The only three industries that barely even feel the economic problems are same ones that keep crying impending death of their business while making more money each year.

Oh right because you are allowed to duplicate that chair and manufacture it for the masses. Not friends but millions of people. No one I have ever seen has not been allowed to share a game (aside from a few DRMs that don't allow multiple installations which was attempted for a few games). If you lend your friend the chair do you still have the chair in your home? I don't think so.

And so what if they are making money hand over fist? Stealing is stealing no matter how you slice it. It never ceases to amaze me how pirates justify it.

 

[Amnestic]

Oh right because you are allowed to duplicate that chair and manufacture it for the masses. Not friends but millions of people. No one I have ever seen has not been allowed to share a game

Can you lend people Steam games?

 

[squid5580]

Oh right because you are allowed to duplicate that chair and manufacture it for the masses. Not friends but millions of people. No one I have ever seen has not been allowed to share a game

Can you lend people Steam games?

Do you not have the option to buy a physical copy if sharing it with your friend is so important?

 

[Amnestic]

Oh right because you are allowed to duplicate that chair and manufacture it for the masses. Not friends but millions of people. No one I have ever seen has not been allowed to share a game

Can you lend people Steam games?

Do you not have the option to buy a physical copy if sharing it with your friend is so important?

That's not the question at hand: I've purchased a game - legally, I wish to share it with my friend - singular, but I can't.

 

[squid5580]

Oh right because you are allowed to duplicate that chair and manufacture it for the masses. Not friends but millions of people. No one I have ever seen has not been allowed to share a game

Can you lend people Steam games?

Do you not have the option to buy a physical copy if sharing it with your friend is so important?

That's not the question at hand: I've purchased a game - legally, I wish to share it with my friend - singular, but I can't.

But you can. It just involves alot of work.

 

[Amnestic]

Oh right because you are allowed to duplicate that chair and manufacture it for the masses. Not friends but millions of people. No one I have ever seen has not been allowed to share a game

Can you lend people Steam games?

Do you not have the option to buy a physical copy if sharing it with your friend is so important?

That's not the question at hand: I've purchased a game - legally, I wish to share it with my friend - singular, but I can't.

But you can. It just involves alot of work.

Oh? Do tell.

 

[squid5580]

Oh right because you are allowed to duplicate that chair and manufacture it for the masses. Not friends but millions of people. No one I have ever seen has not been allowed to share a game

Can you lend people Steam games?

Do you not have the option to buy a physical copy if sharing it with your friend is so important?

That's not the question at hand: I've purchased a game - legally, I wish to share it with my friend - singular, but I can't.

But you can. It just involves alot of work.

Oh? Do tell.

Uhook all the cords and whatnot from your PC. Pick up. Go to friends house. Rehook everything up. Play.

 

[shadowbird]

Oh right because you are allowed to duplicate that chair and manufacture it for the masses. Not friends but millions of people. No one I have ever seen has not been allowed to share a game (aside from a few DRMs that don't allow multiple installations which was attempted for a few games).

Every single game says right on the disc that you are not allowed to make copies. Not one copy for your own backup purpose, not for a friend, not for two. If a million people each make a 2 copies of the chair for their friends, that's 2 million copies right there. So the law doesn't distinguish based on numbers. Especially when there is almost no way to count the people involved.

If you lend your friend the chair do you still have the chair in your home? I don't think so.

You just proved my point - copying information IS NOT the same as giving or taking physical property. And you're right - when you steal something, the person is left without it; when you copy, the original owner keeps the thing.

Stealing is stealing no matter how you slice it. It never ceases to amaze me how pirates justify it.

What exactly am I justifying? Please tell me where have I ever said that pirating is good or should not be punished!? Point out a single sentence where I say that piracy should be tolerated or even allowed, and I'll have a friend send you $20 within 24 hours (if you have a PayPal account). I'm serious. Quote a single sentence of mine where I argue that pirating is in any way a positive or even a neutral thing, and you'll be half way to a new game.

Also, it never ceases to amaze me how easily people buy into this "stealing" bullshit. You yourself just pointed out that making a copy of a chair is completely different from taking someone's. And can you point to a single point in any law or even EULA that would indicate that copyright infringement is stealing? Can you? It never has been, is not, and never will be stealing, because for a crime to constitute a theft, the victim has to lose something that he had. If a company does not pay it's employees, it is defrauding, it's breaking the contract, it's a crime, but it is in no way, shape or form a theft, even though the employees do actually lose specific amounts of money that they should have received for their work.

BTW, you can actually go to jail for calling someone who's shared or downloaded a game a thief, you know. Because stealing is a criminal offense, and accusing someone of criminal offense (which copyright infringement isn't) without proof is grounds enough for a lawsuit.

 

[squid5580]

Oh right because you are allowed to duplicate that chair and manufacture it for the masses. Not friends but millions of people. No one I have ever seen has not been allowed to share a game (aside from a few DRMs that don't allow multiple installations which was attempted for a few games).

Every single game says right on the disc that you are not allowed to make copies. Not one copy for your own backup purpose, not for a friend, not for two. If a million people each make a 2 copies of the chair for their friends, that's 2 million copies right there. So the law doesn't distinguish based on numbers. Especially when there is almost no way to count the people involved.

If you lend your friend the chair do you still have the chair in your home? I don't think so.

You just proved my point - copying information IS NOT the same as giving or taking physical property. And you're right - when you steal something, the person is left without it; when you copy, the original owner keeps the thing.

Stealing is stealing no matter how you slice it. It never ceases to amaze me how pirates justify it.

What exactly am I justifying? Please tell me where have I ever said that pirating is good or should not be punished!? Point out a single sentence where I say that piracy should be tolerated or even allowed, and I'll have a friend send you $20 within 24 hours (if you have a PayPal account). I'm serious. Quote a single sentence of mine where I argue that pirating is in any way a positive or even a neutral thing, and you'll be half way to a new game.

Also, it never ceases to amaze me how easily people buy into this "stealing" bullshit. You yourself just pointed out that making a copy of a chair is completely different from taking someone's. And can you point to a single point in any law or even EULA that would indicate that copyright infringement is stealing? Can you? It never has been, is not, and never will be stealing, because for a crime to constitute a theft, the victim has to lose something that he had. If a company does not pay it's employees, it is defrauding, it's breaking the contract, it's a crime, but it is in no way, shape or form a theft, even though the employees do actually lose specific amounts of money that they should have received for their work.

BTW, you can actually go to jail for calling someone who's shared or downloaded a game a thief, you know. Because stealing is a criminal offense, and accusing someone of criminal offense (which copyright infringement isn't) without proof is grounds enough for a lawsuit.

Funny thing it says on almost every game I own DO NOT MAKE ILLEGAL COPIES OF THIS DISC. And you are still trying to justify it so I fail to see your whole 20 bucks thing. And if it isn't illegal why did the MW2 pirate get busted? Or that mom who was busted for sharing music? The problem isn't that it is illegal the problem is catching them.

Oh and pirates are thieves. Catch me if you can.