video game piracy: a question

[AndyFromMonday]

Well, making games is expensive. Sixty dollars may seem expensive for a game, but when you think of all the work and money that's put in, it's understandable that they'd want more money coming out.
Hey, Turok for the N64 cost 80 bucks new, so I guess we shouldn't complain about prices.

Well then it's quite obvious pirates are not part of the intended audience. If they were, prices would be adjusted accordingly.

hen what would happen to somebody who decided to rob a grocery store? Would they get special privileges because they couldn't buy it?

If that person robbed the grocery store because they did not have the money to buy food then yes, they should get special privileges. Then again, pirating a game is not the same as stealing bread. A more accurate portrayal would be buying bread, making thousands of copies of that bread then distributing them using something akin to the internet except in real life.

On a different note, pirating the humble indie collection is just wrong. The money gained from it didn't just go to the developers, but to Child's Play as well. Pirating those games is similar to stealing from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, and I don't see how anyone can justify that.

So I suppose not donating is the same as robbing CF sufferers of their life? Either way, there are a lot of reasons why people pirate. You can't pass judgement unto others until you've heard their side of the story.

 

[twiceworn]

ok as no one seems to have an answer i will expand my question with an example. you buy cod black ops for the pc coppy it off the disk and crack it so you dont need to have the disk in, so far so legal, now you dont need the disk though so you give it to a friend, for free, and HE DOES THE SAME THING YOU DID THEN PASSES IT ALONG,and it repeats through all his friends then their friens then class mates then as a birthday gift all the while keeping the patern now it is at lets say 1000 people, 1 PERSON PAYED 999 got it free and its legal HOW IS THAT BETTER THAT PIRACY?

The instant you pass that copy on to another party is where this slips into the "well obviously this changes things" trap. Up until that point nobody has obtained goods without payment.
Now you might argue, what if you charged them for it? In which case it would be up to the original buyer to DELETE their game, or buy a new disk. Otherwise they would still be using something they have sold their 'rights' to, which is impossible legally.
*COUGH* note to Sony, claiming rights over something you sold all rights to DOES APPLY TO YOU. You do not have a say in what people do to the things you sold them, anymore than a car manufacturer can prevent people from putting stickers on their cars.

Sadly, people *suck* (to use MovieBobs phrasing) and probably wouldn't do that.

if you buy i game you are alowed to make one coppy for personal non commercial use on your computer then if you give the disk away which is still legal you are still in the clear it would be no diffrent if you bought the game then put it online for others to download but its illegal to do so wtf basicly, wizards first rule people are dumb i guess

 

[twiceworn]

if you get somone to do somthing but dont pay him he gets nothing if somone makes somthing and you coppy it but others buy it he still get money and if you had no intention of paying for it he loses nothing so how is it bad??? that is the question i want answered so i can finaly shut pirates up once and for all

I'm not talking about specifics of a job or service, I'm making a comparison to one person doing a job verses hundreds.

Yes, you could argue that they get paid anyway but what if what they are paid is not enough to cover the budget of the game? Not every game is a commercial success after all. People may lose their jobs or get their salaries cut, or in extreme situations, companies shut down. Obviously, this doesn't always happen but every sale adds up.

Take a look at the music industry. There are hard statistics that downloading music has affected music sales to an extreme degree. While there are a good amount of people supporting the artist through paid digital downloads and CD sales, it doesn't compare to the revenue generated through music sales 5-10 years ago. After all, why pay for a song or album if you can hop on Youtube and get it for free?

And that ultimately is the problem. Piracy is an option for many because it is very accessible. They don't see a problem with it because free stuff is all over the internet. So the mentality is "One free copy isn't going to make a difference". The question is, how many people have this mentality?

i agree its a group problem my question was to the morality of one situation (if no one loses anthing is it wrong? and if so why?
but i think you hit the nail on the head: Piracy is an option for many because it is very accessible. They don't see a problem with it because free stuff is all over the internet. So the mentality is "One free copy isn't going to make a difference". The question is, how many people have this mentality?
ONE SNOWFLAKE IS HARMLESS MILLIONS CAN KILL YOU
thank you sir you have the answer

 

[Ushiromiya Battler]

Some people seem to have misunderstood how piracy works....
Let's take candy as an example:
One dude buys a lot of candy.
He eats some and then decides to make the exact same candy and proceeds to give it to friends and people everywhere for free...
Sure it hurts the industry, in the way that people might go to him instead, but no one has stolen anything!
I repeat ANYTHING!

The Pirate(the on that uploads it) buys the game so that he can share it.
The downloaders gladly take him up on his offering deal, NO ONE HAS STOLEN ANYTHING.

To steal something you have to take something from someone without paying...
If someone buys something, replicates it, and then gives the replica to you, you haven't stolen anything, even if he isn't allowed to share it by law...

The wrong thing in piracy is the sharing, the downloaders isn't at fault, the uploader is; cause he shared something, he wasn't allowed to.

Get your facts right people!

 

[J_Monsterface]

what if you just dont think its amoral to steal from the rich (or in a way, to steal in general)

possession is just an illusion and the rich are still rich

its one thing to take bread from the mouths of the poor

its not the same thing to take it from the breadstore

and its really not the same thing to steal it from the megabread superfactory

we steal the water from the river (and eachother), land and food from the animals (and eachother), and oil from the ground (and eachother)

what the hell is the difference

every breath we take could have been someone elses

if you really dont want to take anything from anyone/anything then youd have to stop living

and all of the different life forms that the matter/energy in your body becomes would just continue living the same self-serving way anyway

well work out some temporary systems, but theyll always fall apart

i do believe in trying to be a good person, i just think you can be a good person who steals certain things

 

[Azure-Supernova]

Piracy is theft. It is stealing Intellectual Property, copyright infringement.

Let's compare pirating a game to stealing a book, the price difference; production methods and outlets notwithstanding. Either way, if you steal one of these items it's illegal. Here's where most people lose the comparison: you steal a copy of Duma Key and the outlet is out of a physical item, you pirate Deus Ex Human Revolution and no-one loses a physical item, only software.

Definition of Itellectual Property: IP is divided into two categories: Industrial property, which includes inventions (patents), trademarks, industrial designs, and geographic indications of source; and Copyright, which includes literary and artistic works such as novels, poems and plays, films, musical works, artistic works such as drawings, paintings, photographs and sculptures, and architectural designs. Rights related to copyright include those of performing artists in their performances, producers of phonograms in their recordings, and those of broadcasters in their radio and television programs.

So by definition, video games go under Copyright. So when you download Deus Ex Human Revolution you might not be depriving anyone of a physical item, but you're using software which you have no right to use. You're taking something you have no right to take, something which was intended to be sold and not given.

There is no way to justify taking and using that which others must purchase to use. If you can't afford to buy a game then you are not entitled to it. You won't be any worse off for not having it, it's a luxury and not a necessity. Entertainment of any kind is not a necessity. A man can survive with food, water, warmth and shelter. It might not be an ideal survival but it's survival nonetheless. You can very easily survive without entertainment.

If you had no intention of purchasing the game in the first place, then you too good sir are still in the wrong. I have no intention of purchasing a new shirt, but I'm sure as hell not going to steal one. Yes, I'd be depriving someone else of a shirt, but in pirating a game am I not depriving a shop owner of a potential sale and their right to profit from their sale?

Oh, but I wouldn't have bought it anyway right? As far as I'm concerned this is just a sugar coated way of saying: "I never intended to pay for a product I may or may not have wanted". Even if it's a case where someone truly didn't want the game in the first place, why pirate it? Just because the option is there and you wouldn't have bought it anyway doesn't make it justified. It's basically a lack of motivation without the presence of opportunity; as soon as the opportunity arises so does the motivation. That nullifies that argument entirely.

Also think about it like this for a second: There are gamers who buy these games, whether at full retail price or second hand. Either way they have purchased the right to use that little piece of Intellectual Property. These are the people who contribute, not only to the videogames industry, but to the economy. People who pirate games are essentially bottom feeding off the industry.

I can sympathise with people who pirate because they're poor and can barely afford to keep a roof over their heads; but I don't endorse what they do. Having no willpower is not a justification to steal the right to a luxury. However anyone else who pirates, simply because they don't want to pay or 'didn't plan to buy the game anyway' are plain wrong.

Pirating software which was intended to be purchased is theft. It's that simple. Thousands of others can and will buy their videogames from a shop or online, what gives anyone the right to do any different? It's not just a crime against shop owners and the videogame industry in general, it's a dishonour to the people who purchased their items. It's devaluing the very thing they forked over their money for.

 

[theheroofaction]

simply put, the world doesn't work that way.
Let me show you a penny arcade comic that has something to do with it

Now, ignoring the fact that the landlord in this image is kinda a douche, he has a point, the home was rented, but the rent wasn't paid, now, games, just like apartments, cost money to make, and just like apartments, are made to be sold.

Now, would the landlord rather have the tenant who doesn't pay, or the tenant who does, the building has the same amount of apartments either way, but they're completely worthless to the landlord if nobody pays for them, and this is bad, because like games, apartments are really damn expensive to make.

 

[Doctor Glocktor]

I don't pirate solely because I recognize the fact that developers have the right to compensation for their work being used.

 

[J_Monsterface]

simply put, the world doesn't work that way.
Let me show you a penny arcade comic that has something to do with it

Now, ignoring the fact that the landlord in this image is kinda a douche, he has a point, the home was rented, but the rent wasn't paid, now, games, just like apartments, cost money to make, and just like apartments, are made to be sold.

Now, would the landlord rather have the tenant who doesn't pay, or the tenant who does, the building has the same amount of apartments either way, but they're completely worthless to the landlord if nobody pays for them, and this is bad, because like games, apartments are really damn expensive to make.

sure this is what happens when the man tries to get out of paying the rent by talking about his ideas to his landlord

that just means he failed at the stealing part

the world does work that way, but only the strong succeed

the landlord is not superior because he is part of a better system

he simply wins at surviving

whatever works

everything is free, but only once you obtain it without paying

 

[Azure-Supernova]

The Pirate(the on that uploads it) buys the game so that he can share it.
The downloaders gladly take him up on his offering deal, NO ONE HAS STOLEN ANYTHING.

Except that when the pirate purchased that game he purchased the right to play it for himself. If he then sells that game on or trades it in, he no longer has that game or the right to play it. However if he releases said game as a torrent then he is distributing the right for people to play that game, something he is legally not allowed to do as only the owners of the IP can provide that right.

We understand how piracy works, but you don't understand how Intellectual Property works. See, because videogames are capable of being infinitely produced by the IP owner there has to be a method of policing it like we do physical items. This is where licences come in. When you buy a game you are buying a licence to use that particular copy of the software. What you aren't doing is buying the right to copy and distribute that software.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

Ok, I think we've agreed it's not technically theft, but it is wrong, I'd suggest it's closest to illegal inflation.

The more access there is to pirated copies of a game, the more the original is devalued.

The easier it is to pirated something, combined with the cost of the item, combined to place, the bar on the moral slider, I believe.

What I mean is if there's a new game out, and then it's easy to pirate, it's immediately lessened in value because there's a place effectively selling it for zero dollars.

If a new game is $60, it's all over the internet for free, and you hear it's only about 5 hours long, I think it's more likely to tempt those who only sometimes pirate, than say a great game that's $20.

Since I got Steam, I've bought SO many games, I think I'm currently at about 160, because I don't think I've paid more than about £10 for any of them, and many have been under £3.

Now I'm not saying there's no room for $60 games, but I do think perhaps the industry needs to consider scaling down, not every game is going to be worth $60, so maybe not every game tneeds teams of hundreds working for years. If it's a good idea and a good game,the majority are not going to dismiss it based on a lack of anti aliasing.

Also, I still firmly believe a $20 game will be pirated less than a $60 one.

"But the indie bundle" yeah, yeah, but, putting aside people that just pirate everything, I'm sure some people realised that if they couldn't pay (no card etc) or couldn't afford to make a reasonable offering, they were actually doing the bundle less damage by torrenting it, than paying 1 cent and causing them server and banking charges.


TL;DR version, you may not be 'stealing' but you are saying 'I think your entire life's work is worthless' to hundreds of people who work to make the games you love, each time you pirate.

 

[Laxman9292]

Well, the person who says "I wouldn't buy it anyway" is really just making an excuse.
Obviously, if you are putting in the work to pirate a game, you have some desire to play it, and you might as well support the developer by actually paying for the game.

And what if a game costed half a persons salary?

I understand the outrage that certain people might have when they see someone getting something for free that they had to pay for but let's face facts here people, pirates are people who can't afford games. Be it some teenager whose parents don't want/can't afford to buy him/her games or just some student struggling to get through college, pirates are not all self entitled jerks like most people here seem to think. Hell, if it wasn't for piracy most of the people living here wouldn't be able to game because the prices are so outrageously high and the salaries are so outrageously low. Hell, if it wasn't for piracy I can outright say not only would I have not been introduced to gaming but I would have probably never bought any games at all.

Show some compassion people. It's not that hard.

Then that person is shit out of luck. We have rules for a reason. And fuck the person who thinks that their case is special and they're above the law. They don't have money to pay for it? They don't get it, simple as that. Come back when you're less poor. If money is really an issue then they should be worrying about buying food not video games. It is self-entitled to think you should be able to get something for free. A poor person who thinks they deserve to game for free is just entitled as a rich person who games for free.

 

[ameliaaa]

Maybe it's just me, maybe it misses the point completely, but the only time I've ever used a prate copy of a game was when:
A- i was torn on if to fork out £40+ for it
B- blockbuster didn't have it available to rent yet
C- it wasn't one of the demos that came with OXM
because the console alone took nearly a year of saving (by the time i'd saved enough for the arcade, the elite had already come out and the newest xbox has been out a few months)
Cause, really, I don't have the cash to fork out £40 on a game that looks good but I could get 5 minutes into and hate. If I'm gonna save for something, I want it to be worth the saving.

So I'll test a pirate copy if A, B & C apply to make sure I make the right decision.


TL;DR
Folk who pirate to get a taster of the game and intend to either stop playing that copy or buy an official copy - fine with me.
Folk who pirate because maybe their official disc is wrecked/lost - fine with me.
Folk who pirate just for the hell of it if they can afford to buy it/know they'll like it - not fine, not by a longshot.

 

[zehydra]

It's not that I don't empathize with the people who only have the option of piracy, it's just that I find it morally wrong.

Do you find it morally wrong to give free food to those who cannot procure it?

Careful, he's going to tell you that food is a necessity and videogames are a luxury, ignoring the fact that giving free food actually costs money, while making free videogames takes nothing but a little time.

which would be a good response. Food doesn't actually cost money any more than producing a video game.

Except,as I pointed out above, we're talking about a copy of a game that was made using resources not connected to the company, so that specific copy cost the company nothing, compared to food that somebody had to buy before it could be given away. This is also why copyright infringement is a different crime, and a much less serious offense, than theft.

and I'm saying that technically, the food didn't have to be bought, although yes, you can't copy a fruit. You are also correct, in that it is not theft, but it's still fairly serious, because of the nature of the societies we live in. In our societies, whether or not an industry can exist, is if it can make a profit on its own. Piracy and the whole copying problem puts a dent in not only the Game industry, but Music as well as Film, to the point that in the context of the world we live in, it is as bad as stealing a farmer's crop.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

It's not that I don't empathize with the people who only have the option of piracy, it's just that I find it morally wrong.

Do you find it morally wrong to give free food to those who cannot procure it?

That's a rather abbreviated comparison.

A person spending their own money willingly to buy or grow food themselves with the intention of giving it away without compensation is different than a person who created media at their own expense with the intention of selling it to recover that cost.

A better comparison might be "is it morally wrong to steal food from someone else and give it to others?"

Then, one would have to ask, is there free food available naturally? If there are no legitimate sources of free food, then some would say that is is morally acceptable to cross that line. If there are legitimate sources of free food, one might find stealing it morally unacceptable.

When translated to the gaming comparison; are there sources of legitimate free games? Yes, there are.

You can make the case for entertainment being just as necessary as food. I won't argue for or against it, and even assume that it is. Food being necessary doesn't entitle everyone to 5-star gourmet meals three times per day. A soup kitchen fulfills that need just as well. Much in the same way that entertainment is necessary but does not entitle everyone to AAA games, free games and other forms of entertainment fulfill that need just as well.

 

[Zenn3k]

Personally, I when I pirate a game, its because I want to see if its worth the purchase.

EVERY game I've pirated, if I enjoyed it, I went out and purchased it (usually because I want access to content patches), something I likely wouldn't have done otherwise.

If I don't like it, I don't purchase it, something I wouldn't have done anyway.

So as far as I'm concerned, piracy has INCREASED the number of games I buy.

 

[Robert Ewing]

If I have lost the product then I will pirate it. Because I've already paid for it.

If saaay, a game company... Not mentioning any names Mr. You Beesoft, royally screwed me over with some horrible DRM that has me take an exam before playing a game, I will probably crack the game.

If the game is too old to be making any sort of revenue, or has been scrapped altogether, I will probably pirate that.

But other than these, I will fuel the gaming industry with my hard earned coins.

 

[INF1NIT3 D00M]

if a person really had no intention of getting the game unless he could get it free or if the person couldnt get it any other way (no money) what does the developer lose? how from that point of view is it wrong?

Oh, somewhere buried in your seemingly never-ending post there actually *was* a question!
Horrible sentence structure aside, I think I've deciphered what you're asking: "If a person has interest in but can't afford a game, or has the money but not even the slightest interest, what does a developer lose if the person pirates the game?"

Well they lose out on the money they're supposed to be paid for their product, duh. The person with no money is getting a free copy, in most cases that means there's anywhere from $00.50-$60.00 lost to the people publishing, developing and/or retailing the game. If the person with money finds interest after pirating, that makes no immediate difference, because chances are they won't buy the game. As for the person who has interest but no cash, why bother spending the cash now? That second one, of course, is assuming it's not a situation as described in part B) of my last post. I show my friends the game, give them temporary access to it, and then they decide they like it (or in some cases "need" it) and buy their own copy. This really works best with Steam, since you can download all your friends games that you want, but you can only play the games while that person is logged on.

And it doesn't matter what the situation is. Piracy is wrong, ethically. I explained that in my previous post. That doesn't make you the scum of the earth, it doesn't make you a bad person. I compared it to stealing candy from the supermarket, and I stand by that. It's petty theivery. Petty, but still thievery. People have similar views on both subjects, I think the comparison fits nicely. However, I don't feel that point B) of my previous post is really piracy, considering one person bought the game and is now using it to try to convince others to do the same. That's more like free advertising, only more persuasive.

PS. I don't mind much that you called me an "ASSHAT". You're not going to draw me into a name-calling game. I was simply pointing out your atrocious writing style because it made reading your posts both annoying and overly difficult. I'll chalk it up to the utter failure of the American educational system and move on.

 

[the spud]

The only times pirating is acceptable is when the game in question isn't available where you live or the game is "out of print". Like my emulated versions of Terranigma and Earthbound. Otherwise, there really is't a good reason for pirating unless you already own the game.

 

[INF1NIT3 D00M]

Personally, I when I pirate a game, its because I want to see if its worth the purchase.

EVERY game I've pirated, if I enjoyed it, I went out and purchased it (usually because I want access to content patches), something I likely wouldn't have done otherwise.

If I don't like it, I don't purchase it, something I wouldn't have done anyway.

So as far as I'm concerned, piracy has INCREASED the number of games I buy.

I mentioned in one of my other posts that I've never come across anyone who pirates and then buys a game. I guess you are that person then. I'll take your word on it, and I'm glad to hear that some piracy is working for the better.

That brings up a question, though: If a game has a demo do you pirate it anyway, or do you use the demos when you can and only pirate if no demo is released?