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

[Sayvara]

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.

What? No it's not. The law has to deal with situations that are not black & white, but in the end it comes to a very binary decision: guilty or not guilty.

/S

 

[Sayvara]

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

Piracy is most analogous to Prostitution.

Eh? No it is not. That was a really vague and silly analogy.

/S

 

[Sayvara]

It can't. Read the link to the EFF article--the judge in that case declined to give the DVR plaintiffs a declaratory judgment that would have settled the issue.

Copyright law has provisions for legal precedent being set if you fail to act to defend your copyright. I can't say if it extends to other branches of the US Legal system, but they are obviously not ignorant of the feature, and I can't see how any case they might decide to bring forth is helped by delaying years.

That's not always true--if someone never would have bought the product, the piracy does not affect retail sales.

They are in use of a product they have not purchased. While certain specifics of the EULA/Terms of use may not hold, the condition that you must have legally acquired it should. Are we arguing what constitutes piracy here?

First, I'm not talking about the *watching* of ads; I'm talking about the *skipping* of ads. That's a big difference.

Second, according to your logic that there's only a moral issue involved when we're talking about not paying for products or services offered for sale, there would be no moral issue involved in me going into a movie theater and pointing a camera at the screen.

I fail to see how you got this conclusion from my posts. I specifically state that the movie industry with retail sale by ticket or DvD has the closest analogies to piracy in the gaming industry. At release, the movie industry generates their revenue by ticket sales, and prohibits the use of recording devices within the theater. Recording and releasing without their consent threatens their sales directly, just as releasing 'cracked' versions of software does for game companies.

That's where the moral issue comes in--a TiVo is not a TARDIS. In order to ad skip, you must first record a broadcast of a performance. The moral issue arises from going beyond just *viewing* a broadcast to *recording* a broadcast without getting the permission of the broadcaster to make that recording.

Recording of their broadcasts is not one of the issues mentioned in the suit you linked, and to my knowledge is covered under "fair use". What they did want to take legal action against was: "commercial advance" or "send show". I'm not sure what legal grounds they have for the former, but the latter would be covered under redistribution, and why they didn't press the even the latter one (redistribution of broadcasts is prohibited, last I remember) is odd.

That's not true--think about it:

--Murder is both illegal and immoral.

--Driving through a red light is always illegal, but if there's no one around, it's not immoral.

--Cheating on your boy/girl friend is immoral, but is not illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mala_in_se vs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_prohibitum

I'm not saying there's no difference. I'm just not sure why it's important whether we, as individuals, believe piracy is immoral at a point when it's illegal. Especially if those that believe it's not immoral aren't doing anything to make it legal. Except running red lights, to use your analogy.

 

[Voltrox747]

Agreed, since the concept of morality is different for every individual, it is gray by definition. The law exists to impose black and white on it so everyone can understand it.

 

[Sayvara]

First, I'm not talking about the *watching* of ads; I'm talking about the *skipping* of ads. That's a big difference.

Is it ? What's the difference between "not watching" and "skipping" ads?

/S

 

[Sensei Le Roof]

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.

What? No it's not. The law has to deal with situations that are not black & white, but in the end it comes to a very binary decision: guilty or not guilty.

/S

Nice of you to reduce the world to this narrow part that makes you look good. That "very binary decision" is NOT the end, because after guilt comes determination of punishment, QED. If there was only right and wrong, all crimes would have the same punishment.

 

[lumi21]

And games keep getting shorter because designers have decided that we want 'episodic gameplay'

Not really, no. Designers are all about creating a full, robust gaming experience. Publishers are all about episodic gameplay.

 

[TomBeraha]

I agree entirely OP. And as for Spore, there is no way anyone can say 'I pirated it because of DRM', DRM is only there because people pirated games in the first place. No-one pirated Spore to make a point against DRM, they pirated because they wanted to play it, and didn't want to pay.

EA not telling people about SecuROM , however, is entirely wrong, but that should be cleared up legally, so it shouldn't happen again.

Not true. I personally am using my pirated copy of Spore specifically so I don't install my legal copy and "use up" my installs. And that's Ridiculous!

I agree completely with the original poster in terms of right / wrong. Legality is another matter which I won't really get involved in. I agree that people should be allowed to make whatever decisions they want with their property (good or bad). However.. The question to me is one of perception.

Earlier the OP suggested that not being able to afford a Veyron means that he shouldn't be allowed to steal one, drive it, bring it back none the worse for wear. I completely agree, but I'm not sure it doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed to "copy" one, and use that one to his hearts content. Electronic commodities are tough to value, because they can be copied.

If you perceive them to be of value, and accept that you are buying the blessing of the original creator to use them as you see fit, then you are less likely to pirate them. Perhaps you choose to buy them instead because you want to support whichever developer or producer or publisher or designer made that property. If you perceive them to have no value because there are infinite amounts of them, you will likely steal all the ones you want to, that you don't have a reason to buy from other avenues.

I think the original poster is correct in that it becomes up to the designer now to deliver the "full package" and add value to the ownership of a product, because it is unlikely that code itself will retain it's value. The long term ramifications of such decisions would have to be thought out carefully however. (endless support for legacy products is just one potential issue I see) I also agree that it is completely up to the software creator to decide whether or not to adapt to the changing landscape of software development. So long as the creator doesn't expect other people to simply agree with him and pay him money because he's earned it, he has my full support.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

I never knew everyone on our forums was a paralegal...

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.

Quote for Truth. Catch more flies with honey. If people love your company they're less likly to cheat you.

 

[Voltrox747]

Quote for Truth. Catch more flies with honey. If people love your company they're less likly to cheat you.

That pretty much sums up my stance on the issue. People feel they need to pirate, the law can't stop them effectively, so companies have to gain their respect again if they want people to stop doing it.

 

[Sayvara]

Because a movie theater broadcasts a performance the same as a TV station. For the sake of argument, let's say you're right and there's no moral issue with OTA broadcasts. There's still a 'retail sale' involved in cable tv.

Movies in the theater aren't broadcast same as TV. Movies are released to theaters who control access via ticket sales.

Cable providers charge viewers for their service, so viewer = customer. Television networks whose broadcasts are carried by cable providers still operate separately, even if they end up both owned under the same giant media conglomerate. Their ad-based revenue business model only involves the viewers in that they are the product being sold to advertising agencies; in this case, viewers != customers. There's no significant moral point for the product to hold in that business model.

Lots of people have an opinion on the morality of piracy regardless of the legality of it, just as many people have an opinion on the morality of a person in a committed relationship getting a perfectly legal lap dance. If you don't, then that's cool; however, there are people to whom it is an important issue, and my question was directed at them.

Ah, well, I guess I stand on that odd "because it's illegal, it's immoral" line, though that's still a personal moral code. I don't expect others to follow, except so far as I'd expect them to accept the consequences of their illegal action should they be caught. If they had a good position from which to attempt to change the industry, it'd be nice, but there seems to be a tad too much of a sense of self-entitlement in the ranks.

I think *I* might be confused as to whether we're arguing legality or morality here.

In fact, I think half my end of the conversation can be attributed to getting the moral/legal arguments all mixed up. It's been a long day, and it's hard to follow a good discussion and try to get work done, and sadly both probably suffered.

On that note, have a good evening (or morning, day, etc.) everyone, and remember to keep it civil. Good food for thought in this thread, and it'd be a shame to get it locked and lost in flames.

 

[KaiserWarrior]

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.

And when you only do minor cropping and cloning, there's free software like GIMP that will do that.

Sorry, you don't get to say "But I only use photoshop for minor things, and I'm poor!" to justify it.

Laziness is not an excuse.

 

[bad rider]

I respect your opinion, but this isn't a new phenomenon, and in any case it depends on your stance whether your left wing or right wing.

 

[6thfloormadness]

Normally I only come to the site to watch ZP, but this thread caught my attention and I just finished reading all the posts and created an account so that I could put in my opinion.

First of all, I agree with Jhereg42 that game companies need to show some faith in the customers if they want us to buy their games (those 3 steps were good ideas). On the occasions when they don't (Spore) it comes down to personal feelings. I was going to download a copy of Spore because the of the DRM (so NinjaDwarf is wrong) but I did not for one reason.

The game had a designer who was involved in the publicity so it was not like I was ripping of big evil EA, I was ripping of Will Wright. That is why I won't be downloading any games by Lionhead Studios, they have a person I feel like I would be stealing from. Furthermore, I like Maxis games and want them to continue making games. If there was a way for the money I spent on the game to go to Maxis and not EA, I would have done that. While EA does not do a good job of being nice to its customers, Will Wright did in the presentations where he previewed the game.

There have been a lot of analogies about the theft of software; cars, Tivo, hookers, music, yada yada. What I am surprised no one mentioned was comics and webcomics. Garfield is a comic that appears in many newspapers so to read it you need to buy a newspaper or one of the books. Compare that to PvP, Penny Arcade, Questionable Content, ect. Those comics are not only available for free over the internet, but you can go back through the archives whenever you want. What is more, Scott Kurtz, Jerry Holkins and Mike Krahulik, and Jeph Jacques source of income is those comics. Comics that are available to anyone with an internet connection. Garfield is on the internet (do a Google image search for Garfield comic and you will find plenty) but that is not Jim Davis's business model (I doubt most of those are even up there doing anything more for him then exposure), he makes his money through the print version. Game publishers need to find a new business model and become the Rich Burlew, Illiad or Randall Munroe of video games.