Software Piracy

[SPQR300]

Actually, this seems to be more a myth than reality. Software pirates do have their own code of honor and would never try to sneak in viruses. One, too, should be aware of the fact that copy protection mechanisms like SafeDisc (in case of CIV4, SafeDisc4 IIRC) are a very problematic part of the code. One could say that games run IN SPITE OF those mechanisms (and not so rarely, they DON'T run because of those). Ironically, since pirated copies often eliminate the protection algorithm in one way or another, these copies tend to run with less problems than the original software AND do away with the need to have the disc in the drive.

One valid point against pirated copies is that many of them are so-called "rips" where much eye candy is missing (e.g. there could be a "ripped" version of CIV where all movies and voiceovers are ripped - don't know, haven't looked for it). The game then is intact and playable, but it lacks some atmosphere. Nice to get a feel for the game mechanics, but obviously not the real thing.

Another point is that many pirated versions cannot be patched properly - either the patch doesn't install in the first place or the patch overwrites the cracked part of the copy, leaving the user with a fully installed game that cannot be played.

I all comes down to one thing: A game you truly enjoy you want to have as an original, for a couple of reasons. And rightly so, of course. It's just a question of how to determine *IF* you enjoy a game.

I couldn't agree with the first paragraph. My friend used to have a low-end PC, then he bought Half Life2 and he couldn't start the game!! He was really pissed off. Then we tried the pirated version and it ran flawlessly! He used to buy a lot of games, but I think that was the turning point for him. He got a broadband internet connection a bit later, and now hardly buys any original games(still buys a few every year). And about 2months ago he bought a PC for 2500EUR. I think he wouldn't have been able to raise that money if he had continued to buy games. He was really selfish and immoral, but now he has all the games running perfectly on a high-end PC. The risk is zero, and if you want the best for yourself, and you are selfish enough you can get much more for yourself. Like in many other aspects of life... you do something bad against the community, and things became much better fo yourSELF. Eventually that's what capitalism is all about: SELFISHNESS.

 

[Magian]

Don't worry! If everybody was buying a legal copy of Windows, Microsoft will own the planet.

Don't give to the brainwashing crap about 'the legal copies'.

 

[Chayton]

"But even so, what sort of person knowingly breaks the law just to play a game?"

Havent read the whole post, i just wanted to say that i dont see that you break the law if you get something that isnt get able in your country. If it doesnt exist in your country or no other country accepts that you get it, than you cant steal it. If you cant get anymore for example Submarine Titans yet you find an piracy version, then i cant see that it should be illegal to get that, i mean its the companies fault if it doesnt make it avaible anymore. (note before someone comes with a car example or anything, in this cases the "illegal" copy doesnt belong to anyone, a stolen car does)

 

[sangriablues]

maybe your puny civilization will culture flip, thus making the game available to you in the future.

 

[kuldiin]

Not really work safe.

Moderator Action: Nor appropriate for this site.

Link Removed

 

[Control Group]

A few points to consider. I'm going to make every effort to just state facts, and leave opinions out of it.

1) The "piracy != theft" debate. Piracy may or may not be ethically bankrupt, but it is not theft. Theft deprives someone of something they have, piracy deprives someone of something they may have received. This is a fundamental and inescapable distinction. Be wary of anyone railing on that piracy is theft - it's an appeal to emotion; arguing around the point rather than at it. Piracy may be morally equivalent to theft, but it is simply not the same thing. It is a different ethical question. (And, as has been pointed out, a different legal question, as well. Theft is, generally, a crime, copyright infringement is, generally, a civil infraction)

2) The statement that piracy, of necessity, is detrimental to the company making the software. This is demonstrably untrue. Consider two very successful companies: Microsoft and iD. Windows, IIRC, is the most-pirated software on the planet, and has been for over a decade. It is also Microsoft's best-selling product, and has been since Windows 95 (at least - I believe it has been since Windows 3.x, but I'm not certain of that). iD's Wolfenstein 3d and Doom are two of the most-pirated games of all time, and are also what launched iD to their phenomenal commercial success (it certainly wasn't Q3A! *cough*). In another medium, consider Metallica. Before becoming wildly successful, they encouraged trade of bootleg copies of their music. NOTE: none of this proves that piracy is good for business, but it does demonstrate that piracy is not necessarily bad for business. (For examples of giving intellectual property away being a proven successful business strategy, consider Internet Explorer and the Baen Free Library)

3) A comment on the debate itself. Intellectual property, in general, is dissimilar from other forms of property in the most fundamental way possible: unlike real goods, intellectual property is not a scarce resource (though ability to create it certainly is). Particularly in the modern world of trivially easy copying (bits is bits), this needs to be addressed. Copyright, patent, and trademark law are all methods by which governments attempt to impose artificial scarcity on it for the purpose of encouraging its creation. This is fundamentally different than real goods, which have an inherent real value defined by their desirability vs their availability. The debate over the ethics of intellectual property control vs freedom is obscured by, on the one hand, people who demand that it's exactly like real property, and on the other, by people who demand that their desire for free media trumps content creators' desire to be recompensed for their efforts.

The third point, unfortunately, is well proven by this very thread.

 

[Chayton]

Well said.

Wasnt Microsoft strategy all the years "better a pirate version from our product than a product of our enemies"?

 

[Control Group]

Wasnt Microsoft strategy all the years "better a pirate version from our product than a product of our enemies"?

I believe so, yes, but I don't have any real evidence to support it. Plenty of the decisions they made seem to indicate it was, but it's not proven. In my opinion, it seems obvious that's exactly what they were doing, but, again, that's just my opinion.

 

[Bhruic]

I'm going to use the word "I" to describe what I'll be talking about, but bear in mind I'm using the generic "I", not refering to me personally.

Let's assume that I can't afford to buy a game. So at this point, the developer and publisher aren't going to get any money from me. Let's be clear, I will not be buying the game. Period.

Now, let's say that I decide to download and play the game. What are the developer and publisher out? It didn't cost them any more money for me to download the game. I wasn't going to pay for the game regardless. And they didn't lose the product simply because I downloaded it. So, in effect, they have lost absolutely nothing.

Obviously, however, this is not the only form of piracy that exists. The worst case is the extreme where people are selling pirate copies. I personally find that a despicable practise - making money off of someone else's work. The middle ground would probably be the people who could buy it, but pirate it instead. They would represent lost sales (although, in general, even these people would not be able to buy all the software).

It's the existence of the first and last case that makes me annoyed about all the blame put on piracy for poor(er) sales. Somehow the industry seems to believe (or want people to believe) that everyone who pirates a game would have bought it. Realistically, that's not likely. Constantly preaching that it is just turns me off from the message as a whole. Frankly, I'm more likely to pirate something thanks to the way the industry treats the consumer. Which is a pretty stupid way to be running a business, imo.

Bh

 

[spankey]

3) A comment on the debate itself. Intellectual property, in general, is dissimilar from other forms of property in the most fundamental way possible: unlike real goods, intellectual property is not a scarce resource (though ability to create it certainly is). Particularly in the modern world of trivially easy copying (bits is bits), this needs to be addressed. Copyright, patent, and trademark law are all methods by which governments attempt to impose artificial scarcity on it for the purpose of encouraging its creation. This is fundamentally different than real goods, which have an inherent real value defined by their desirability vs their availability. The debate over the ethics of intellectual property control vs freedom is obscured by, on the one hand, people who demand that it's exactly like real property, and on the other, by people who demand that their desire for free media trumps content creators' desire to be recompensed for their efforts.

The third point, unfortunately, is well proven by this very thread.

Another way to look at intellectual property that translates to a tangible good (a packaged computer game) would be to look at other products with a high cost of development, but a low cost of distribution or manufacture--namely prescription drugs.

Presciption drugs are very expensive to develop, with a high failure rate, but a very low cost to manufacture once a stable product is developed. Patents were established to protect the R&D and help recoup costs, even for lifesaving drugs.

There is certainly very active pirating (reverse engineering) worldwide for some of these drugs, and several countries have nationalized the production to go around patent laws (notably Cipro). This has created a lot of risk for a company develping a potential major life-saving drug (like a cure for cancer) Why would a company invest the millions needed for researching miracle type drugs, when there is a high likelihood that the drug will be nationalized and/or pirated by countries or peoples saying that it isn't "right" for poor countries (or anyone) to have to pay so much for these drugs. So instead, to lower risks, many companies now invest lots of money into "quality of life" drugs for things such as impotence or arthritis, that have a lower likelihood of getting nationalized (legal pirating) on a large scale. As a result, less money is spent on life saving treatments.

On the software side, why invest the money to create a truly spectacular game (for US dollars in CIV 4's case), when there is a likelihood that much profit will be eaten by pirating? Why spend money marketing and distributing products in areas with a low value for the sanctity of property? I am not in the gaming industry, but I am sure that money lost to pirating is factored into every budget decision. I am sure that when market research indicates that piracy is so high in a given area that you couldn't compete with your own pirated copies, that the decision to pull distribution is made. Why waste your company's money? Why risk so much capital on a venture with higher and higher risks (PC Gaming)?

I realize that some companies continue to make money and haven't been squeezed to death yet. But pirating isn't at the 100% level either. It is the same flawed thinking that says it is okay to break a window, because so many people get money for its replacement--glazier, contractor, etc. What is lost is the opportunity cost. What else could that money have been used for instead of just replacing a window?

This has been an interesting discussion

 

[Siggy19]

Illegal download of games, no matter what the pirate’s intent was (to test it or to only use the illegal game) is NOT theft, as to be theft you must physically and directly REMOVE the game from the company in order for it to be so.

The legal definition of Theft is not the same as the dictionary definition. The fact is that the downloader is getting something for free that should be paid for. Even if the dictionary has not kept up-to-date with technology, this is still theft.

Anyway, nice how you sliped in the "misguided communists" insult.

Most communists do not believe in the common ownership of EVERYTHING... just the means of production. The people that do are few and far between, but they have a worthwhile philosophy... just a misguided one.

I was not insulting anyone.

 

[Control Group]

Frankly, I'm more likely to pirate something thanks to the way the industry treats the consumer.

That's a very interesting point.

From a pure business point of view, it's a real conundrum. So far, every authentication scheme games have tried to implement has, to a greater or lesser extent, been a hassle for legitimate customers. Further, to my knowledge, none of them has been successful in eradicating piracy. At most, they make it more difficult to obtain a free copy.

Of course, with all the people in this thread who make the point that obtaining a pirated copy of a game is trivially simple, I wonder how much more difficult these copy protection efforts actually make piracy.

So the question is: where does the balance between annoying customers and slowing piracy lie? I wonder if anyone has done any studies on lost profits due to customer annoyance. I also wonder if there's any objective data regarding actual piracy rates vs potential piracy rates if there was no copy protection on a given title.

I also wonder whether the piracy numbers that get thrown around include people who have a pirated copy and a legitimate copy.

I mention this because I, quite often, will acquire "cracked" copies of games I own. These days, it's because I find having to put the CD in the drive mildly annoying. Not very annoying, certainly, but it's generally so easy to get around that I do. Is this unethical? What if companies offered for sale an "expansion" that allowed you to play the original game without the CD? Then would it be unethical, since I would now be depriving them of the sale of that expansion?

What if Firaxis/Take2 had decided to charge money for the 1.09 patch? Would it be unethical for the people who had paid for the game but couldn't make it run to pirate the patch? Would it be unethical for the people for whom the game ran to pirate the patch?

What if a buyer makes a backup copy of the game discs? Is that unethical? What if the buyer neglects to make a backup, and the disc becomes unplayably damaged? Is pirating a copy unethical?

What about instances where the copy protection on the CD makes the CD unreadable in the buyer's drive (relatively rare, but not unheard of)? Is it then unethical for the person to acquire a pirated copy of the game?

Note that in all of these cases, the buyer's actions would definitely be illegal* in the US (though in several of them, the buyer could technically recover damages from the publisher in court).

*Clarification: in the case of the backup copy, making the copy is not, in itself, illegal. Circumventing copy-protection devices to do so, however, is illegal. In the case of CIV, it's not illegal to make a backup of the disc, but it is illegal to make a backup of the disc that will actually work: it is illegal to circumvent copy protection - this means that even people who make "legitimate" copies of Hollywood DVDs are breaking the law, as is anyone who makes "legitimate" copies of protected software.

 

[spankey]

Obviously, however, this is not the only form of piracy that exists. The worst case is the extreme where people are selling pirate copies. I personally find that a despicable practise - making money off of someone else's work. The middle ground would probably be the people who could buy it, but pirate it instead. They would represent lost sales (although, in general, even these people would not be able to buy all the software).

Bh

Why is it despicable to make money off someone else work, but it is okay to steal something if you can't or don't want to pay for? Morally it is equivalent, there is no honor among thieves. And why would anyone trying to protect their property cause you so much anger as to have a greater desire to steal? Why cater to a customer that is increasingly likely to rob you when they feel that they are justified? When there is no profit, then supply dries up.
Name an area that has rent control that also has available and abundant low income housing. A lack of profit causes a corresponding lack of supply.

 

[Siggy19]

One more comment to add-

Look at what Linux accomplished, practically completely donation based, and it’s probably the 2ed most popular PCOS. They not only allow “piracy” as you call it, but tend to support it!

If the companies dropped the greedy-capitalists-impersonating-a-mom-and-pop-store act they would find their piracy problem cut in half.

I totally agree.

As I have said before... despite being (a form of) theft, Piracy is not entirely a bad thing and it would be better for everyone if the lessons of piracy were actually learned by the industry.

Find a way to let people play the real game and charge them more the more they use it (up to a limit).

Find a way to charge people different amounts depending upon what they can afford.

Use a system of copy protection that does not penalise the legal users (if you must use one at all).

Add extra benefits to the legal version that are harder to duplicate, such as T-shirts, maps, collectibles etc.

 

[spankey]

Find a way to let people play the real game and charge them more the more they use it (up to a limit).

Find a way to charge people different amounts depending upon what they can afford.

Why would these two examples work when the proponents of piracy can get it for free. For this to work more antipiracy protection would be needed, because it is your sole revenue stream. this would alienate more people who dislike antipiracy protections to begin with.

And why should someone making $20 dollars a week pay less than someone making $40 a week? Did the R&D costs go down for the person making less income? You are basically asking for the person making more money to subsidize the person making less money.

 

[Control Group]

Presciption drugs are very expensive to develop, with a high failure rate, but a very low cost to manufacture once a stable product is developed. Patents were established to protect the R&D and help recoup costs, even for lifesaving drugs.

This is a very interesting example.

Pharmaceutical companies provably do develop new drugs, and provably do make plenty of money on them. There's no debating this. But the protection on new drugs is patent law, not copyright law. Patents, IIRC, survive for a term of 20 years. After that time, the thing patented, by law, becomes public domain.

Copyrights, on the other hand, last for life of the author plus 70 years for individual authorship, and a flat 95 years for corporate authorship*. This would seem to indicate that copyright is protected more than is necessary - particularly in the case of software, which has a much shorter desirability half-life than medication does (we still use and buy plenty of Tylenol...how many people these days buy Pong?).

On the software side, why invest the money to create a truly spectacular game (for US dollars in CIV 4's case), when there is a likelihood that much profit will be eaten by pirating? Why spend money marketing and distributing products in areas with a low value for the sanctity of property? I am not in the gaming industry, but I am sure that money lost to pirating is factored into every budget decision. I am sure that when market research indicates that piracy is so high in a given area that you couldn't compete with your own pirated copies, that the decision to pull distribution is made. Why waste your company's money? Why risk so much capital on a venture with higher and higher risks (PC Gaming)?

This is an excellent point, and highlights exactly what we should be discussing. Copyright in the United States exists specifically "[t]o promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" (US Constitution, Article I, section 8, paragraph 8).

This is the sole justification for the artificial imposition of scarcity on an otherwise unlimited resource. Which means the discussion about copyright should always focus on to what extent it promotes the sciences and useful arts, not on the ethics of thievery.

At first blush, it seems obvious that more copyright will equal more artistic production (I'm including software in artistic production). Greater profit incentive should lead to greater creation. But it's more complex than that, as software publishers know. Derivative works are also arts (Counterstrike comes to mind, as well as all the mods that already exist for CIv), and should therefore also be encouraged by law. While more and more software companies are recognizing this and encouraging derivative works, copyright law itself is currently designed to discourage them for almost a century after creation (consider Bnetd and the Sklyarov case).

This is an imbalance that, IMHO, should be addressed.

For example, does anyone know what the EULA for CIV says about modification of the software? Being at work, I can't check, but I strongly suspect that it claims modification is a violation of license. Even if not, it would be entirely within Firaxis'/Take2's rights under copyright law to release a patch that permanently broke all existing mods, and made further mods difficult and illegal.

What does all this have to do with piracy? One of the reasons for piracy (socially, not on an individual basis) is as a response to this imbalance. Sort of like prohibition, if enough people perceive the law to be wrong, it won't be obeyed. Similarly, much copy protection is an effort to enforce this imbalance.

I realize that some companies continue to make money and haven't been squeezed to death yet. But pirating isn't at the 100% level either. It is the same flawed thinking that says it is okay to break a window, because so many people get money for its replacement--glazier, contractor, etc. What is lost is the opportunity cost. What else could that money have been used for instead of just replacing a window?

Which raises the question, why isn't piracy at the 100% level? We all seem to agree that casual (that is, personal) piracy is both easy and safe. Why have so many people on this board purchased so many video games, then? The option to acquire CIV, for example, at no charge via piracy certainly exists, yet many copies have been sold. Personally, I believe it's because people are, by and large, willing to pay for things that they perceive as being worth the money. If this is the case, then perhaps piracy isn't the boogieman many make it out to be.

That "some companies haven't been squeezed to death yet" is certainly one way of looking at the history of software, but it's certainly not the only one. Compelling cases can be made that piracy helped Microsoft and iD get to where they are today, that piracy helped Metallica get to where it is. Nor is this just the lone ravings of one guy on an internet forum, which is why I mentioned Internet Explorer and the Baen Free Library. Microsoft and Baen both realize that, to some extent, no-charge distribution of their intellectual property is a net benefit to their businesses.

Incidentally, I don't accept the broken window analogy. I'm not arguing that the harms to software publishers of software piracy are mitigated because someone gets money because of it, I'm arguing that the harms of software piracy to software publishers are mitigated because the software publisher gets money because of it. Or at least, I'm arguing that it's not completely one-sided. To shoehorn the argument into the broken-window analogy, I'm arguing that the act of breaking the window might have a result anywhere from transforming the window into a valuable stained-glass piece to ruining the whole window frame.

*And, given Congress' penchant for retroactive extensions to copyright, the case can be made that copyright is effectively permanent. But that's a different rant altogether.

 

[Control Group]

Why would these two examples work when the proponents of piracy can get it for free.(sic)

Since people right now can get video games free, why does anyone buy video games?

Because people are willing to pay for things they see as being worth the money. Why do people tip waitresses? Because they feel the service was worth the money. The two plans you quote are simply efforts to raise the perceived value of the good and decrease the relative cost. Which sounds like a quality business strategy to me: make a better product and charge less for it.

 

[Siggy19]

Another way to look at intellectual property that translates to a tangible good (a packaged computer game) would be to look at other products with a high cost of development, but a low cost of distribution or manufacture--namely prescription drugs.

Presciption drugs are very expensive to develop, with a high failure rate, but a very low cost to manufacture once a stable product is developed. Patents were established to protect the R&D and help recoup costs, even for lifesaving drugs.

There is certainly very active pirating (reverse engineering) worldwide for some of these drugs, and several countries have nationalized the production to go around patent laws (notably Cipro). This has created a lot of risk for a company develping a potential major life-saving drug (like a cure for cancer) Why would a company invest the millions needed for researching miracle type drugs, when there is a high likelihood that the drug will be nationalized and/or pirated by countries or peoples saying that it isn't "right" for poor countries (or anyone) to have to pay so much for these drugs...

Except that a heck of a lot of the development cost of any new drug is actually spent by the Government through the NIH etc or by Charities. The drug companies get the benefits at much less risk than they claim.

In America, recent statistics show the drugs companies spending as much or more on marketing than on research and development. And, of course, the drugs that are marketed most intensively are the newer (thus riskier) and potentially less useful drugs such as for ADD and ED - I am not saying that ADD or ED are unimportant, but humanity thrived for millions of years without discovering that 40% of kids have ADD and I have to admit to wondering how many of those kids are being doped to shut them up and make them behave rather than because there is a real problem.

 

[spankey]

*And, given Congress' penchant for retroactive extensions to copyright, the case can be made that copyright is effectively permanent. But that's a different rant altogether.

I deleted most of your quotes to save space. I am thoroughly enjoying the intellectual discussion, I am not that active of a poster. You have excellent points--I may come to a different conclusion, but I appreciate the debate nonetheless.

I realize that the broken window analogy is simplistic and an imperfect fit. But any analogy (such as Metallica or Microsoft) can be countered with other analogies.

i do agree that copyright protections are a little (or majorly) excessive in the US and maybe in international law. But I think that we should all be able to agree that copyright protections should last more than 8 hours from release.

Most people who pirate can justify piracy in their own minds when it doesn't involve literally shoplifting something from a store. But morally it is the same regardless of scale.

Scale shouldn't matter. Sleeping with someone for $50.00 "feels" different than sleeping with someone for $1,000,000, and most can justify this in their minds. But morally, it is still prostitution.

 

[Siggy19]

That's a very interesting point.

From a pure business point of view, it's a real conundrum. So far, every authentication scheme games have tried to implement has, to a greater or lesser extent, been a hassle for legitimate customers. Further, to my knowledge, none of them has been successful in eradicating piracy. At most, they make it more difficult to obtain a free copy.

Of course, with all the people in this thread who make the point that obtaining a pirated copy of a game is trivially simple, I wonder how much more difficult these copy protection efforts actually make piracy.

The copy protection schemes make negligable difference to professional pirates, who are probably involved in developing the protection schemes as well !

However, they do make it harder for people to casually copy stuff - an effort to cut the rate of piracy from 50% to 25%.