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

[Sayvara]

Even if I'm a stubborn idiot with the financical sense of an investment banker on LSD, that mistake is mine to make.

Technically that's not always true, at least for U.S. corporations with shareholders. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company

Point taken... so it would be really interresting to see the shareholders of a gaming company stand up and say "No to invasive and constricting DRM!". Has that happened yet?

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.

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.'

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.

So it's a case of one set of rules for books, but another for games? How does that work? I go to a bookshop, hand over money, the book is mine. I don't give a fuck if Tolkien himself wants to argue with me, that copy of the book is my property which I have paid for. Yet, if I go to a gameshop and hand over substantially more money for a game, in theory making that copy of the game my property, the publisher can still dictate who plays it and who doesn't? What if I want to sell my game, is that not allowed? This is ridiculous. If I went to a high street and told shoppers about this, people would either look at me in disbelief or laugh it off as a joke. The very idea that I can buy a book for a fiver, read it, lend it to my friends, or sell it to Oxfam as I see fit, yet I pay 30-40 quid for a computer game... and I'm not even allowed to lend it to a friend to play on his computer? Now who's having trouble getting the 'Yours and mine' concept?

No it is not rediculous. I can agree that it is very tricky sea to navigate though.

in short: lending software/a book to a friend, in the true sense that you yourself is not using the original while your friend has it, is normally not concidered wrong. However, the moment you copy the book or the software so that both people can use it at the same time, then it's a different thing.

I am no expert on consumer rights but there is a alot being said legally about what is concidered Fair Use. This is fluid and in constant development, especially since IP has become easy to reproduce using technical means. I am fairly certain that lending is allright... but copying isn't.

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.

The EULA's are still there but their legality is questioned. Copyright and Consumer Rights legislation has precedence over EULA's anyway. You cannot sign an agreement that lessens your rights compared to what law says you have.

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...

Nonsense. If you have nothing substantial to add to the discussion, don't enter it.

/S

 

[Sayvara]

I actually can't. Just recently a court refused to rule on the issue after the studios backed down: http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/04/17-0

However, it is certainly the opinion of at least the CEO of Turner Broadcasting that skipping their commercials is theft: http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/1113

Well, it'd be interesting if they ever tried to force the issue, rather than saber-rattling. I'd want to see how they'd determine there was a contract between the viewers and broadcasters, especially since in the system as it currently is designed the viewers are the product, and the advertisers are the customers. The only reason they care if a show is good or not is how much they can get for selling our eyes. Anyway, this is getting off topic... though given the differences in how the two industries work, I think the TiVo analogy isn't going to work here.

 

[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.

I actually can't. Just recently a court refused to rule on the issue after the studios backed down: http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/04/17-0

However, it is certainly the opinion of at least the CEO of Turner Broadcasting that skipping their commercials is theft: http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/1113

Well, let me just say that I think the CEO's opinion is a load of bull. At most, not watching commersials could be concidered a breach of contract. But I cannot imagine that consumer rights legislation would allow someone to hold me in breach of that contract simply because I close my eyes and stick my fingers in my ears during an ad-break. It's just absurd.

In short his business model is flawed and he cannot use the "Theft" argument to defend it. I think he's wrong.

/S

 

[Count_de_Monet]

Piracy is illegal, that is as simple as the question gets.

Have I pirated games? Yes I have and I've been caught at it by my ISP which resulted in a letter threatening to turn off our service if I continued to pirate games. So what did I do? I stopped pirating new games that they were paying attention to. I still torrented System Shock 2, AvP, and American McGee's Alice between then and now because either I couldn't find the game or I would have to buy from people who are illegally copying and selling the games anyway...

Do I feel bad for my past pirating? No, I don't.

When I spend my money on a game and it doesn't work on my computer even though their specs say it should I lose a little compassion for the developer. When I buy a game and install it just to find malware on my computer from it I lose a little more compassion. When I buy a game which made certain promises about content and it's not there I lose even more compassion. When I buy a game and have to wait a week, two weeks, a month for them to release patches so it actually works correctly I lose a lot of compassion.

There is one thing that we have to face in the computer game industry: the developers hold all the cards. There is NO consumer protection in this industry and there is ever increasing protection for the developers.

I've bought games and installed them just to see them crash over and over again until the developer finally released a patch. I've bought anti-virus programs which, when installed, caused my computer to completely stop functioning causing massive loss of personal information. More recently other people in my family bought computers with an operating system that didn't work with a single printer we owned and with only the newest games.

So yes, it's illegal but no, I really don't feel sorry for developers.

 

[Flour]

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.

They're not a legal contract in every country.

At least here in the Netherlands and I believe multiple other European countries, an EULA has no legal value unless it is visible at the moment of purchase.
A copy of your own copy can't be given to a friend, uninstalling or giving your own original copy to a friend is allowed as long as you yourself are unable to play and/or you don't get any money for the copy you give.
Uninstalling your game and selling it to someone else is allowed.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

No, it's not an Is-Ought fallacy. The concept of Intellectual Property and what it means is defined by law.

Which is how things are. I am arguing about how things should be. You are using the former to attack the latter.

Hence, an is-ought fallacy.

Also it is not a Strawman argument because the question was not rethorical.

Uh, no, I've made no positions either for or against anything you've attributed. I've simply applied abduction to a point to argue against it.

Put consecutively:

1. The patenting of scientific discoveries is silly
2. The concept of intellectual property as presented would logically extend to discovery
3. The concept of intellectual property as presented is silly.

 

[Sayvara]

Your opinion of certain pirates is irrelvant to a discussion about your opinion that pirates are "pimply snot-nosed kids" who "don't have the manners or good graces to actually respect other people's property."

Sorry, but, I think it's more likely that you don't want to acknowledge that there's a major hole in your position?

Legality aside, why do you think it's moral to use an IP in a way that the owner clearly does not want you to? You said in your original post:

Now granted I shouldn't be a jerk about it. The conditions I put up for 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.

But so are owner's rights. If I say that usage of my software is allowed only after a fee has been collected, then that's my decision to make and not yours.

What is unreasonable about ad-supported TV stations requiring people not to skip the ad?

It would only be a moot point if you had stopped at calling pirates wrongdoers. You went further than that, though, and you said that:

software pirates don't believe in Yours & Mine. Software pirates think that just because I have offered to let people use my software for a fee, they suddenly have the right to say "Fuck it" to all my wishes and use my property as if it was their own.

Just the fact that they are wrongdoers does not justify that conclusion about the extent of their wrongdoing and what is says about what they believe.

No, there is no hole in my position because my position is that anyone that does not respect my rights as the owner of property are doing something wrong and illegal. Wherether or not they are snot-nosed kids or the equivalent of such has no relevance to the position in question. I simply stated for the sake of example that such people peeve me.

About the TV ads I think that falls under the reservation I made: the conditions you set up for using the IP must be reasonable. Forcing people to watch ads under the threat to cancel the subscription is not reasonable.

And just saying that pirates are wrongdoers is not an argument... it's an unsubstantiated claim. My argument for the claim was that pirates do not respect the concept of Yours & Mine, a concept that encompasses the right for me to dictate (withing reasonable bounds) under what condition my proeprty can be used. Is there anythign in that argument which ou don't agree on?

/S

 

[Syntax Error]

EA is facing a class action suit [http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/09/24/ea-faces-class-action-lawsuit-over-spore-drm] because of the anti-piracy mechanism in Spore. I think that speaks volumes.

 

[gotroot]

Piracy exists simply because there is so much crap that people have to go through to get a app that is actually worth the damn money we pay for it.

Like this, who in hell is going to torrent starcraft 2?! seriously like 1% of people, and it will only be used on a LAN based idea anyway. EVERYONE who likes starcraft will buy STARCRAFT2!

end of story, STOP MAKING SHIT APP/GAMES and ppl WIll START BUYING THE GOOD GAMES/APPS!

 

[TorqueZero]

Hey waaait a minute; I don't think pirates are deliberately trying to screw developers here. I think if there's any deliberate screwing it'll be focused primarily on the faceless giants - publishers. After all, games devs are the ones who toil and sweat into the long hours to bring about these shiny treats for the mind. It's the publishers who shaft the devs and consumers both in a multitude of ways. After everything is said and done about morality and ethics, it's still business at the end of the day and business needs a profit margin.

Considering that a PR campaign can make or break a game these days, and said campaigns can cost as much or more than the whole multi-year dev cycle, what percentage of the total proceeds earned from the sale go back to the devs? Not much; they're salaried. The sales/performance bonus devs get after the game begins to make profits is pretty damn minimal. And it only happens once per game.

Pirates don't reappropriate the artistic works from a game; they don't steal the code. They challenge the business model. Game devs aren't in it for the money; this is demonstrable by looking at their pay-cheques and comparing those to similarly skilled people in other industries. So quit moaning about loss of profits; at least someone has arrived at a method of disseminating your work to a market that can't afford it.

I don't like to endorse piracy, but my feelings against poverty are far stronger. That's not necessarily money-poverty, it's cultural poverty.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go extract my faculty of intelligence and reason from my faculty of waste excretion.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Why another software developer really likes pirates... [http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/11/games.piracy1]

 

[Asehujiko]

US law allows me to defended myself against any attacks with equal or lesser force. When Starforce purposfully tries to break my dvd drive i am allowed to defend myself by getting a copy that doesn't do so. The riaa's ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR HARHARHAR lawsuits aside, piracy is the lesser evil here compared to destruction of property.

The same applies to SecuROM rootkits. The only reason those remain legal is because their lobby can afford to blow several billions on changing laws in their favor and pirates can't.

To everybody claiming that publishers have the legal high ground anyway: Why do they keep spending money on politics? Shouldn't their "basic rights" be covered standard?

 

[Sayvara]

When I spend my money on a game and it doesn't work on my computer even though their specs say it should I lose a little compassion for the developer. When I buy a game and install it just to find malware on my computer from it I lose a little more compassion. When I buy a game which made certain promises about content and it's not there I lose even more compassion. When I buy a game and have to wait a week, two weeks, a month for them to release patches so it actually works correctly I lose a lot of compassion.

There is one thing that we have to face in the computer game industry: the developers hold all the cards. There is NO consumer protection in this industry and there is ever increasing protection for the developers.

I've bought games and installed them just to see them crash over and over again until the developer finally released a patch. I've bought anti-virus programs which, when installed, caused my computer to completely stop functioning causing massive loss of personal information. More recently other people in my family bought computers with an operating system that didn't work with a single printer we owned and with only the newest games.

So yes, it's illegal but no, I really don't feel sorry for developers.

I don't know about where you live, but in Sweden, such malfunctions of a product is grounds for anulling the purchase at the point of sale and getting your money back. Such failures are you describe are clearly the result of a malfunctioning product and as such you have the right to get your money back. That's the way it works here at least, don't know about your country of residence.

Well, if everyone TiVo's through the commercials, there aren't any eyes on the ads. Remember, they're not selling the eyes watching the program, they're selling the eyes watching the ads.

So? That's a glaringly poor business model, relying on concepts that they cannot reasonably enforce. The customers are not obliged to bend over backwards to accomodate shoddy ideas.

/S

 

[Sayvara]

Well, if everyone TiVo's through the commercials, there aren't any eyes on the ads. Remember, they're not selling the eyes watching the program, they're selling the eyes watching the ads.

Actually, they are selling the eyes watching the program. It's "we have X people watching this program, and based on that, you can buy ad blocks at this rate". The problem they're encountering is no longer being able to claim with high certainty that those eyes are watching the ads, and apparently not being able to enforce the viewing of them as they are: 1) not legally considered part of the program; and 2) no contract between them and viewers mandating the watching of ads in addition to the program. Which puts them closer to how print and radio media operate in that sense.

Recent ad placements in online multiplayer games aside, the closest analogy elsewhere in the entertainment industry is with the movie industry, as their income is directly tied to ticket and dvd sales, so it's a direct viewer-as-consumer relationship.

 

[Sayvara]

No, it's not an Is-Ought fallacy. The concept of Intellectual Property and what it means is defined by law.

Which is how things are. I am arguing about how things should be. You are using the former to attack the latter.

Hence, an is-ought fallacy.

Also it is not a Strawman argument because the question was not rethorical.

Uh, no, I've made no positions either for or against anything you've attributed. I've simply applied abduction to a point to argue against it.

Put consecutively:

1. The patenting of scientific discoveries is silly
2. The concept of intellectual property as presented would logically extend to discovery
3. The concept of intellectual property as presented is silly.

Uhm... if you are arguing from the point of how things "should be", then you are the one doing the Is-Ought Fallacy. You are arguing that IP ought to be none existant... but you do not explain how the current, very real existance of IP as legal concepts leads to what you think ought to be.

As for statements 1, 2 and 3... 3) relies on the assumption that Intellectual Property is a subset of Scentific Discovery. That is not true. The intersection of the sets Scientific Discovery and Intellectual Property is not equal to any of them.

/S