Which is the bigger problem? Piracy or DRM?

[mew1234321]

But, when the people from group a) come into some money, they are likely to spend it on the legal purchase of a game, due to the difficult, and morally bankrupt nature of piracy, and be happy such a purchase, knowing the good games from the bad, and then will continue to do so

If it makes people want to pay for more good games, how is piracy morally bankrupt and obviously worse ?

Oh wow.

Take em' all and cut them down.

And make some, really, really good points.

For my point, yeah, I probably shouldn't have phrased it that way, but piracy is still akin to stealing, as you are getting content without paying for it, against the content owners wishes. (And this is where the whole little line in the EULA that says 'You don't actually own this game, just paying for the right to play it.' turns around and bites you in the arse).

So, yeah, while piracy, in the long run, probably isn't going to cripple the industry, or boost it into a pantheon of gloriousness, it's still theft, man.

But then again, now that the thought occurs, all the money developers spend on DRM could possibly go into making their game better...

Oh, the old Piracy vs. DRM debate. You will always live on.

 

[Something Amyss]

but it must be pretty bad to justtfiy all the hoops us honest consumers have to jump through just to play a game (like assassins creed 2, yeah ubisoft that was real FUCKING brilliant of you)

That's like saying "I don't know why he shot that guy, but the guy must have done something wrong to justify it."

Seeing how for some games are pirated more than they sell, and DRM would not exist if it were not for piracy, piracy is the problem. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either a pirate, wrong, lying, or an idiot.

DRM would likely exist regardless. But that's hard to tell, because as long as there was even one pirate out there, they would justify it. And that's part of the problem. Sweeping, crippling DRM is not the fault of pirates but a deliberate choice by companies who would rather punish consumers than let piracy happen.

Piracy is a scapegoat. We're told recent losses are due to piracy, even though it's more likely the losses are due to expensive products in a recession. Oh, I hear people say, but gaming is recession proof. Because repeating something makes it true.

Piracy has been used as an excuse to attack our fair use rights and the first sale doctrine, two things they were already conveniently against when they were making money hand over fist. It's a great excuse, but it's just that.

 

[incal11]

piracy is still akin to stealing, as you are getting content without paying for it, against the content owners wishes.

Everything had a price only up to when digitalisation came along, but even before that no control over intellectual property wasn't that bad in truth:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,710976,00.html
Are the owners wishes entirely justified in all cases ? I think not.

But then again, now that the thought occurs, all the money developers spend on DRM could possibly go into making their game better...

You're not the first to bring that up, if DRMs were not needed crappy games would be just as crappy. Because the publishers can only want to pocket the extra money, as the likes of Kotick says "why make great games when good games sells well enough ?"

*swish swish*

 

[3LANCER]

If the piracy is bigger problem, how come console games don't have DRM? Heck, you can even copy-paste PS2, Wii and Xbox360 games on your computer which is something you can't do with PC games.

Also - there are countries in this world (like mine) that didn't have means of buying original games until few years ago.Piracy was the only way of getting anything from music to video games here, because there weren't any shops that sell original stuff, because we couldn't order online 'cause we're banned on most online pay systems (PayPal is still not present here), people have a strong fear of online shopping even though it's year 2010. And people got used to that state, where you can go out and get a pirated copy of Starcraft 2 for 5 euros instead paying it 60 euros in video game store. For someone who is only interested in campaign mode that is the only logical solution, I don't blame them because the long period of pirating created an image that you shouldn't pay more than a few euros for the game. Most games get released much later here, for example PC version of Arkham Asylum was available in our stores more than a month after it's European release so people were impatient and got it warez'd (not to mention it was more expensive than in other EU countries). Prices are usually unreal, too - only rich people get a PS3 (cost: 400 euros) or X360 (cost: 300 euros) because new games are 70-80 euros while their PC versions are 40, dropping to 10-15 during next 6-9 months. And then we got DRM in AC2, people actually bought that game and started yelling on the forums because they didn't know they have to be online all the time (because they're using 56k modems even though ADSL/cable is widely available). And... I forgot the question...


Oh yeah - DRM bad!

 

[mew1234321]

piracy is still akin to stealing, as you are getting content without paying for it, against the content owners wishes.

Everything had a price only up to when digitalisation came along, but even before that no control over intellectual property wasn't that bad in truth:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,710976,00.html
Are the owners wishes entirely justified in all cases ? I think not.

But then again, now that the thought occurs, all the money developers spend on DRM could possibly go into making their game better...

You're not the first to bring that up, if DRMs were not needed crappy games would be just as crappy. Because the publishers can only want to pocket the extra money, as the likes of Kotick says "why make great games when good games sells well enough ?"

*swish swish*

Dayum.

You are good

Taking us sympathisers down at every turn. ^-^

Ah yes, it is true, only the most dedicated to the art of making the good game are going to bother taking the cash saved not buying DRM, and put it back into production, and those people aren't getting intrusive stuff like SecureRom in the first place.

And Bobby Kotick is evil. End of story .

 

[Timmibal]

Now im not saying piracy is good or even defenceable, the people who profit and partake in bottom-feeding off the ideas and hard-work of other people are not neccessarily moral.

Now that's the interesting thing. I think both parties in the pro and anti filesharing camps can agree that people who copy for profit (Selling illegitimate digital copies or bootleg dvds at street markets and the like) are doing A Bad Thing (TM). They are indeed profiting off someone else's hard work.

Are we all nodding our heads? Agreeing that we can set aside our emnity and focus on this common foe?

So why in hell aren't retailers being focused on with the same level of vehemance that is being lumped on the filesharers?

Pre-owned games give no income back to developers, hell, they don't even register as a legitimate 'sale' insofar as the producers count is concerned. When you purchase a pre-owned game, all the money goes straight to the retailer. When you trade in games, you are effectively giving retailers the license to print money. If the games sell, free money. If they don't, depending on stock levels, they can often be returned to the supplier for credit. Again, free money.

So what's the moral difference between GenericGamesStore selling a 2nd hand copy of Game X, and Joe Bloggs downloading it from the internet? Why is Joe threatened with 85 different forms of tentacle rape and the game store gets off scot free? Is it because the game store is big and can afford a protracted legal battle, or refuse to stock games from that publisher?

Someone earlier in the thread made a passing reference to DRM being targetted at re-sale rather than sharing, (Preventing 0 day piracy, what a bullshit line that is) and the longer this thread continues, the more accurate I think that assertion is. The customer suffers the vagaries of DRM because the producers don't have the fucking stones to stand up to the real criminals, and all the blame is undeservedly dumped onto a kid who is doing the modern equivilant of making a fucking mix tape.

 

[veloper]

If the piracy is bigger problem, how come console games don't have DRM? Heck, you can even copy-paste PS2, Wii and Xbox360 games on your computer which is something you can't do with PC games.

Because the industry expects all PC gamers to have atleast a modem or better, while consoles are still to this day supposed to work fine without ever going online.

When the industry feels enough consoles are online, console games will get DRM too.
Piracy will be their excuse. Killing the resale of games will be their succes.

 

[TheWwwizard]

I don't like DRM, swear it's only purpose it to annoy the people who actually paid for the stuff, cause we all know pirates just crack it anyways.

That said I don't approve of straight up pirating something, but people should be able to see if they like something before they buy it.

I honestly just think the industry needs to fix its business model. and kill DRM with fire.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

If the piracy is bigger problem, how come console games don't have DRM?

Consoles have DRM built in. Try playing a 'back up' copy of a game in a console that hasn't been modded in some way... doesn't work, does it? No, it doesn't. That's DRM at work.

DRM is any artifical restriction on how you use a digital device.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Is it because the game store is big and can afford a protracted legal battle, or refuse to stock games from that publisher?

No, it's because reselling pre-owned games violates no laws, regulations, or agreements so anyone trying to sue over used game sales is going to lose and lose badly. Even winning would be unwanted by the industry because that would legally decide the nebulous 'product or service' question (it would make games a service) once and for all, which would become a major financial pain in the arse for most publishers.

 

[Timmibal]

No, it's because reselling pre-owned games violates no laws, regulations, or agreements so anyone trying to sue over used game sales is going to lose and lose badly.

...Except for the part where they're suing kids for doing exactly the same thing. 0% of a resold game goes back to the publisher. 0% of a pirated/shared game goes back to the publisher.

I fail to see the distinction.

 

[felixader]

Piracy is the bad thing.

It's kinda the way that if there hadn't any piracy at all there wouldn't have been DRM.
Also, if there hadn't been thiefes at all there never would have been closed doors, money vaults, police etc.

So, people steal, they just do if they can.
Thing is that when companysty to protect themselves from it in such a way that mistreat their honest customers, make their games a pain in the ass to play than in the end they hurt themselves, and i don't know if that isn't much worse in it's own way.

 

[Vault101]

but it must be pretty bad to justtfiy all the hoops us honest consumers have to jump through just to play a game (like assassins creed 2, yeah ubisoft that was real FUCKING brilliant of you)

That's like saying "I don't know why he shot that guy, but the guy must have done something wrong to justify it."

Seeing how for some games are pirated more than they sell, and DRM would not exist if it were not for piracy, piracy is the problem. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either a pirate, wrong, lying, or an idiot.

DRM would likely exist regardless. But that's hard to tell, because as long as there was even one pirate out there, they would justify it. And that's part of the problem. Sweeping, crippling DRM is not the fault of pirates but a deliberate choice by companies who would rather punish consumers than let piracy happen.

Piracy is a scapegoat. We're told recent losses are due to piracy, even though it's more likely the losses are due to expensive products in a recession. Oh, I hear people say, but gaming is recession proof. Because repeating something makes it true.

Piracy has been used as an excuse to attack our fair use rights and the first sale doctrine, two things they were already conveniently against when they were making money hand over fist. It's a great excuse, but it's just that.

In regards to my quote I was being a little sarcastic, and I don't really have a side in the argument as I'm not really sure what the solution is (I dont agree with priacy though )

 

[Trotgar]

Oh, so money is the problem?

Why not just steal a car instead of paying for it?

Piracy - excuses for it are pathetic.

While I don't think piracy is allright (except if the pirate really can't get it otherwise), that argument doesn't work - no one loses his/her copy when someone pirates it. The makers of the game/car do lose money, though.

To the OP: I think both are problems - piracy can lead to DRM, but many DRM's make things worse only for the people who buy the game (the pirates get a cracked version for free, while the buyers pay for a game with a bad DRM. Mass Effect is a good example), which can possibly increase piracy. This is entirely speculative, of course, I'm not sure if that is the way it really works.

 

[incal11]

It's kinda the way that if there hadn't any piracy at all there wouldn't have been DRM.
Also, if there hadn't been thieves at all there never would have been closed doors, money vaults, police etc.

Sharing is not stealing, and neither is copying. Sharing is a natural behavior, like stealing sadly but this is two different things. When it comes to digital data on the net, it is only shared.

That's a terrible excuse.
Theft is theft. Period.

If it's infinitely reproductible it is a good excuse.
Theft is theft, sharing is sharing. Period.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

No, it's because reselling pre-owned games violates no laws, regulations, or agreements so anyone trying to sue over used game sales is going to lose and lose badly.

...Except for the part where they're suing kids for doing exactly the same thing. 0% of a resold game goes back to the publisher. 0% of a pirated/shared game goes back to the publisher.

I fail to see the distinction.

It's a legal distinction not a logical one (few legal ones are logical outside of a legal framework).

More importantly, in most western countries, the consumer has the right to resell any legal product they own. Publishers would dearly love to be able to stop 2nd hand sales but they're up against that legal principle unless they start claiming that games are a service (which can only be resold under specific, authorised conditions) but if games were legally recognised as a service that would mean a whole raft of legal obligations to consumers that most publishers would rather not have to deal with.


There are 2 major points. First is that the resold game is an authorised version whereas the downloaded one is not - most copyright/IP law violation lawsuits that they splatter kids and single mums with deal with unauthorised reproduction and the distribution of such (and how publishers love torrents in that respect because they also upload as part of their normal operation rather than strict download only it's automatic 'distribution' which is the bigger violation of the two). Secondly, to resell something the original owner deprives themselves of it, there for there are only as many authorised versions floating around as were originally sold - to butcher the old saying, you can't sell your game and still have it (unless you're a pirate[yarrr!]), so if Game X sells 500,000 copies then that is how many authorised copies will be floating around (less loss, breakage, etc).


TL;DR - the law sees the distinction and that's what counts when people start throwing lawsuits around.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

It's kinda the way that if there hadn't any piracy at all there wouldn't have been DRM.

Okay, then explain Region Locking (which is also DRM) and how it applies to piracy.

Or, if you prefer, explain Service Provider Locking (again, DRM) on certain brands of cell phone and how it applies to piracy.

DRM is much, much more than just anti-copying schemes.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Theft is theft, sharing is sharing. Period.

Of course the 'sharing' excuse does fall down when you start sharing things you don't have permission/the rights to share.

Put simply, it's fine if I want to share my money with my mates. It's not fine if I want to share your money with my mates.

 

[Antari]

Theft is theft, sharing is sharing. Period.

Of course the 'sharing' excuse does fall down when you start sharing things you don't have permission/the rights to share.

Put simply, it's fine if I want to share my money with my mates. It's not fine if I want to share your money with my mates.

Thats assuming I was going to buy the game in the first place. Lets say its one of the worse games in history. That costed $50. I've saved myself from being a victim of theft. Misrepresentaion and false advertising are common place these days. Every company is convinced they've reinvented the wheel, when all they did was paint it pink. We'll agree to disagree. People want to mention pirates overinflated sense of entitlement? ... Well its a two way street.

 

[incal11]

Theft is theft, sharing is sharing. Period.

Of course the 'sharing' excuse does fall down when you start sharing things you don't have permission/the rights to share.

Put simply, it's fine if I want to share my money with my mates. It's not fine if I want to share your money with my mates.

I don't care about permissions, what matters here is fair use, a basic right.
I'm not sharing anything like money, but something that is closer to an idea since it was digitalised.