Why I don't like piracy: a software developer's thoughts.

[pro_sephiroth]

The main reason why people pirate is the quality of the games, and the stupid drm that gets put on them these days, since pirates can get around that and get an unbroken copy, but most people who pirate games, only do it to see if the game is good, so if you make good games, people will be like "Hey, this games good, this guy deserves money" and then buy the game, game quality is a big issue these days as developers seem to care more about graphics than gameplay, so, make good games and you'll make good money, simple

 

[Altorin]

truthfully, the tone of the original post in this thread is appalling to me.

I see this snarling individual on one side telling me he owns what I purchase, and I have another person on the otherside talking quietly and offering me ownership of a product for nothing.

You make pirates look good in comparison sir.

 

[Logan Westbrook]

truthfully, the tone of the original post in this thread is appalling to me.

I see this snarling individual on one side telling me he owns what I purchase, and I have another person on the otherside talking quietly and offering me ownership of a product for nothing.

You make pirates look good in comparison sir.

Here's a question. Have you ever had something stolen from you?

 

[Sayvara]

Seems the little pirate kiddies didn't read my first post properly. What you specifically missed is this:

Now granted I shouldn't be a jerk about it. The conditions I put up for you using my property shouldn't be unreasonable. If I charge money for the usage of my property, the conditions must be fair, and I'm all for that. Consumer rights are very important.

I agree that DRM is a hastle and is some ways it gets in the way of consumer rights. Some DRM is wrong. I also think that willfully and subversely installing bad software on an end-user's computer is very wrong. As someone put it: "It's your software, not your computer". If you bought the rights to use my property, well then I must, of course, let you use it! And if I can't do that, well natually I shall not make a fuss if you correct my shortcomings by making it work on your system.

I say again: consumer rights ARE important.

This doesn't put software pirates in the clear though. Property has to be respected, even if it's an indie dev or a megacorp. If you start loosening that up and thinking that you can go mess with the property of the megacorps, what makes you think that they can't and won't mess with you back? Respect is a two-way street.

/S

 

[asinann]

Copyright law is VERY clear on the subject of software "licensing": if you have been paid for it, you no longer have any rights to further compensation and can NOT require further validation to use the software. Accepting the EULA do NOT negate the concept of first sale no matter what is in the EULA (and in many cases because the EULA doesn't contain any separation clause the WHOLE EULA becomes unenforceable in court.) Appeals courts have all but in a few cases ruled in favor of the consumer in software licensing cases.

 

[SimuLord]

Seems the little pirate kiddies didn't read my first post properly. What you specifically missed is this:

Now granted I shouldn't be a jerk about it. The conditions I put up for you using my property shouldn't be unreasonable. If I charge money for the usage of my property, the conditions must be fair, and I'm all for that. Consumer rights are very important.

I agree that DRM is a hastle and is some ways it gets in the way of consumer rights. Some DRM is wrong. I also think that willfully and subversely installing bad software on an end-user's computer is very wrong. As someone put it: "It's your software, not your computer". If you bought the rights to use my property, well then I must, of course, let you use it! And if I can't do that, well natually I shall not make a fuss if you correct my shortcomings by making it work on your system.

I say again: consumer rights ARE important.

This doesn't put software pirates in the clear though. Property has to be respected, even if it's an indie dev or a megacorp. If you start loosening that up and thinking that you can go mess with the property of the megacorps, what makes you think that they can't and won't mess with you back? Respect is a two-way street.

/S

I get the funny feeling that you nonetheless have a view of gamers that leans more toward EA's side of the fence than toward Stardock's. You notice Stardock (and CD Projekt, and Paradox Interactive) don't have much of a piracy problem? It isn't because people don't want to play their games (well, maybe in the case of The Witcher, but...) It's because they start from the point of view that their customers are valuable and worthy of being treated with respect. And not surprisingly even the pirates pick up on this and realize "hey, we have no fucking way of pretending to claim the moral high ground here." The curtain is pulled back, the Wizard is revealed, and like a bad magic spell the piracy largely goes "poof!"

I would never even begin to dream of pirating Hearts of Iron 3 when it comes out next year. I am, however, seriously considering pirating The Sims 3 when it releases. Is it because of some moral ambiguity on my part? No! It's because Paradox is guaranteed to give me a fair shake as far as how I choose to use the license to play the game they created for me (and the rest of their customers). They own the code, but I own the site license. OWN. Not "rent", as in limited installs or convoluted DRM schemes or, frankly, the pirated version being of higher quality than the version I'd pay fifty bucks for (see Spore and I guarantee you the next Sims will be just as bad).

Respect may be a two-way street, but I am absolutely not above using (economic) violence in the cause of smacking around a company with blatant contempt for its potential clients.

 

[poleboy]

I am technically against piracy. However, I am also against people earning money for doing nothing. This obviously requires some clarification:

Patents and rights expire too slowly. I greatly dislike the idea that you can potentially write a hit song (as an example) and live off the incomes of said song for the next fifty years. It pisses me off that record companies make billions re-releasing songs that were popular thirty years ago. This does not encourage new ideas, growth or evolution in the industry, be it music or games. It encourages scheming, moneygrubbing and stagnation.

I agree that you should pay for using someone else's product. But if the person who created the product in the first place is dead and gone and the people making the money just happened to pick up the rights to the product as a way to squeeze a little more money out of the creator's rotting corpse, it's time to let said product become freely available to everyone, while properly crediting its creator. I think every piece of art should become "freeware" at some point. Any limit would be arbitrary at best, but I think 15 or 20 years is a decent place to start.

 

[onethought99]

I will always buy games to support the industry. That is just one of my moral standings and I dont feel that pirated games are worth the trouble. If you cant afford that new game you want, then get something else that you can afford or wait. I think that the issue in terms of game piracy is pretty black and white.
In a software perspective, I only buy software if i am going to make money off it, I need it for uni or it is affordable. The only issue I have with software is that it is so bloody expensive, and I understand that it needs to pay salaries but to the average kid who wants to learn it is beyond reach. Most of the piracy that I encounter arent large scale, or arent trying to make money from undermining the company that created it. I feel it is more the fact that because it is beyond the reach of the average person than just being plain malicious.

 

[Sayvara]

I get the funny feeling that you nonetheless have a view of gamers that leans more toward EA's side of the fence than toward Stardock's. You notice Stardock (and CD Projekt, and Paradox Interactive) don't have much of a piracy problem? It isn't because people don't want to play their games (well, maybe in the case of The Witcher, but...) It's because they start from the point of view that their customers are valuable and worthy of being treated with respect. And not surprisingly even the pirates pick up on this and realize "hey, we have no fucking way of pretending to claim the moral high ground here." The curtain is pulled back, the Wizard is revealed, and like a bad magic spell the piracy largely goes "poof!"

I would never even begin to dream of pirating Hearts of Iron 3 when it comes out next year. I am, however, seriously considering pirating The Sims 3 when it releases. Is it because of some moral ambiguity on my part? No! It's because Paradox is guaranteed to give me a fair shake as far as how I choose to use the license to play the game they created for me (and the rest of their customers). They own the code, but I own the site license. OWN. Not "rent", as in limited installs or convoluted DRM schemes or, frankly, the pirated version being of higher quality than the version I'd pay fifty bucks for (see Spore and I guarantee you the next Sims will be just as bad).

Respect may be a two-way street, but I am absolutely not above using (economic) violence in the cause of smacking around a company with blatant contempt for its potential clients.

Well as strange as i may seem to you, we are actually both on the same track here. The difference is how far we are willing to go to enforce our rights.

Me, I'm in favour or breaking protection schemes if it allows you to use software on your system. I think that the DCMA is a plate of Bullshit & Chips in that is prevents you from doing that. As long as it is a matter of making sure you can use the thing you actually paid for, then I have no qualms about going against the EULA because my lawful right (in my country) as a customer says that inhibitative DRM and other such things are wrong.

However I will not, as you put it, use "economic violence" against a producer. You can never claim a moral ground high enough to let you willfully try to hurt them just because you don't like their practices. The best thing you can do is to voice your opinion against them, and taking yoru business elsewhere. But if you start trying to hurt their sales through piracy, then I think you have stepped way out of line. Then it's not the matter of enforcing consumer right any more but a case of petty vendetta.

/S

 

[Sayvara]

1. As piracy is such an established norm any more, isn't it naive to not see this as a reality of the culture and equally naive to try not to build games / business models to include this culture.

2. Look at anime, here is a primarily obvious example of an entire entertainment subculture expanding into the mainstream because of piracy. Though not to the same extent, the video game industry has reaped similar benefits. Isn't that a good thing?

3. Piracy reflect barriers to gaming established by developers / publishers themselves. In this case cost / convenience. If a publisher deigns to charge $60 US then isn't it just asking for that pimply faced kid to download it from the internet store?

1) Of course. It is just plain stupid of producers to not see piracy as a competitor. Sure piracy is morally and leaglly wrong, but people will do it. So what you as a producer have to do it make a better offer than the pirates'. I think that most anti-piracy schemes are stupid and very bad business decisions. What the producers need to do is make people want to buy their products.

Now some will say "You're crazy... how can you compete with a pricetag of 0.00 USD?!". Well price isn't everything. It's about how easy it is to buy and use the product; about extras that come with the sale; about customer service. You have to look at the whole experience, not just the purchase. And there it is indeed possible for producers to compete with the pirates and take back "market shares".

Constrictive DRM is not a good way to go there.

2) Those are positive side-effects yes. Exposure of your product to more people is good. Therefore it is up to you as a producer to try to find a balance between trying to secure your revenue and getting people to use your product.

Again, this is not impossible. Take for instance the case of Java, the programing language. All my programming tools... I mean all of them that I use at work, are available freely for download. Here at my work, we made a huge webshop that is in operation now, expecting millions of hits daily in just a year, and we used almost nothing by tools that are free to download. the only exception I have seen so far is the databases. Even Microsoft has understood that and offer the "Express" version of Visual Studio free for download. Finding a balance between paying customers and exposure is the key.

3) See 1) above. It's a matter of competition. I can be willing to pay 60 USD for something instead of downloading, if I think it's worth it. this is somethign the producers have to be aware: that it's a matter of competition. Price is a factor there.

Of course when we are kids we see little more than the price tag and think we have made a real bargain, even though we have to play the game standing on our heads and the viruses and worms use our computers for a tequila-party every second minute. But as we grow older and start having our own incomes, we start to value other things too.

/S

 

[astaldodhol]

I agree with OP.
I'm just going to say one thing. I don't have a lot of money since I have bills to pay, and I'm also studying and currently without a job.
I pirate stuff, but I think of it as a trial-run. If I like it, or if it's a stand-alone software developer I buy it to support the publisher.
If I hate it badly I just delete it and don't look at it again.

 

[Sayvara]

I'm a musician and software developer. If you want to make money, you have to sell something tangible.

I agree. One of the problems that piracy stems from is that people don't really know what it is they are buying. It's not just about the piece of plastic that makes up the transport medium for the property, it's also about the license to use it. And when it comes to that, the licence is poorly defined. It's not that it isn't precise, because the EULA's tend to be damned precise... but they are not very tangible as you put it. The problem is further compounded by the fact that the legal weight of most EULA's, are questionable at best.

/S

 

[Sayvara]

When I create something, I own it. It's a basic concept that most of the 6 billion people on this planet agree on. What I make, is mine.

Some one sixth of the worlds population (China) would disagree with you. But on to my point.

I think that if you confront a chinese citizen that has created something, and you tell them "Now I'm going to use your property as I see fit and not care about what you say", they are going to be quite angry with you.

/S

 

[poleboy]

However I will not, as you put it, use "economic violence" against a producer. You can never claim a moral ground high enough to let you willfully try to hurt them just because you don't like their practices. The best thing you can do is to voice your opinion against them, and taking yoru business elsewhere. But if you start trying to hurt their sales through piracy, then I think you have stepped way out of line. Then it's not the matter of enforcing consumer right any more but a case of petty vendetta.

Taking your business elsewhere is the most sensible choice, but it's not always an option. EA is directly involved in publishing most of the Western developed major titles coming out these days for any system, and it's unlikely that their influence will lessen. They more or less control the market, and there are few alternatives. How do you deal with a huge corporation that holds your favorite franchises as well as new original developers hostage through sheer dominance? If the current trend continues, there will be no other place to take your business in ten years or so.

 

[Tjebbe]

DRM is a *circumvention* of copyright law, not a way to enforce it.

I fully respect copyright law, but when I buy something, it becomes mine.

The law states that I cannot republish it unless that right is explicitely granted (like in the GPL or BSD licenses for software), and therefore I don't.

But the law also states that I should be able to resell it to someone else, or make backup copies. Or play it on several of my many computers. Or play it in ten years time when the service that it connects to has long gone out of business.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I'm a writer and one time software developer.

Piracy is Theft. DRM is infringment of rights. So both sides are wrong.

Until there is a legal way to protect work on the internet its just like all the people stealing paperclips from their office. They will do it, and you can't stop them.

They may be YOUR paperclips and you may have a huge chain on your desk to stop them, but someone's always going to have a pair of wire cutters and you're going to struggle to use them.

Anyway, our old friend Bill Gates actually likes Piracy
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article2098235.ece

What the software manufacturers need to do is adjust to the market. Popcap still make millions, Microsoft still make millions. Both are pirated frequently.

EA, however, are getting bad PR, which is far more damning than Piracy.

 

[ksn0va]

If only I didn't need to spend P5000 on plane tickets, and if only games didn't cost P2500
I'd also be against piracy.

 

[Jack_Burton]

I think most people would agree that the act of video game piracy is wrong. However that does not mean the industry imposing such restrictive ideas such as DRM is right either.

If you value your work and want people to enjoy it, then don't tell them how to enjoy it, especially when they are paying for it.