Software Piracy

[Machete Phil]

And your point is? This is just a plain fact of life, if you have a product that doesnt sell well you go out of business, thats life, happens everywhere, only the software industry falls back on 'its the pirates fualt' when in fact the real problem is 'you did not create a product the public wants' I bet every other industry looks at software devs with envy, damn wish we could use that excuse.

A “good game” and a “product the public wants” are not necessarily the same thing.

The general public might gobble up 50 Cent’s new game. Are you going to? Gamespot gave it a 4.8/10 for being virtually unplayable. I guarantee you it’s still going to sell truckloads.

Which is my point exactly. It's the small, independent game studios that are innovating in the industry. The more of them out there on the job, the more new and creative games are going to come out for you to enjoy and the less License-heavy, Pepsi-advertisement-laden, Grand Theft Auto knockoffs you're going to have to wade through.

The more of them that get shouldered out of business because they can't stay afloat, the more influence these multi-billion dollar game conglomerates are going to have. Guess what that means? Bland, tasteless, video games for you!

Unfortunately these are the same studios that are vulnerable to small shifts in their revenue streams.

Something piracy can certainly supply!

 

[spankey]

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.

Even so, why are companies investing so much money on these kinds of drugs? Because the risks are less in these drugs that you patents will not be legally violated. Marketing has to be increased because there has to be a preceived need for the quality of life product. A universal cure for cancer needs no marketing. But the risks are much higher of legal patent violations.

By the way--I enjoy your well reasoned posts as well.

 

[Machete Phil]

The fact of the matter is 'piracy' is an excuse not a cuase, but hey that seems to be the way of things these days. It is always somebody elses fault, nobody takes responsability anymore, just pass the buck.

The word you are looking for is factor, my friend. Just because piracy is not the sole cause of a company's downfall does not somehow make it innocuous.

That's like arguing that people complaining about 'stabbing' are just whining, because there are plenty of other things that can kill people and maybe the person you stabbed had heart disease anyway. Right? Sounds logical according to your argument.

 

[Siggy19]

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.

Nope, because most people are provably willing to pay what they consider to be a fair price for a product. Otherwise piracy rates would be 95% in America let alone elsewhere.

It's a lot easier for people to accept paying $5 each time they play a game for the first 10 times (and then for it to be free for them) than for them to pay $50 up front with no hope of a refund. They spend the same amount if it is good and less it if is bad but many more people will try that first $5 play and so it would probably be a wash for the developers of a crappy game. They would sell more full copies of a good game, however.

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.

The R&D costs are the same if no-one buys it as if many people do. Once the development is done, every single purchase AT ANY PRICE is basically free money. For an American earning $300 a week, a $50 game is generally affordable. For an Indian earning $30 a week, it is not. So long as the Americans still pay their $50, the Indian paying $5 is increasing the profits for the developer.

Whether it is a subsidy or simple economic justice, the result is the same... different economies cannot all afford the same prices. If you try to enforce price stability, you end up with rampant piracy which does not help anyone.

 

[Siggy19]

Even so, why are companies investing so much money on these kinds of drugs? Because the risks are less in these drugs that you patents will not be legally violated. Marketing has to be increased because there has to be a preceived need for the quality of life product. A universal cure for cancer needs no marketing. But the risks are much higher of legal patent violations.

I would like to believe that what I am about to say is totally untrue.

Perhaps drug companies spend more on developing 'lifestyle' drugs because they are simply very profitable and they are usually taken for the rest of the patient's life.

Cure cancer with 100 pills that cost $100 each and the drug company gets $10,000. And, while it would be great for the many young people with cancer, mostly it will be used on the elderly who will then die three years later of heart disease or develop dementia and spend 20 years in a nursing home asking their children what their names are.

Or, cure ED with Viagra at $10 a pill. 3 pills a week, 50 weeks a year, 20 years of life expectancy... $30,000. And, of course, the person is already taking Prozac which causes sexual disfunction !

Find something to sell them a drug for and then sell them drugs to fix the side-effects of the first one !

 

[player1 fanatic]

There is plenty of pirating in the US, and it is because people want something for nothing. Not for any aultristic ideals.

As I said I don't understand this kind of piracy especially in America.
If wages in Serbia were as big as in USA, I would say that originals are dirt cheap.

If you are a big proponent of piracy, then I guess you could support the confiscation of your own property at any time for no compensation. Think about it.

Nope, I'm proponent of cheaper and more fair prices to combat piracy.

Just preching piracy is wrong piracy is wrong in not going anyware. It could actually work in America and west europe but nowere else, since you can't exepct people to buy games for 10-15% of their monthly wages just for the "moral grounds".

I'm sick of such morality in real-politics too. It all comes to we are stonger and thus right. Talking about morality...

 

[Efexeye]

All of this "people pirate it because they can't afford to buy it" is CRAP, guys.

You wouldn't defend those people stealing food, clothes, automobiles, or other TANGIBLE goods, now, would you? The difference is that software is something of an intangible, bits and bytes.

You put forward that people can't afford to pay high prices so they are somehow right for STEALING, and you are unable to comprehend the fact that piracy is STEALING, plain and simple- you're taking something without paying for it.

Period.

I don't steal things that I can't afford, even if I want them, because it is wrong, the same reason I don't steal software (infringe on its copyright, whatever). So why is it okay for someone who makes low wages to steal something? I simply cannot comprehend that logic.

 

[Machete Phil]

Nope, because most people are provably willing to pay what they consider to be a fair price for a product. Otherwise piracy rates would be 95% in America let alone elsewhere.

It's a lot easier for people to accept paying $5 each time they play a game for the first 10 times (and then for it to be free for them) than for them to pay $50 up front with no hope of a refund. They spend the same amount if it is good and less it if is bad but many more people will try that first $5 play and so it would probably be a wash for the developers of a crappy game. They would sell more full copies of a good game, however.

There are really two fallacies tied up in your statements.

Number one is the suggestion that a significant portion of pirates are simply good-hearted, conscientious objectors to the mistreatment brought down upon them by game companies. Maybe this represents a small, perhaps vocal subset of pirates but lets please try to stay grounded in reality. The vast majority of software and game piracy is fueled by a simple fact: people will take it for free if they're reasonably confident they can get away with it. Period.

Regardless of whether they could easily fit 2-3 games per month into their budget if they bought a pound of pasta and some sauce instead of ordering 12 pizzas a month. Regardless of whether they have been somehow "victimized" in the past by their game purchases. These thoughts do not enter their heads. They have two options: "Go to the store and pay $50 or double click on this file here." Most people who choose the latter do so because a) it's easy and people are lazy, and b) it's free and people like money.


The second misconception is that somehow a person should be guaranteed satisifaction before making the commitment to purchase a video game.

Let us make a short list of various goods and services in life which you must pay for (or agree to pay for regardless) before knowing whether or not you will necessarily enjoy them.

1) A meal at a restaraunt or drink at a bar.
2) A movie or play at the theatre.
3) A prostitute. (I urge you to try and pirate this one).
4) An automobile. (To a lesser extent, but as I've mentioned before no amount of test driving can really convince you that you will like a car after, say, 10,000 miles. I've known many people who have invested in cars and 6 months later been heavily disappointed in their choice).
5) Admittance to a sporting event. (Ever pay to go to a boxing match that ended in the first round)?


The difference between software and the items on this list? Software is generally much easier for people to steal without getting caught. That's it. If people could download free cars in their dorm rooms at night and be reasonably assured nobody was going to show up in the morning asking questions about their new Mercedes, you can make a safe bet that there would be a lot of happy new drivers around the country when the sun came up!

 

[MattJek]

All of this "people pirate it because they can't afford to buy it" is CRAP, guys.

You wouldn't defend those people stealing food, clothes, automobiles, or other TANGIBLE goods, now, would you? The difference is that software is something of an intangible, bits and bytes.

You put forward that people can't afford to pay high prices so they are somehow right for STEALING, and you are unable to comprehend the fact that piracy is STEALING, plain and simple- you're taking something without paying for it.

Period.

I don't steal things that I can't afford, even if I want them, because it is wrong, the same reason I don't steal software (infringe on its copyright, whatever). So why is it okay for someone who makes low wages to steal something? I simply cannot comprehend that logic.

I think you are partially right. However, piracy is a lot more rampant in developing countries rather than developed ones and this comes down to a persons income. A piece of software costs the same amount no matter where in the world it is sold. So someone who has an income of $2,000 a month is less likely to pirate a "luxury" product such as a game that cost $50 than someone who makes $200 dollars a month.

 

[randallman]

WRONG, IT'S NOT FAIR. It's naive/misinformed to think so.

At the end of the day, if I create a product of ANY type - I have ALL the right in the world to determine to whom I will sell the product, when I will sell the product, and how much it will cost. Period... You do not have a right to then go around my back and steal my product(s) due to the fact that you simply do not agree with my policies about the sale and or distribution of the product...

To go back to the car analogy, It'd be like saying its OK to steal a Caddilac in Uzbekistan because they generally arent 'for sale' there...

THAT being said, I think that the piracy issue goes much deeper than this. A significant % of society (be it citizens of the US or China or Timbuktu) 'feels' that intellectual property and digital rights are just a bunch of malarky.

What this means to me is that the business model for the sale, distribution, and licensing of intellectual property needs to change... To what, I do not know

--Randallman

 

[Siggy19]

All of this "people pirate it because they can't afford to buy it" is CRAP, guys.

You wouldn't defend those people stealing food, clothes, automobiles, or other TANGIBLE goods, now, would you? The difference is that software is something of an intangible, bits and bytes.

You put forward that people can't afford to pay high prices so they are somehow right for STEALING, and you are unable to comprehend the fact that piracy is STEALING, plain and simple- you're taking something without paying for it.

Period.

I don't steal things that I can't afford, even if I want them, because it is wrong, the same reason I don't steal software (infringe on its copyright, whatever). So why is it okay for someone who makes low wages to steal something? I simply cannot comprehend that logic.

There is a difference. Since software is intangible, there is no reason for it to be sold at a fixed price. For a Toyota Camry, the development cost is probably no more than $100 of the final cost... most of it is the cost of making the individual car. For a $20,000 car, the development is half of one percent.

For a game, the cost to make the individual game is between zero and $1 depending upon whether you distribute it over the internet or on CD. Add a few bucks for the box and manual, if needed.

If the company was willing to take $5 from people who genuinely could not afford the full price, they would still make money on the deal.

Instead, they refuse and those poor people can choose to not play the game at all or to steal it. No one benefits from that system.

 

[Efexeye]

The difference between software and the items on this list? Software is generally much easier for people to steal without getting caught. That's it. If people could download free cars in their dorm rooms at night and be reasonably assured nobody was going to show up in the morning asking questions about their new Mercedes, you can make a safe bet that there would be a lot of happy new drivers around the country when the sun came up!

Well said.

 

[Efexeye]

A significant % of society (be it citizens of the US or China or Timbuktu) 'feels' that intellectual property and digital rights are just a bunch of malarky.

Well, I guarantee those people aren't working for software or media companies...

 

[Control Group]

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.

I do entirely agree that, while legal copyright protection is excessive, practical copyright protection is underpowered. Copyright protection is necessary to encourage creative efforts and to penalize people who violate that intent.

I agree, insofar as individual efforts to justify one's own piracy don't make piracy a moral activity. However (and please pardon me for waxing a bit philosophical): if enough people agree that piracy isn't unethical, doesn't that make it ethical? Consider: as a whole, the US considers the genital mutilation practiced by some African tribes to be unethical. At the same time, as a whole, the US has no problem with male circumcision. For most of human history, girls being married in their early teens was not only ethical, but desirable. No longer the case in the US. Within the last hundred years, it would have been considered morally bankrupt for the government to interfere in the private purchase of firearms. Now, it's considered morally bankrupt to not strictly control private firearm ownership. How do you define - as a society - ethics? The only answer is to go with what most people pretty much think is right and wrong. So the protestations of one college kid who doesn't want to pay for video games don't make him right. The protestations of a large enough portion of society, though, call it into question.

More practically, it would be a wise business move to adapt one's business model to the business environment, rather than trying (and generally failing) to adapt the business environment to the business model. (And actually, IMHO, software companies have been better at doing this than other intellectual property industries. Note that games no longer come with code wheels, or require you to cite the fourth word of the seventh line of page d138 to play)

I guess I don't see, though, what you're saying when referencing scale. Are you saying that, if making a million illicit copies to give to everyone is unethical, then making one illicit copy for yourself is also unethical? Or are you saying that "everybody's doing it" is not legitimate justification?

In the former case, while I see your point, I don't agree. There is a difference, in my mind, between Bernie Goetz, Jeffrey Dahmer (Wisconsin's own!), and Pol Pot. In the latter, I reference my earlier paragraph. If enough people by into it, it becomes (by definition) ethical. But I could be missing your point entirely.

In any event, all I'm trying to say is that piracy is neither the "Ultimate Evil Den Of Eternal Iniquity And Moral Turpitude Which Will Lead To The Demise Of All Software IN FIRE!!" that some make it out to be. At the same time, piracy also isn't "A Noble Response To The Oppressive Depradations Of THE MAN, Man" that others (often people who just want something for nothing) make it out to be. It is an example of one facet of the new debate that should be going on regarding information, what "ownership" of a non-scarce resource means, and how producers and consumers of information can interact to generate more quality and quantity of content.

In short, the question of piracy is not, in my mind, a question of ethics at all. It's a legal and economic question, regarding how we can craft a system that will work to the greatest benefit of everyone involved. Content creators never being recompensed for the time and effort obviously isn't the answer. Consumers being locked in to using only what EA says they can on only the technology that Microsoft defines via only the channels that Hollywood approves in only the ways BMG thinks they want is equivalently not the answer.

Unfortunately, the current system is perilously close to the latter situation.

 

[lobster]

All of this "people pirate it because they can't afford to buy it" is CRAP, guys.

You wouldn't defend those people stealing food, clothes, automobiles, or other TANGIBLE goods, now, would you? The difference is that software is something of an intangible, bits and bytes.

You put forward that people can't afford to pay high prices so they are somehow right for STEALING, and you are unable to comprehend the fact that piracy is STEALING, plain and simple- you're taking something without paying for it.

Period.

I don't steal things that I can't afford, even if I want them, because it is wrong, the same reason I don't steal software (infringe on its copyright, whatever). So why is it okay for someone who makes low wages to steal something? I simply cannot comprehend that logic.

I think what you said applied to people who are, like, 100% moral (sorry for my bad wordings).

But the thing is, the average Joes are not 100% moral (and not 100% immoral neither). There is a tripping point for the price beyond which a certain will decide to buy pirated software. For you, you may never do that, but for the average person, who wants to have the game for some degree, and is not 100% moral, he/she will go buy pirated copies if the price is charged at some unreasonable levels.

So I agree with player1 fanatic. Setting the price at unaffordable levels breeds (but not justifies) piracy, because the average buyer is not 100% moral.

 

[player1 fanatic]

You put forward that people can't afford to pay high prices so they are somehow right for STEALING, and you are unable to comprehend the fact that piracy is STEALING, plain and simple- you're taking something without paying for it.

Not true, they do pay for the goods, but 2-3% of full price, which is still lot for "just computer game" in 3rd war countries. And don't talk about p2p networks, such thing still doesn't exist there were anicent 33.6mb modems are primary way of internet communication.

It's just that money doesn't go to puslisher, it goes to pirates that provide cheap alternative to expensive game. In reality consmer does not care who gets the money as long as he can afford the product.

In 3rd world countries price of pirated game is equivanet to price of original in USA in fractions of monthly wages.

So I gues 98% of kids in 3rd world countries should not play computer games at all, so we could make big western publishers happy.

No, no and no!
Solution is cheaper games in poorer markets.
Until it is realized, piracy will alwasy be abundant in such countries.

I'll use moive analogy again:
-same movie
-different ticket prices in different countries


As for piracy in USA...
Shame on you!!!

 

[Frewfrux]

If a government or company decides that they don't want to send a country some software, I think the people in that country have every right to pirate said software. Perhaps in doing this they will cause the software's company to either change its policy or be concerned enough that they, along with others like them, try to bring about change in the way that government works.

 

[Siggy19]

Let us make a short list of various goods and services in life which you must pay for (or agree to pay for regardless) before knowing whether or not you will necessarily enjoy them.

1) A meal at a restaraunt or drink at a bar.
2) A movie or play at the theatre.
3) A prostitute. (I urge you to try and pirate this one).
4) An automobile. (To a lesser extent, but as I've mentioned before no amount of test driving can really convince you that you will like a car after, say, 10,000 miles. I've known many people who have invested in cars and 6 months later been heavily disappointed in their choice).
5) Admittance to a sporting event. (Ever pay to go to a boxing match that ended in the first round)?

1. It costs the restaurant or bar money to provide the individual meal or drink that I order. Thus, it is reasonable that they do not have a try-first policy generally. Having said this, some restaurants are willing to refund money if you do not like the meal.

2. If you do not enjoy a movie or theatre production, leave before the end, ask to see the manager and ask for your money back. You will usually get it. Cinemas make most of their money from the food and generally don't mind refunding admission !

3. I tried my wife before I paid for her. I would recommend that others do the same (with their own wives/husbands, that is).

4. A test drive is fair and reasonable. Most people are reasonably happy with their choice, even if it is not perfect. That is all I am asking for.

5. For me, sporting events are more of a tribal fan thing then entertainment and so the enjoyment factor is generally tied to whether Watford won or not. Since they usually didn't when I went to see them and I now live 9,000 miles away, I thrive on reading the results over the internet after the game finishes. I guess that this comes closest to the point you were trying to make, but again... the sports team had to pay for the game to happen AND has a limited number of seats available. If I take one, that might exclude someone else. Therefore it is reasonable for me to have to pay anyway. Online software distribution is functionally limitless. Therefore, if they can sell more at a lower price, there is no reason for them not to.

 

[Efexeye]

I think what you said applied to people who are, like, 100% moral (sorry for my bad wordings).

But the thing is, the average Joes are not 100% moral (and not 100% immoral neither). There is a tripping point for the price beyond which a certain will decide to buy pirated software. For you, you may never do that, but for the average person, who wants to have the game for some degree, and is not 100% moral, he/she will go buy pirated copies if the price is charged at some unreasonable levels.

So I agree with player1 fanatic. Setting the price at unaffordable levels breeds (but not justifies) piracy, because the average buyer is not 100% moral.

Your argument is perilous...to you, it's a matter of degrees, which is dangerous thinking. Games have cost 50 bucks for as long as I can remember. There is no "tripping point". If you can't afford 7 bucks to find out if King Kong is any good, you don't see it in the theater. You rent it 6 months later on DVD for half the price. Just because games are more expensive, it doesn't mean that different rules apply- in fact, if a game is 50 bucks now, chances are this time next year (or longer, if the game is popular) it will be down to 20 or 30 bucks.

Computer gaming is an expensive hobby. It's not fair that I have to pay 50 bucks to figure out if a game is any good or not, and someone who can't/won't afford it can pirate it and find out for free. As I've said before, certain things are a crapshoot, and I accept that going in. Machete Phil had a pretty good summary a few posts up of the types of things that you just don't know are gonna be any good or not until you pay your money.

As an aside- if all these people can afford to buy computers on which to run the software, why can't they afford the software? Is it justifiable to steal computer hardware that you can't afford? If not, WHY IS SOFTWARE ANY DIFFERENT? It comes down to the ease with which software can be copied.

 

[Efexeye]

1. It costs the restaurant or bar money to provide the individual meal or drink that I order. Thus, it is reasonable that they do not have a try-first policy generally. Having said this, some restaurants are willing to refund money if you do not like the meal.

2. If you do not enjoy a movie or theatre production, leave before the end, ask to see the manager and ask for your money back. You will usually get it. Cinemas make most of their money from the food and generally don't mind refunding admission !

3. I tried my wife before I paid for her. I would recommend that others do the same (with their own wives/husbands, that is).

4. A test drive is fair and reasonable. Most people are reasonably happy with their choice, even if it is not perfect. That is all I am asking for.

5. For me, sporting events are more of a tribal fan thing then entertainment and so the enjoyment factor is generally tied to whether Watford won or not. Since they usually didn't when I went to see them and I now live 9,000 miles away, I thrive on reading the results over the internet after the game finishes. I guess that this comes closest to the point you were trying to make, but again... the sports team had to pay for the game to happen AND has a limited number of seats available. If I take one, that might exclude someone else. Therefore it is reasonable for me to have to pay anyway. Online software distribution is functionally limitless. Therefore, if they can sell more at a lower price, there is no reason for them not to.

1. But software development is free? Programmers work for nothing? Servers don't cost money to maintain? Office space is free now? Somebody printed up manuals, cd's, tech trees, boxes (not to mention the design work) for nothing?

2. Wrong, wrong, wrong. You do not USUALLY get your money back, unless there is a technical problem. Why should they give you your money back?

3. I don't really care to address this, but you better make sure your wife doesn't read this forum...

4. Demo= test drive. There you go. The demo is FREE and readily available.

5. The point is, you can't ask for your money back if your team loses. Same thing with a game. There are a multitude of ways to find out if a game is good BEFORE you shell out 50 bucks. Websites, magazines, chat rooms, word-of-mouth...if you just walk into a game store and buy a game based on its pretty box, then the gameplay sucks, well, that's YOUR bad for not doing your research.