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

[Sayvara]

Again, you don't understand what I am saying. Obviously buying the disc does not buy me the rights to the intellectual property, but that disc and its contents now belong to me. If I want to make a copy of it and give it to my friend, than I should be allowed to. I would agree that making copies of it and selling them is and should be illegal, but not allowing me to even let people I know borrow the disc because they themselves haven't paid for the rights is down right ridiculous.

As recently expressed on Penny-Arcade, what if they did the same thing with books? Would it become required by law to avert your eyes from any book you yourself had not purchased yet? Or what about paintings, would you have to hide a painting you bought for fear or people seeing it without paying for the "right to use it"?

You can lend them the disk all you want. However, if they want to use what's on it, they had better cough up, because that was part of the conditions under which I sold you the right to use the software.

The analogy with books and paintings is flawed because, unlike software, those items were not sold under the condition that you must pay to use the contents. It all boils down to what is reasonable usage of the property in question.

Further more I think the painting analogy is flawed in another manner too. As a gallery owner, I may let you watch my painting only under the condition that you do not photograph it. Or more specifically, I may ask that you do not bring any kind of recording equipment into the gallery as a condition to enter it. That is perfectly within my rights.

Further more if you, while in the gallery, were to take down the painting, go outside and show it to a bunch of people and then come back inside and re-hang it, then you have done something wrong, don't you agree?

No, we're talking about the positive effects of pirates having an interest in your software.

So you don't like people who give you more money than your other, non-pirate customers? I mean hey--maybe you do, but that's what I'm trying to draw out of you clearly: when you say these things about pirates, you are talking about people who you make more money off of than non-pirate customers--do you not "like those either"?

Also, like I asked before: if you are such a stalwart when it comes to property rights and seller's wishes, what's your stance on something like TiVo as far as its ability to let the user skip commercials?

Again: I am of the opinion that positive effects of piracy cannot be used by a pirate to excuse piracy. Even if I'm a stubborn idiot with the financical sense of an investment banker on LSD, that mistake is mine to make. The pirate can never claim "but I'm doing this for your own good" and use that as an excuse to get away with unless I specifically allow him to.

And about TiVo's... I have never heard of that subscribing to an ad-financed TV channel legally binds you to watch the commersials. Have you ever heard of such a subscription agreement? I sure as hell havn't. Sure the advertizers get peeved that you avoid their adverts... but as long as I'm not required to watch their ads, and I don't see how that could ever become a reality, they have no say in the matter.

That may be the case but trespassing isn't any less wrong than is theft.

Well, I disagree with you about that.

Lesser evils are not excused by the existance of greater ones (except in cases of self-defence... I'd like to see anyone try to claim self-defence as an excuse for software piracy ).

But then you have to think of uni students/others who simply can't afford things like Photoshop or other software which cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars.
I myself am a student who had access to Photoshop legally until the computer left the house. I didn't do any major photo editing, just minor cropping or cloning. Now I cannot do these things as I only have a small amount of cash to spend on food and whatnot.

I am NOT saying that I pirate software or that i like it, I just understand why people do it.

I agree because for people who have no income you cant afford those kinds of things

And your point is what? That you have some kind of fundamental right to use other people's property? You don't. If you cannot afford purchasing the right to use the software, you are not allowed to use it. What's so strange about that?

/S

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

Because software pirates don't care about the most simple of principles: Yours & Mine.

"Alright, what's the equation?"
"D=1/2(Vi+Vf)...."
"Why'd you stop?"
"I don't own the rights to this equation"

I've no problem with you arguing profit vs. expenditure, reward for work, all that jazz. But saying intellectual property is "yours" in the same sense a cake is "yours" is plain silly.

 

[Sayvara]

I am not whining about anything. It's not a nonsensical blurb, its an answer to your question. I happen to be a very successful webmaster, earning a LOT of money. So I'm not exactly left, Im just a realist. Do you really think it's the poor guy's fault that their poor, and that anyone could be rich if they put the work in. If you do, then your an ignorant twat, clearly denying the facts of the matter. In a capitalist system the little guy gets fucked over, that's a fact. If everyone was rich it wouldn't be capitalism. Now, don't get me wrong, i think its great, im rich, fine by me. But i can see why, if your on minimum wage, you might pirate a game, and justify it with the argument that the publisher is ripping you off to start with. I don't condone it though, and if i found any of my website materials being copied, I'd hit the offender with the full force of the law.

If you like to indulge yourself in a fantasy that you're a powerless little worm always getting done over by big entities, that is your own problem. I will never reduce myself to that and it sickens me to see all that uses that shoddy excuse to not kick their own arses and start getting their lives in order. Sure the megacorps have power... but saying that they do nothing but screw you over and that you have no power... that's just lame.

/S

 

[TsunamiWombat]

I don't know, i'm inclined to agree with the OP... I mean, piracy ONLY hurts the little guys who don't have the money to come after you with a crack team of net thugs, internet savvy coders and lawyers. A giant like EA could soak the loss easy. Your not fighting the system, your helping the man.

Huh? Whether you think piracy is wrong or not this post makes no sense. Any developer that doesn't have enough money to afford lawyers, doesn't have enough money to make a video game. Those are the developers that have big publishers funding them, and its the publishers that will come after you. Also, forcing EA to soak up a loss is not "helping the man". In fact I don't see how pirating is helping the man at all. If it was, the government and all the big movie/record studios and video game publishers wouldn't be trying to stop it so desperately.

Your "helping the Man" because Piracy is another nail in the indie 'non $80,000 budget game' coffin. Only large producers can afford to soak the loss of rampent piracy, smaller developers die in the water, so your part of the REASON only large developers can afford to make games (admittedly stupid consumers are also a big part of it) and thus PART OF THE REASON games trend towards the uninspired and expensive. The reason the industry goes after piracy so hard is because they want to maximize their profits, not because it actually poses and sort of threat to the giants.

It works out much the same way Malpractice Lawsuits have for the Medical Community- Malpractice insurance has gotten so outrageous only large practices can thrive, prospective doctors are scared into different career paths by the threat of litigion, anything daring or different is quelled because if one thing goes wrong it's their financial ass.

In the same way, piracy undercuts the profits of small indie companies, money they need just to survive, and great idea's die on arrival or are subsumed and raped by the larger corporations.

 

[Sayvara]

Because software pirates don't care about the most simple of principles: Yours & Mine.

"Alright, what's the equation?"
"D=1/2(Vi+Vf)...."
"Why'd you stop?"
"I don't own the rights to this equation"

I've no problem with you arguing profit vs. expenditure, reward for work, all that jazz. But saying intellectual property is "yours" in the same sense a cake is "yours" is plain silly.

Flawed example. Intellectual property is a reality and I know of no legislation that doesn't agree that IP can be owned and thus be "mine".

Or are you seriously saying that as soon as I have created some IP, then everyone in the world has a right to take part of that on their conditions and that I have no right to refuse them? You're not saying that, are you?

/S

 

[Ahnfelt]

I never thought of it that way before.

So to summarize, you dislike pirates because they steal?

That's pretty original thought right there. Pirates steal, do they. I'm glad I took the time to read your post, or it would never have occurred to me. It's brilliant. I hope you win the Nobel Peace Price!

...

The problem is, nobody cares that you hate software pirates. They are a fact of life, and as long as it's more convenient to illegally copy software than to acquire it legally, it's going to be a common thing.

When I try buying a game legally, the first thing I do is to go to direct2drive or another place where you can purchase & download. Then I search for the game, and usually it's not there. A few sites later, I find the game, but it's only available in the US. But let's say I want one of the few games that actually can be downloaded outside the US. I buy it, download it, and install it. During the installation process I'm asked to agree with an EULA I didn't know of when I bought the game. I'm not going to read it of course, and I wouldn't be able understand it even if I did. Luckily they're void where I live. I'm all set to play the game. Later I find out that it came bundled with malware, often known as "DRM". Customers: 0. Pirates: 1.

So you read up on what DRM is. It turns out it's a program that game companies fancy silently bundling with games you've legally bought, in order to stop you from copying it. This must be pretty new though, since it's never prevented piracy before. But no, it's from the eighties. Wait, a technology designed to stop piracy that failed to work EVEN ONCE in more than 20 years? Why is this still used? So you read on to discover that they commonly destroy data, modify drivers and contain root kits... and generally are a pain in the buttocks. Customers: 0. Pirates: 2.

With movies it's even worse. If you try to rent a movie online (and I do this frequently), the sites have like 100 movies each. There's nothing to pick from. When you do find a movie you want to see, it's usually more expensive than renting them as physical discs. And the resolution is so low you're gotta feel stupid that you're not downloading this as HD from some P2P service right now instead. But you continue on, only to discover that you can't play the movie. Because you're not in Windows. Or you haven't got the right version of Windows Media Player. So you install Windows, boot into it and install MP 10.00127rc45. And with these easy steps you're all set to see a low resolution version of the movie you picked because there weren't anything better available. Customers: 0. Pirates: 3.

IP owners whine a whole lot over piracy, but they do nothing to make it more attractive to acquire their products legally. Are we supposed to be sympathetic?

 

[gotroot]

First of all, piracy implies that whomever pirates something steals it. When in actuality, its copied and you get to keep your original.

because as Cheeze_Pavilion said it best

"When something is stolen from you, not only does someone enjoy your property without permission, but you are also deprived of the ability to enjoy it yourself."

Second of all, you still get paid the same amount of bloody money. You do not work
based on the amount of copys you sell. The Developer you work for pays you the same.
Thus stop your bitching.

Now you may ask, "hey root, why should I stop my tearing cry for pain due to my app being shared more than a tijuana crack whore on bittorrent?

Well I shall explain, I am a student in the 3D animation field, and trust me I have seen my share of BS "original" pirated work.( Which is the same in my eyes as how you feel about your apps being copied). BUT! I look at it this way, the illegal copying of software in the InternetZ will always continue, so deal with it.You and I are in fields of work in which piracy is common, but the real idea behind it is this:

Can you really make an app that people will say " holy shit steve!, this app is not like the other 600+ other apps that people make, THIS THING IS ACTUALLY WORTH THE MONEY!!! thus they buy it.

But with the amount of shit being pumped into the net today its no wonder people torrent most apps. Think of it as a DEMO for something before you buy it.

I personally don't torrent shit. Since I use Ubuntu,the majority of my apps are free and open source.

I understand what you mean, but this is just another way of looking at the topic.

Cheers

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

Flawed example. Intellectual property is a reality and I know of no legislation that doesn't agree that IP can be owned and thus be "mine".

Is-ought fallacy.

Or are you seriously saying that as soon as I have created some IP, then everyone in the world has a right to take part of that on their conditions and that I have no right to refuse them? You're not saying that, are you?

Straw-man.

Nice work slamming Captian I-Never-Argued-For-Or-Against-Piracy. He's so pleased?

 

[TsunamiWombat]

Honestly I can see the arguments on either side... i've done it for very old games that are hard to find. For instance i'm never going to find System Shock 2 legally- alas it didn't work with my version of windows. I despise the idea of picking up new releases or movies though, since the success of the title often determines sequels and extended support.

Also thats a big F and U to anyone who wants me to PAY for an SNES game when nostalgia strikes me. Get out of here with that shit, Link to the Past is almost two decades old if not more. Theres a limit to the greed i'll tolerate.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

Yeaah right, if you seriously make that much money can I be your best freind?

 

[molesgallus]

lol, that's not a lot of money, not in comparison to what this site will make. That's the problem i tend to find, people want to be friends with me only because of my money. Thats why i have a strict no loans/handouts etc. policy. They get nice presents, but that's it.

 

[hamster mk 4]

My take on software piracy vs purchacing is that of respect and encouragement. People who devote a large part of their lives to create something that brings you happyness deserve respect. They ask that you show your respect via giving them money so that they can continue doing what they do, which in turn will bring more happyness to you and others later on down the line.

This of course is the ideal situation where all software is fantasitc, and nobody tries to capitalize on fond child hood memories for a qucik buck. Basicaly I advocate only paying for good software. This doesn't necissarily meen pirate bad software or software you are unsure of quality wise. There exist enough demos and reviews of gaming software that you can form an edjucated oppinion of a game without spending a dime. Companies that are unwilling to offer a demo of their software, they probably don't have anything worth showing.

It all boils down to this: If you don't pay for good games there will be no good games in the future. Likewise if you keep paying for bad games there will also be no good games in the future. Each individual consumer has a responsiblity to shape the gaming land scape of tomorrow. If it doesn't turn out the way we wanted, we have only ourselves to blame.

 

[Sayvara]

I'm talking about a legal obligation not to record a TV show so you can *skip* the commercials.

Can you point those us of us that aren't familiar with this particular law where to get further info concerning it? I might be the only one since I don't watch TV, but I'd still like to get more info for curiosity's sake.

 

[Sayvara]

And what were these conditions? Most people far as I know go to the shop, buy a game, then play it. They didn't sign any contracts or make any binding agreements in doing so. They don't have signs in HMV saying 'One video game per person. No lending of games to friends.'

Haven't purchased a game in a bit, but are they no longer including those lengthy EULA at some point during the installation? Apparently nobody reads them still, but they're a legally binding contract on the use of the software in question.

 

[Sayvara]

I never thought of it that way before.

So to summarize, you dislike pirates because they steal?

No. I never used the word nor the concept "theft" as an argument as to why I don't like piracy. Go back and read again and make a new summary because the one quoted above here is an epic failure in understanding what I'm saying.

First of all, piracy implies that whomever pirates something steals it.

...

I understand what you mean, but this is just another way of looking at the topic.

No you did not understand what I mean. I never said piracy is theft. Join Ahnfelt over at the original post [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.72382.758242] and read again.

Flawed example. Intellectual property is a reality and I know of no legislation that doesn't agree that IP can be owned and thus be "mine".

Is-ought fallacy.

Or are you seriously saying that as soon as I have created some IP, then everyone in the world has a right to take part of that on their conditions and that I have no right to refuse them? You're not saying that, are you?

Straw-man.

Nice work slamming Captian I-Never-Argued-For-Or-Against-Piracy. He's so pleased?

No, it's not an Is-Ought fallacy. The concept of Intellectual Property and what it means is defined by law. Even if you think that something that is insubstantial cannot be owned, no legislation in the world agrees with you. And since legislation is the defining factor in this case, your argument that software or other IP cannot be "mine", is wrong. If you argue the opposite, then you'll have to admit that no physical object can be yours either since the right to ownership is defined in the same way: by legislation.

Also it is not a Strawman argument because the question was not rethorical. I'll take your answer as that you meant "No" to my question... hence you do agree with me that when I creating something that is not physical, the population of the world does not have a right to take part of it on their terms; that I am in fact the owner of the work in question; and that I therefore have the right to control it and also to control access to it.

Again: I am not talking about the "positive effects of piracy" or using them "to excuse piracy"; I am talking about the positive effects of pirates and your opinion of them.

what do you think of pirates that buy more of your software than honest customers?

You're misstating what I'm asking: I'm not talking about any legal obligation to *watch* commercials; I'm talking about a legal obligation not to record a TV show so you can *skip* the commercials.

In other words, if it's wrong to copy someone's data to make it possible violate the wishes of the person who develops software, why isn't it wrong to copy someone's data to make it possible to violate the wishes of the person who develops TV shows?

That has no relevance to my disagreement with you. You did not say that in the post I was replying to: you said "trespassing isn't any less wrong than is theft." That is what I was disagreeing with.

The question of what I think about pirates that buy more of my software than do non-pirates is an utterly irrelevant one and I have no interrest in answering it. It does nothing but muddle up the discussion without adding anything relevant to it. Renting a DVD from a store does not give you the right to occationally take one DVD home and watch it without paying.

About the TiVo... again: you are allowed to unconditionally record TV transmissions that you subscribe to. No legislation, no deal, nothing in the agreement that was drawn up between you and the TV channel compells you to not record only the parts that you want. I am perfectly free to not take part of IP at any time I like.

And again: the moral relativism has no bearing on the case either. Even if we were to extract some kind of wrongness measurement from acts of trespassing and theft, and these measurements turns out to be different, that still does not excuse piracy and as such, for this discussion, is a totally moot point.

/S

 

[InsanityBaronOfAtrocity]

Perhaps all us pirates are souless, evil entities hell bent on destroying the game industry. In the end we enjoy free games, music and movies and you don't because of morality? Oh dear...