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

[Sayvara]

OK, so here goes.

There's a balance to be achieved. Piracy is wrong, but so is restricting legitamite customers. Sayvara: you're conduct in this thread is enough that I do not think I'd ever give you my business, as you have shown absolutely no interest in the rights of your customers, only yourself.

Go back and read my posts again, all of them, then come back and present your arguments and I might listen. I have constantly throughout the thread presented my view on consumer rights and if you honestly believe the dross you just said about me, then you reading skills are either abysmal or you elected to ignore what I said.

See ya soon, then you have read and made an effort to understand.

/S

 

[clarinetJWD]

Alright, so it was less of what you said and more of how you said it. You like customers rights, fine, but you have spent the entire time insulting anyone with a contrary opinion...not exactly a flattering picture.

I'm reminded of Richard Brunstrom's now infamous quote "It is against the law and there is no excuse for drifting over the limit any more than there is for drifting a knife into someone." What he said may be true, but come on... I don't feel like arguing, because it's just pointless, so I'll just take my abysmal reading skills with me, and let my dross fester, because you're obviously fair and unbiased.

 

[Voltrox747]

Alright, first off let me say that I read the first two pages and skimmed the rest, so forgive me if someone already covered this.

This argument has been going in circles for a while now, and I think the real problem here is that Sayvara has serious Right vs Wrong opinions that are not going to change, and most of those trying to argue against him are defending themselves through rationalization of piracy, which only works if you DON'T have strong moral issues against it.

Now, I happen to be in favor of piracy in the sense that I think there are plenty of valid reasons to do it. At the same time, I agree with Sayvara most of the time when he actually argues rationally rather than morally. As has been pointed out already, both piracy and the way customers have been treated lately are bad. However, at this point in the cycle piracy is not going to go away, nor are the policies of software companies going to change anytime soon. Arguing that both sides are wrong and should just stop it isn't a possibility anymore.

The main problem I have with Sayvara is his opinion that all piracy is bad and that pirates are an enemy of the developers. There have been plenty of reasons given so far as to why this isn't the case and I'm not going to list them now, but the main point I have is that pirates are not all out to get you. Most of them simply wish to use your software but do not feel that you are giving them their money's worth, or cannot use it in the form you are selling it for various technical or regional reasons (BTW, I feel that regional restrictions to be complete bullshit and circumvent them whenever I can. This is not up for debate, at least not with me.) Most pirates are quite willing to buy software when it is offered at a reasonable price with minimal restrictions, but if this isn't the case they don't have any problem with getting it other ways. I'm not arguing the moral issues of that here, I'm simply stating their (and in some cases my) way of thinking.

Most people feel that when they buy a program, and then cannot use said program or are heavily restricted in its use, they have been wronged. You can argue about how the developers have every right to set whatever conditions they like on the sale, but the general public does not agree with you. When someone buys something, they expect it to be theirs. This has been brought up many times before and while your arguments for why this isn't the case for software are valid from a legal standpoint, most people don't agree with you and don't care what the law says about it. Software purchases are not seen as a rental, and at the current price of most of it no one is going to be convinced otherwise. I've said nothing here about whether this is Right or not because the moral and legal issues don't concern me at the moment. The issue at hand is that many people DO feel that pirating is justified is a lot of cases, and have no respect for the laws when those laws have caused them nothing but trouble with programs they have already paid for. Pirating something without paying for it first is different, but that too can be justified in some cases; I'm just not going to do it here because that tends to be situational and concerns individual morals, and obviously everyone here has a different set of ethics.

So what's to be done about it? Piracy has become a valid way to deal with software problems and unfair restrictions in the public eye, and it has gone on long enough that they're not going to stop just because the developers tell them it's wrong. All I can tell you is that casual piracy is no longer felt to be morally wrong in most cases, and using that argument is getting you nowhere. I don't really have an answer for how to fix things, but I say something needs to be done on the development side, as the public sure as hell isn't going to stop doing it under the current conditions. More importantly, piracy is becoming easier for the public to do as time goes on, and catching or punishing individuals for doing it is extremely difficult. It isn't going to be stopped through enforcement, and most pirates don't really want to have to do it anyway. The best solution is to just make software affordable and easy to use again so the public would rather just buy it and get the support along with it rather than bother with cracking it. The chances of that happening anytime soon are slim, but it's the only feasible way to fix things.

Again, I'm not bashing Sayvara here and I don't agree with those who pirate anything and everything just because they can. I just think that if we're going to discuss piracy it has to be done with the assumption that people are going to keep doing it so long as software remains in the state it is today. We need to discuss possible ways to fix the problem, not just debate over the morality. If you simply wanted to state your ethical views on the matter and leave it at that then fine, but that isn't going to do much good.

Sorry about the long post btw, I can't help throwing everything out at once during a discussion.

 

[Sayvara]

Well that's the thing: (1) is up in the air, so you really can't say for sure that they're "not legally considered part of the program" and as for (2), they could just put in your next cable contract which would leave OTA out in the cold (maybe--OTA will be all digital soon with brings in DMCA issues) but would impact many viewers.

Also, note the difference between *watching* the ads and *not skipping the ads during a time-shifted recording*.

Also, there's a difference between something being *legal* and something being *wrong*. My point about TiVo isn't just about the legality of skipping ads, it's about the *morality* of it, because the piracy debate isn't just about whether it's technically legal to pirate games, but whether it's morally justifiable to do so.

In other words, I wonder about a lot of the people who see piracy as a moral transgression, if they have ever even considered the morality of using their TiVo to skip commercials.

Actually, I believe I can safely state that 1) holds. If the ads were considered part of the program, then they had every legal right to pursue their lawsuits against DVR manufacturers for including a feature that allowed for modification of their programming as intended. I'm far from a legal expert, but to me their lack of pursuit can be seen as a precedent, and since they dropped the cases in 2004, their continued failure to bring it to a legal decision after years have passed with increasing use of the feature seems to be ample evidence that they cannot.

2) is interesting, as it's the cable (and satellite) companies pioneering the use of DVR machines. Those companies get their funding from fees charged directly from the viewer, so they have no incentive to support broadcast television should they start a campaign to mandate the watching of ads.

Again, this is ad revenue, where the customer is the ad companies, and there is no commercial relationship entered between the viewers and the broadcasters which is where the TiVo operates.

Piracy affects the commercial relationship concerning retail sales, which is a different beast entirely, especially now that we have to consider the difference between physical property and intellectual property on top of jurisdiction and a mess of other legal concepts.

Taking the TiVo/piracy comparison from a moral perspective, they're still apples and oranges. There are no moral issues involved with the watching, or not watching of ads. There are when payment for products or services is involved. At any rate, a society's morals tend to become the basis for its laws, so I'm not sure why the specification for legal/moral is needed. Sure, an individual's moral compass may differ from the society they happen to be in, but an individual finding an action morally acceptable does not change the legality. If enough of the society determines a currently illegal action as morally acceptable, then they should alter the law to reflect this.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

Sorry about the long post btw, I can't help throwing everything out at once during a discussion.

Want more.

 

[Sayvara]

The main problem I have with Sayvara is his opinion that all piracy is bad and that pirates are an enemy of the developers.

I didn't say that. I said think that piracy is a disrespectful act. Whether that constitutes making yoruself an enemy of the property owner or not depends on a whole bunch of other factors.

Most people feel that when they buy a program, and then cannot use said program or are heavily restricted in its use, they have been wronged. You can argue about how the developers have every right to set whatever conditions they like on the sale, but the general public does not agree with you.

Well if you read my original post you will see that I do not agree with the notion that the seller can dictate the terms freely. I have explained this further in the thread. Consumer Rights shall be respected and if the customer is suffering undue restrictions, then I see no reason that the customer should not circumvent those restrictions in order to use the product in a fair manner.

When someone buys something, they expect it to be theirs.

Well this is a point that often blunts the debate into fuzz. What do you mean by "they expect it to be theirs"? Obviously it does not mean that they get full rights and complete ownership of the software and this is something most people are fine with. So what do you mean exactly by this statement?

If you simply wanted to state your ethical views on the matter and leave it at that then fine, but that isn't going to do much good.

We're well down page 5 by now... I'd say the discussion is very much alive.

/S

 

[Mr_G]

Nice one Voltrox. I actually came back here to say that. Or atleast something very similar. You saved me time and effort But i'm sure Sayvara will pick it to pieces and take things out of context even though you've tried your best to avoid such.

Edit: lol, posted too late.

 

[ThePlasmatizer]

Sorry about the long post btw, I can't help throwing everything out at once during a discussion.

Want more.

Since I've learned about the effort put into developing software, I've gained a greater understanding of what piracy is.

It's stealing someone elses property, if you wake up tommorrow and someones cleaned out your house I will laugh at the irony.

 

[Altorin]

I will admit this thread has given me a new insight on this one thing:

We can all generally agree that copying a game and selling it should be illegal.

A lot of us (other then some very vociferous and rather rude fanatics) feel that copying and personal distribution should be legal.

Do you know what this is an interesting analogy of?

It's illegal to sell something that it should be perfectly legal to give away?

Game Pirates are Pimps!

 

[Lydius_Winters]

To Qoute ZP "A coorporate run society who treats you like a wallet mounted on the back of an entranced magpie."

We arent made of money. Period end of story. If i see a game i am REALLY interested in i will by it, but i have been burned enought to know that if a game only looks moderatly interesting i'll download it first and then if i like it i'll by it, you only deserve my money if i like your work and get what im promised but i wont rent it for 3 installs or throw money at shiny things.

If its worth it ill pay for it gladly, but i wont bend over for the promise of a curtecy reacharound.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

It's stealing someone elses property, if you wake up tommorrow and someones cleaned out your house I will laugh at the irony.

Haha.
What's next, you'll dance on my grave if I die in a mugging? No, no. You'll be in the firing squad laughing at me if the government is taken over by a kleptocracy.

I could point out the silliness of the analogy, but I think it's more telling you choose to attack my single sentence rather then consider the weighed and rational post I quoted. That's how ya do it!
Don't strain yourself.

 

[DemonI81]

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. What this means is that whatever is mine, I have the right to say who gets to play with it, allright? Whatever I own, I have the right to say: you don't get to play with this, because there is nothing, in any legislation anywhere, that gives you the right to veto my decisions about what's mine.


/S

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

If you are an indie developer, I will gladly give you my money, to use your software, however, if you work for a publishing corporation, *cough* EA *cough* then the developer's rights become whatever the corporation says your rights are. The fact remains that if corporations continue to effectively insult the consumer by automatically assuming that they are pirates, they will increase piracy. Most gamers are honest, they will often, overwhelmingly choose to actually spend money on a game, rather than pirate it. However, if you push a consumer far enough, you will eventually drive said consumer to pirate the game out of pure principle. The general thought process is, if you insult my integrity outright, then you dont deserve my money. If said software is of sufficient quality and you stop troubling them after the purchase, people will overwhelmingly choose giving you money for it, rather than pirate it.

Exactly

 

[Voltrox747]

I didn't say that. I said think that piracy is a disrespectful act. Whether that constitutes making yoruself an enemy of the property owner or not depends on a whole bunch of other factors.

Whether you said it or not, it's the tone I felt in most of your posts. I'm not interesting in arguing with you about your specific feelings on the matter though. I was simply making an observation on the general direction your posts seemed to take.

Well if you read my original post you will see that I do not agree with the notion that the seller can dictate the terms freely. I have explained this further in the thread. Consumer Rights shall be respected and if the customer is suffering undue restrictions, then I see no reason that the customer should not circumvent those restrictions in order to use the product in a fair manner.

We are in agreement in that regard then. However, many people feel they should have more freedom than what you would want to give them, and your interpretation of undue restriction isn't the same as everyone else's. I couldn't tell you where the line should actually be set, I'm only stating that the opinions of developers and consumers differ so drastically at the moment that something has to give.

Well this is a point that often blunts the debate into fuzz. What do you mean by "they expect it to be theirs"? Obviously it does not mean that they get full rights and complete ownership of the software and this is something most people are fine with. So what do you mean exactly by this statement?

That statement was deliberately vague because, as I stated above, I don't know where the line should be drawn. I can only say that people do not feel that they are getting what they paid for at the moment. This is the point that needs to be argued though, because this is the crux of the problem. If we can turn the argument away from the moral debate against piracy and focus on this problem, then we've hit the goal my last post was made to achieve.

We're well down page 5 by now... I'd say the discussion is very much alive.

Like I said, I skimmed the last few pages because the moral debate was going on for too long. If it already got on the track I was going for than fine, mission accomplished.

 

[Altorin]

I solved the whole Piracy Analogy thing, but it got entirely overlooked, so I'll state it again

Piracy is most analogous to Prostitution.

 

[Jhereg42]

In my opinion the solution to the "piracy issue" is far more simple: Follow the Stardock/CDProjeckt formula. It's subtle, and it is very effective in preventing the worst aspects of Piracy.

Step 1: Accept that you cannot prevent Piracy. Make a protection, it will be cracked.
Step 2: Having accepted that, treat everyone, including the pirates, with respect. Gonna pirate, fine. Here, have at it. We would rather you buy it, though, and we will give you a reason.
Step 3: Create additional contect with extended value that is available to those who register their copy. Stardock did an awsome job with this in GalCiv 2, and CDP just revamped the Witcher and created two new stories for their new edition. . . and then made it all open to anyone that purchased the original. If you didn't buy the original at the $50 price point, well here is the super duper version at $40. Oh, and we've included the editor, so mod away.

As I am sure many people will agree, PC gamers are a big fan of Step 3. I've already made the call that regardless of what happens, these two companies (And Good Old Games through CDP) will have my loyalty for as long as they remain true to these principles.

Do the above, create consumer loyalty, keep your game in circulation, make money. What floors me is Spore could have been a huge example in this vein. It's perfect for this kind of system. EA just chose to be too restrictive.

The same arguement could be made for keeping your console games in the hands of consumers and out of the used market. Make a good game, then keep producing for it through quality DLC and make me WANT to keep it and play it again.

 

[Sensei Le Roof]

Nilcypher asked: "Is that theft?"

you asked: "Right or wrong?"

Two different questions.

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

Not important to the original point, but here I must say you're wrong. Even the courts agree (at least here). If you trespass (and the person actually bothers to press charges), you may get a fine, whereas a theft conviction becomes jail time. So yes, trespassing actually is less wrong.

Black is black and white is white, but the law is full of nigh-infinite shades of gray.