Software Piracy

[Machete Phil]

Because another studio is somehow going to magically stop piracy?

I mean, have you even looked at your argument?

No, genius, because publishers see lower sales and they pull funding from risky projects.

I mean, have you even looked at my argument?

 

[Machete Phil]

The degree is basically all that counts in every respect. The real impact of piracy is determined by the total of degrees of

- real losses (with "real" as in "how many people who pirate the game would REALly have bought it otherwise?")

- marketing effect (a game being pirated much DOES have a marketing effect on it - and a much more credible one, at that)

- general impact on consumer interest in games (as I pointed out in the C64/Amiga reference)

So you're back where you started, arguing to justify just about every petty crime out there.

Yourcircular arguments and downright idiocy have brought this thread to an end.



Go ahead, hide behind the convenience of the inability to actually calculate the costs of piracy to game development studios.

The only reason this "data" doesn't exist, is because whether or not someone would buy a game is influenced directly by whether or not they can get it easily for free.

Obviously you're not getting actual numbers, but what difference does it make? Claiming your actions are okay because they might not have a significant affect is straight up ********.

Stealing $20 out of my wallet isn't going to make me go broke, but that sure as fark doesn't mean it's fair game.


I mean, really. Listen to yourselves. Seriously.


Your arguments apply equally well to shoplifting, petty theft, driving away without paying for gas, dine-and-dash, and some minor forms of embezzlement.

 

[GinandTonic]

What difference does it make?

Once again you seem to imply that the degree to which your actions harm the developers is somehow relevant to whether or not it's okay to do it.

Erm, yup. Have you ever studied moral philosophy? John Stewart Mill and Jeremy Bentham would be a good place to start.

Basis of the reform of British and later American law in the late 18th and 19th c.

To put it in a nut shell an action is right or wrong because of the good or halm it causes. The purpose of the law is to bring the greatest good/pleasure/utility to the greatest number. The law can only limit a persons action if that action limits a greater number of peoples freedom, or a greater freedom.

Not to say that piracy IS right - but that your comment is precisely wrong.

 

[Bhruic]

No, genius, because publishers see lower sales and they pull funding from risky projects.

I see, so in your world, taking the same project and moving it from one studio to another studio somehow equates with "pulling funding from risky projects"?

I mean, have you even looked at my argument?

I've tried, but it seems less and less coherent with every post you make. Probably not worth any more time bashing my head against the wall on it.

Bh

 

[DemonDeLuxe]

So you're back where you started, arguing to justify just about every petty crime out there.

That's a rather extraordinary way of finally recognizing that, yes, indeed, i still stick to my original opinion - which has nothing to do with "justifying just about evry petty crime out there".

All the time you totally fail to understand that I do not advocate piracy. I simply try to explain how it works and what effects it has and that not necessarily all effects are "evil", some of them are even beneficial to those you call victims. As to which effects outweigh the others, I lack the data to decide - as do you. The difference is that I admit it while you stubbornly insist on being right because you say so.

Yourcircular arguments and downright idiocy have brought this thread to an end.

I think it would suit you fine to behave like a grown-up and not like a troll without manners. Seriously, you make it quite hard to believe you actually work as a developer. By the way you express yourself, I would guess you are a taxi driver.

Go ahead, hide behind the convenience of the inability to actually calculate the costs of piracy to game development studios.

I beg your pardon, but it was you who introduced arguments you couldn't prove. There are two ways of actually making your point: Either you come up with some serious figures and statistical data, or you present a logical structure that can't be doubted, neither of which you were able to produce. I can understand that you're furious about your lack of argumentative aces, but then, it was you who chose that path of argument. Sorry.

The only reason this "data" doesn't exist, is because whether or not someone would buy a game is influenced directly by whether or not they can get it easily for free.

And even so it wouldn't be too hard to come up with some data, no? Lots of decisions in this world are based on one or many conditions. There's nothing special in the topic of piracy.

Obviously you're not getting actual numbers, but what difference does it make? Claiming your actions are okay because they might not have a significant affect is straight up ********.

"Idiocy", "********"... boy, boy, there wasn't much in the way of education where you come from, hm? In case you don't know: MANY laws are based on the question if any real damage was inflicted. E.g. if you want to sue somebody to make good any damage, first thing YOU are required to do is to PROVE that there HAS BEEN any damage and the amount of the same. In Germany, the relevant paragraph is §823 I BGB. No real damage? No compensation. That simple.

Stealing $20 out of my wallet isn't going to make me go broke, but that sure as fark doesn't mean it's fair game.

True. The question, however, is whether pirating a game is equal to $20. Especially so since the comparison is lacking - with piracy, the taker would gain $20 but you would still have them, right? There we are again: You still didn't get it why there is no "theft" involved.

Your arguments apply equally well to shoplifting, petty theft, driving away without paying for gas, dine-and-dash, and some minor forms of embezzlement.

"No" to all of that because no taking away is involved. Will we see the day when you finally realize that? The term is copyright infringement.

 

[sgrig]

RE: the buying Civ in a foriegn country problem--
If you go the internet route, establishing an ebay ID is easy as cake no matter where you live. Find a reputable red star (or better) power seller whos selling the game and has an excellent feedback rating, send them a note regarding the item, tell them your needs, where you live exactly, and that you will be more than happy to pay for exact shipping, the game price, and a reasonable small handling fee ($5-$10 US is normal). It may indeed cost you in the $70-$80 range (If it costs you more than $100 US your doing something wrong) but so long as you are patient shipping wise (yes it may take a few weeks or so to send them the payment via money order or check, clear it, and have them send the game). Its not hard to find a good rate to even the most remote countries if you dont have to have it sent "NOW!" (I have shipped to customers in Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Portugal, and Indonesia...though I admit I deal in equipment parts not software, the issue is the same).

Don't forget that if this purchase is to be 100% legal, many buyers will have to pay customs fees in their country, which can be pretty hefty. So the overall cost can easily reach $100. In my opinion this is unacceptably expensive for a game.

 

[Efexeye]

Don't forget that if this purchase is to be 100% legal, many buyers will have to pay customs fees in their country, which can be pretty hefty. So the overall cost can easily reach $100. In my opinion this is unacceptably expensive for a game.

So, if the game is unacceptably expensive, you don't buy it, right?

 

[Caltone]

Whether it costs potential sales or not or contributes to the downfall of gaming as we know it or not......

How can taking something that doesn't belong to you be OK?

I think we can all agree that the developers and publishers own the code yes? Do they want you to have use of it without compensation?

Obviously not, and to do so is far from OK.

 

[Sorceresss]

So, if the game is unacceptably expensive, you don't buy it, right?

What is the subtle point of this Jedeye "question" ?!

 

[Efexeye]

Whether it costs potential sales or not or contributes to the downfall of gaming as we know it or not......

How can taking something that doesn't belong to you be OK?

I think we can all agree that the developers and publishers own the code yes? Do they want you to have use of it without compensation?

Obviously not, and to do so is far from OK.

Caltone, thanks for adding to the discussion, however, the fundamental problem with software piracy is that some people see it as stealing, some people dance around that semantically by calling it copyright infringment, whatever, the fact of the matter is that if you pirate software you are getting something for nothing. If you think that's okay, you probably think piracy is no big deal. If you see getting something for nothing as wrong ,then you probably don't think piracy is okay.

I think it's laughable that a lot of people in this thread are saying that they pirate stuff to try it out and if they like it they go buy it. I simply do not believe that, and, if there are people out there that DO do that, they are a tiny, tiny minority.

 

[Efexeye]

What is the subtle point of this Jedeye "question" ?!

Sorceresss, when are you going to stop picking at my posts and actually add something worthwhile to the discussion?

If you aren't going to even attempt to add anything, please stop trying to provoke me. You have done nothing BUT that, and, in looking at some of your other posts in this and other threads, appears to be the main thing you like to do on these forums.

YOU ARE CONTRIBUTING NOTHING BY TRYING TO BAIT ME INTO A FLAME WAR. PLEASE STOP.

Also, for future reference, it's spelled "Jedi".

And, the point of the question (since you need an explanation), not that you care, was to provoke a response from sgrig. I want to know what he does when software is too expensive- does he buy it anyway, pirate it, or do without?

 

[warpus]

Caltone, thanks for adding to the discussion, however, the fundamental problem with software piracy is that some people see it as stealing, some people dance around that semantically by calling it copyright infringment, whatever, the fact of the matter is that if you pirate software you are getting something for nothing. If you think that's okay, you probably think piracy is no big deal. If you see getting something for nothing as wrong ,then you probably don't think piracy is okay.

I think it's laughable that a lot of people in this thread are saying that they pirate stuff to try it out and if they like it they go buy it. I simply do not believe that, and, if there are people out there that DO do that, they are a tiny, tiny minority.

The fact is that piracy IS copyright infringement, so why do you insist on calling it something that it is not? nobody is semantically dancing around anything. piracy is copyright infringement, that's a fact, live with it. it doesn't make it any better than theft, or worse, it's just a fact that you're going to have to accept.

how would people react if i went around calling theft murder? You stole something from me? You're a murderer!! And if you call it theft, mann, you're just dancing around the issue, you bastard.

I'm not saying piracy is okay.. I actually believe exactly the opposite of that. But I think it's important to stick to the facts and not to try to "spin" the issue any more than the movie/gaming/music studios already have.

There are plenty things out there that you can take without paying for them that *aren't* theft... so that's a bad argument. Open source comes to mind, as do flyers, there's free newspapers, etc. Just because I think that sometimes it's okay to get something for nothing doesn't mean I endorse piracy. Your argument is flawed.

 

[Efexeye]

The fact is that piracy IS copyright infringement, so why do you insist on calling it something that it is not? nobody is semantically dancing around anything. piracy is copyright infringement, that's a fact, live with it. it doesn't make it any better than theft, or worse, it's just a fact that you're going to have to accept.

how would people react if i went around calling theft murder? You stole something from me? You're a murderer!! And if you call it theft, mann, you're just dancing around the issue, you bastard.

I'm not saying piracy is okay.. I actually believe exactly the opposite of that. But I think it's important to stick to the facts and not to try to "spin" the issue any more than the movie/gaming/music studios already have.

There are plenty things out there that you can take without paying for them that *aren't* theft... so that's a bad argument. Open source comes to mind, as do flyers, there's free newspapers, etc. Just because I think that sometimes it's okay to get something for nothing doesn't mean I endorse piracy. Your argument is flawed.

Okay, I disagree with that, but let's postulate that that's the case anyway.

Since so many people on here claim that software piracy isn't theft, and are calling it copyright infringement to justify their moral ambiguity on the subject, is copyright infringment less of a crime or somehow more okay than theft?

And comparing a free newspaper to game code is a very flawed argument, too- the paper is meant to be free, while the code isn't. Surely you are able to make that distinction...

 

[Sorceresss]

And, the point of the question (since you need an explanation) [...] I want[ed] to know what he [= sgrig] does when software is too expensive - does he buy it anyway, pirate it, or do without?

Thanks for removing me from your ignore-list and for taking the zealous care of answering my naive question, Jed-Eye.

Now, I understand.

 

[Efexeye]

Thanks for removing me from your ignore-list and for taking the zealous care of answering my naive question, Jed-Eye.

Now, I understand.

Oh, making fun of my screen name? I see that you STILL have nothing coherent to add to the debate!

Why are you even on these forums, besides to troll/flame people?

 

[Machete Phil]

GinAndTonic

Erm, yup. Have you ever studied moral philosophy? John Stewart Mill and Jeremy Bentham would be a good place to start.

Aww, how cute, you took Intro. to Philosophy last semester? I had that class too.

I would say your application of the "greatest good for the greatest number" paradigm is a little naive and misguided. By your rationale, it would be okay to to steal $100 out of a rich person's wallet and give it to 10 of your friends.

It's not hurting him, and you're helping 10 people, right? Mill and Bentham would agree!

Haha.

Bhuric

I see, so in your world, taking the same project and moving it from one studio to another studio somehow equates with "pulling funding from risky projects"?

Wow, I really need to spell stuff out for you don't I? Let me see if I can put it simply. Really simply.

The publisher can do any of the following things: cancel funding on existing projects, decide not to use your studio for future projects, cut deadlines on existing projects (to speed release and increase revenue), etc. all in response to lower sales on your existing products.

If your only existing title is being widely pirated, and sales tank, you're going to have a hard time convincing the publisher to use you for another project. Instead, they're going to go find someone to do another Madden clone.

Of course, I realize how easy it is for you to dismiss this since you're already convinced that sales and game quality are somehow related. That just means you're narrow minded, which is okay I guess.

When you grow up you'll realize that "mass market" does not necessarily mean "good quality." A game that can appeal to a wide audience and score a lot of first-impression sales might be a piece of **** compared to a smaller, niche-market game designed to appeal only to a certain subset of gamers (like some of the more complex strategy/roleplaying games).

These smaller games, with naturally lower sales, need all the money they can get to compete with the "mass market" games.

Unfortunately, people like you think that all "Game Companies" are made alike, and that across the board it's just fine-and-dandy to pick their pockets of sales.

DemonDeluxe

I beg your pardon, but it was you who introduced arguments you couldn't prove.

Umm, wrong. There's a difference between proving that piracy costs development studios money and providing these numbers precisely.

If you're still claiming I need to "prove" the former, then I concede to your stubborn inability to accept the exceedingly obvious. I'm not going to go out and find data for you to show that taking something from someone when you would otherwise have had to give them money for it means they have less money.

I would think an adult ought to be able to puzzle that one out on their own without hard data to work from.

Seriously, you make it quite hard to believe you actually work as a developer. By the way you express yourself, I would guess you are a taxi driver.

Yes, well, if I were and you were here arguing for scamming taxi drivers out of fares, then I would probably be responding in much the same way.

You could probably make exactly the same argument for this, by the way. Apart from the tip (which you may or may not have given anyway), you're not actually affecting the driver that much. You're also not going to single-handedly bring down the entire cab company by snagging a free ride now and again, right?

So, congratulations - here's one more service you're no longer obligated to pay for. Just ask Mills and Bentham, they will tell you it's all about your happiness, not actually paying people for the services they provide you!

"No" to all of that because no taking away is involved. Will we see the day when you finally realize that? The term is copyright infringement.

Will we see the day when you finally realize that less money is less money?

It doesn't matter if you steal $50 from me or don't give me $50 when you were obligated to.

In both cases you committed a crime and now I'm less $50 for it. Right? It doesn't matter what the "term is."

Obviously this entire amount doesn't translate directly into cost. Nor so does stealing a $10 makeup kit from WAL*MART cost them $10 -- it's probably a $2 item plus $2 for shipping and stocking... but that's not really relevant now is it? You stole from them and that's kind of the bottom line.

Whether the amount you cost them is known or undetermined you're the culprit and you're not going to justify it just because it doesn't hurt them "that bad."

 

[haard]

GinAndTonic


I would say your application of the "greatest good for the greatest number" paradigm is a little naive and misguided. By your rationale, it would be okay to to steal $100 out of a rich person's wallet and give it to 10 of your friends.

It's not hurting him, and you're helping 10 people, right? Mill and Bentham would agree!

Haha.

Feh. The piracy debate is getting old, but: Most societies use this principle, to a greater or lesser degree. Take economics 101 too.

 

[Bhruic]

Since so many people on here claim that software piracy isn't theft, and are calling it copyright infringement to justify their moral ambiguity on the subject, is copyright infringment less of a crime or somehow more okay than theft?

The problem is that you've got a mental block over the term 'copyright infringement'. If copyright infringement is against the law in your particular country, then it is no more (or less) acceptable than any other law.

You, however, are under the mistaken impression that people are trying to excuse the behaviour with the label. You just said so in the above quote. There is no moral ambiguity about the term 'copyright infringement'. There may be a moral ambiguity about how people view copyright infringement. But that's a different issue.

BTW, for future arguments, if you want to make a good analogy over copyright infringment, the best one that I've come up with is copying money. That is, counterfeiting. It's a fairly good analogy, in both cases you are making a copy of something without harming the original in any fashion. That is to say, if I take your $10 bill, and make a copy of it, I've gained $10, but you still have your original $10. And by devaluing the dollar, counterfeiters are indirectly harming the general public, in a similar way to pirates, who are increasing the costs of software. It's not a perfect analogy, but it certainly works much better than drawing on material that is physically stolen.

Bh

 

[GinandTonic]

Aww, how cute, you took Intro. to Philosophy last semester? I had that class too.

I would say your application of the "greatest good for the greatest number" paradigm is a little naive and misguided. By your rationale, it would be okay to to steal $100 out of a rich person's wallet and give it to 10 of your friends.
"

Aww, how cute your trying to patronise me...

Well we have this thing called tax bands, and the idea is to take £100 from a rich fella and use it to pay allowances to single mums, winter fule allowances to pensioners etc etc. We formalise the system, but you seem to have grasped the basics. I hear the gap between rich and poor is worse in the states than a lot of third world, so perhaps you could pass the info over to George...

I wasnt arguing about legal or illegal I was arguing about moral or immoral. I wasnt arguing FOR piracy, I was only saying that IF something does not harm anyone it is not immoral. Now thats a big if, and not one Im arguing for.

Perhaps if you read my post before trying to patronise me might be better.

 

[Efexeye]

Okay. I am willing to concede for a moment that stealing software is copyright infringement and not theft. But I would disagree with you that people aren't using that distinction to defend piracy, either explicitly or in their own minds. If they can tell themselves they aren't stealing by using this razor-thin distinction, it helps them justify their actions. I just see it differently- they are clearly receiving some benefit, without paying the authors. IMHO, they are stealing.

Call it what you want, but you're never going to convince me that it is okay!

Let's talk about the counterfeiting example for a second. If you counterfeit currency, you devalue that currency, correct?

If you pirate (copy, steal, infringe on the copyright of the publisher, counterfeit, illegally duplicate, whatever you want to call it) don't you also devalue the software (or whatever digital media you are copying?)?

I'll go out on a limb here and say that most people defending software piracy in this thread would not defend counterfeiting money, even though they are pretty much essentially the same thing.