Piracy Discussion

[Sev Dreamweaver]

There's no need to apologize - Whether or not the person claiming to be anti - piracy is actually practicing what he preaches is a point - Just not a very good one. For one, just because someone professes a belief presently doesn't mean he always felt that way. People grow, learn, and hopefully improve themselves in the process. Someone strongly being against theft now could well be a reformed thief who was notorious in the past, for instance. For another, arguments should be judged on their own merits instead of who is the person making them. If not, any argument about morality is going to stop after someone says "What, so are you saying you're a perfect saint?"

 

Anyhow, looks like the thread has mostly fizzled, so unless someone brings something fresh to the discussion I'll just respond to this last statement here:

 

The way I'm starting to see things is simply that 'right' and 'wrong' are not, as you say, solid concepts, and are only something generated by the society with live within

 

 

That is actually not a very accurate perspective. Yes, "right" and "wrong" are rarely absolute concepts - but we can still judge something to be "more likely right" and something else to be "more likely wrong". By utilizing fact, reason, and logical thinking, we can determine which side has a stronger argument. For instance, let's review most of the major arguments that have been made in favour of piracy:

 

1) "I pirate because I can't afford it" - Extremely weak argument. Shouldn't even have been mentioned.

2) "I pirate because I can't get any info otherwise" - Weak argument if you're saying you can't get any, or very little info. And if you acknowledge you can still get decent amounts of info, it becomes a self - defeating proposition for piracy.

3) "I pirate because no one gets hurt by it" - Weak argument, it only seems strong because so many on the internet use it - to the point that few dare to challenge it, for fear of being ostracized in whatever community they're in.

 

I'm not going to go into the arguments against the above points all over again, so on the off chance that someone wants to continue the discussion I would ask that they read the thread and respond to the points already made, instead of repeating an unoriginal argument ad infinitum.

 

I have brought up a single main argument based on real - world principles of fair play that counter points 2) and 3), and have justified why such fair play should also be applied for digital media. Thus far, I have not seen any realistic rebuttal to this point. One side's stance is significantly stronger than the other. This is why I personally hold the opinion that piracy is wrong, instead of taking an "either side could be right" point of view.

 

And if someone counters the argument reasonably, or brings up new points in favor of piracy, I will examine the new argument, re - examine my thought processes, debate further if need be, think about which one makes more sense, and if necessary, change my mind and point of view. As it should be. Do not be the person who clings obsessively to his own belief that he is right, and never considers examining his reasoning; But also do not fly to the other extreme and become an apathetic person paralyzed with the thought that he might be wrong, who never takes a stand for anything. Choose instead to be someone who constantly hones his analysis and argumentative skills, someone who spends his life improving instead of standing still, either because of pride or fear.

 

(Debate more on internet forums  ) 

[k12314]

I pirate games I can't afford at the time and will pay for later, or already own on another platform and don't want to pay for a second time.

I buy the game regardless if it's less than $10. I only pirated PZ back in 2.0.0q because I wanted to see what the full game was like, not the demo.

I loved it, and bought the game soon after.

[LeoIvanov]

Let's think about the piracy matter for a second and what some people make wrong of it.
 
I will step right ahead and say that no matter what I'll write down here - Piracy is bad, and isn't fair for it's victims. I am not defending it, as I'm writing this for the sole purpose of showing that many people compare/make it look the wrong way.
 
Now, let's get to it. We all know that majority of the people out there compare piracy to theft, or stealing, hence they want pirates to suffer the same way thefts do, as it is "the same deal". I want to prove them wrong. Meaning that in their Point of view pirates are thieves who steal the posession from their owner, making them lose that posessed item.
 
Let's think about the meanings of some of these words.
 
1. Theft - In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. (Wikipedia)
 
2. lose(lz)
v. lost (lôst, lst), los·ing, los·es - To be deprived of (something one has had): lost her art collection in the fire; lost her job.

 

Why is comparing pirating to theft is wrong? First of all - after a person downloads the file, this said file does not dissapear from the stock. Owner of the said file doesn't loose it, and can still gain profit from it. The owner of the file is not deprived of the said file whether the pirate downloaded it or bought legally, therefore it is wrong to compare piracy to theft. It is also wrong to say that owners suffer from loosing the file, as in fact - they don't.

 

Now that we have proven comparing piracy to theft is wrong, we may also cover up some of the points made here, and finally say why the piracy IS wrong.

 

First of all - Owners that are victims of piracy do not gain profit from it. Pirating the game is equally as bad as sneaking into theatre without paying for tickets and watching a movie. Company that made the said movie does not gain money from your action, so does not the theatre. 

 

Nor do owners gain profit from people that don't watch their movies/play their games. Piracy doesn't let owners of the content gain profit from people who have played their games/watched their movies.

 

HOWEVER - not gaining profit and LOOSING money are two different things, and are supposed to be treated in a different way. Sure, it harms the owners of the content in it's own way, but comparing it to the way they are harmed in a case of loosing money is just wrong, and that's what drives me nuts in people who are against piracy.

[Realmkeeper]

 

2. lose(lz)

v. lost (lôst, lst), los·ing, los·es - To be deprived of (something one has had): lost her art collection in the fire; lost her job.

 

Why is comparing pirating to theft is wrong? First of all - after a person downloads the file, this said file does not dissapear from the stock. Owner of the said file doesn't loose it, and can still gain profit from it. The owner of the file is not deprived of the said file whether the pirate downloaded it or bought legally, therefore it is wrong to compare piracy to theft. It is also wrong to say that owners suffer from loosing the file, as in fact - they don't.

The bold parts are the ones I disagree quite strongly with.

Losing a file, and losing the associated privileges of a file are (in my opinion) almost the same.

 

While the 'owner' is not "deprived of" the file itself (he retains a copy himself), he is deprived of potential profits the content of that file may have gained him, as well as deprived of any profits gained elsewhere through use of the 'lost' file, and finally he is also deprived of any previously held control over Intellectual Property contained within the file in question.

So although the 'file' itself is not lost to another person, the owner is deprived any profits gained by the 'thief' of the file, as well as any financial gain that would have been made on a single copy of the file for every 'freely obtained' copy gained from the 'thief'.

 

The original owner of the file suffers greatly, he no longer retains control of distribution of what was likely a 'pay-per-copy' monetary model, and he loses control of being able to exclusively decide who can and cannot access the content of the file. To say the owner doesn't suffer from losing the file itself, would be acceptable, but loss of the control and existing rights surrounding the file causes immeasurable suffering. [in my opinion]

 

To lose the file itself (or rather a copy of the file), may be a negligible issue, but to lose control over the contents of the file most certainly deprives the owner of something, therefore categorising unauthorised copying of a file as both theft, and a loss to the owner.

[LeoIvanov]

 

 

2. lose(lz)

v. lost (lôst, lst), los·ing, los·es - To be deprived of (something one has had): lost her art collection in the fire; lost her job.

 

Why is comparing pirating to theft is wrong? First of all - after a person downloads the file, this said file does not dissapear from the stock. Owner of the said file doesn't loose it, and can still gain profit from it. The owner of the file is not deprived of the said file whether the pirate downloaded it or bought legally, therefore it is wrong to compare piracy to theft. It is also wrong to say that owners suffer from loosing the file, as in fact - they don't.

The bold parts are the ones I disagree quite strongly with.

Losing a file, and losing the associated privileges of a file are (in my opinion) almost the same.

 

While the 'owner' is not "deprived of" the file itself (he retains a copy himself), he is deprived of potential profits the content of that file may have gained him, as well as deprived of any profits gained elsewhere through use of the 'lost' file, and finally he is also deprived of any previously held control over Intellectual Property contained within the file in question.

So although the 'file' itself is not lost to another person, the owner is deprived any profits gained by the 'thief' of the file, as well as any financial gain that would have been made on a single copy of the file for every 'freely obtained' copy gained from the 'thief'.

 

The original owner of the file suffers greatly, he no longer retains control of distribution of what was likely a 'pay-per-copy' monetary model, and he loses control of being able to exclusively decide who can and cannot access the content of the file. To say the owner doesn't suffer from losing the file itself, would be acceptable, but loss of the control and existing rights surrounding the file causes immeasurable suffering. [in my opinion]

 

To lose the file itself (or rather a copy of the file), may be a negligible issue, but to lose control over the contents of the file most certainly deprives the owner of something, therefore categorising unauthorised copying of a file as both theft, and a loss to the owner.

 

 

What I like about your reply that everything above can easily be adressed to the point I made when tweaking some terms. I already mentioned that when someone pirates the game, the owner of the said game does not receive potential profit that could've been if you were to purchase the file. Not gaining profit is sure harmful to the developers no matter what everyone say, but comparing it to the loss of profit is just ridicoulus. 

 

Theft in itself is when you loose profit, and piracy is -not gaining- it. With businesses that sell groceries - theft of a grocery means loss of profit. There is a stock of these groceries, and each grocery that the stock contains was either paid for or manufactured/bought by the owners. Stealing stuff from the stock (Which has limited storage) is theft, however downloading a file from digital (hence - unlimited, not paid for) stock - isn't.

 

You gotta understand that creating games from business perspective is a huge plus, because unlike groceries and other stuff - you don't run out of your stocked items. You can sell your games in unlimited way gaining infinite profit out of it (with "infinite" being obviously exagerrated, as it depends on amount of people who bought/played your game), unlike in, say, walmart, where you'd have to keep an eye for the stock of materials, and buy new stockages every week/month, depending on how well things are bought.

 

All this anti-piracy talk can be obtained in a similar (see - it's also similar, but not the SAME) way. If everyone were to buy jewelry they wanted, jewelry making company would gain so much more profit, but instead some of them go for the cheaper stuff. Or if everyone were to go and see the movie they wanted, movie makers would gain SO much more profit, but instead, not all of them have the money/time for it, therefore they don't gain profit. Are those things considered theft? No. So shouldn't piracy.

 

In conclusion - Pirating and Theft are VERY SIMILAR to each other, however they are not the same, and therefore should be treated/looked at in a different perspective.

[Realmkeeper]

Theft in itself is when you loose profit, and piracy is -not gaining- it. With businesses that sell groceries - theft of a grocery means loss of profit. There is a stock of these groceries, and each grocery that the stock contains was either paid for or manufactured/bought by the owners. Stealing stuff from the stock (Which has limited storage) is theft, however downloading a file from digital (hence - unlimited, not paid for) stock - isn't.

 

This.

This is why I still disagree with you.

Although your general idea is pretty solid, and certainly one that I support, something like "theft of a grocery means loss of profit" is just wrong. Plain wrong.

Theft of a grocery would be loss of monetary cost, as well as considered loss of the item itself. It is certainly loss of potential profit, but just because it was stolen does not mean it was guaranteed to sell for a profit if it had remained unstolen. Thus, it is indefinitely arguable as to how much, if any, potential profit was lost.

 

EDIT: A later addition, I notice you consider digital stock to be unlimited and/or not paid for... Who pays the upkeep of the server(s) the files are hosted on, or in the case of torrents - the internet connection.

Digital stock = unlimited inventory count = not paid for : Just seems like a very flawed argument. I gotta go, so no time to clarify that now, but relating digital things to physical objects, and most certainly trying to quantify an electronic resource (as well as assigning monetary values to those) will almost always end up flawed.

[LeoIvanov]

 

Theft in itself is when you loose profit, and piracy is -not gaining- it. With businesses that sell groceries - theft of a grocery means loss of profit. There is a stock of these groceries, and each grocery that the stock contains was either paid for or manufactured/bought by the owners. Stealing stuff from the stock (Which has limited storage) is theft, however downloading a file from digital (hence - unlimited, not paid for) stock - isn't.

 

This.

This is why I still disagree with you.

Although your general idea is pretty solid, and certainly one that I support, something like "theft of a grocery means loss of profit" is just wrong. Plain wrong.

Theft of a grocery would be loss of monetary cost, as well as considered loss of the item itself. It is certainly loss of potential profit, but just because it was stolen does not mean it was guaranteed to sell for a profit if it had remained unstolen. Thus, it is indefinitely arguable as to how much, if any, potential profit was lost.

 

EDIT: A later addition, I notice you consider digital stock to be unlimited and/or not paid for... Who pays the upkeep of the server(s) the files are hosted on, or in the case of torrents - the internet connection.

Digital stock = unlimited inventory count = not paid for : Just seems like a very flawed argument. I gotta go, so no time to clarify that now, but relating digital things to physical objects, and most certainly trying to quantify an electronic resource (as well as assigning monetary values to those) will almost always end up flawed.

 

 

Didn't exactly try to mean "grocery" but anything in general that falls into line of having a limited stock and a value. They don't appear out of nowhere - you gave your money for them, just to sell it later. You do not keep stuff in your store just to have it there - you keep it there in order to profit from it, and having someone steal it - meaning you loose it.

 

Secondly - what I meant by "unlimited count not paid for" is that once you are done creating the game, you don't spend any more money for it's copies, or if you want to sell more of it. There are many ways to distribute your game digitally which I won't be getting in detail, but it isn't the same deal as the real life thing. In real life you either pay for already created stuff to sell it for higher price, or you create the stuff, then sell it for price that is higher than it costed you to create it. Then you have to create more of it. Digitally - you create stuff, put it online, and let people buy it. You don't have to worry about the stock limit, nor do you have to worry about having to re-create/rebuy the stuff, as people pay the money for the digital copies of the said game.

 

So in the end - you don't have to re-create the game over again to sell more of it, or you don't have to re-buy the parts that were neccessary for it's creation. It is all there, for unlimited (in exagerrated way) usage.

[nuget102]

 

You have game reviews from websites dedicated to the purpose, gaming blogs, walkthroughs, video commentaries, forum discussions from other people who already have the game. If you believe some of them have reason to give biased reviews (IGN, for instance), then take it with a grain of salt, and also take into account other opinions as well.

I'm glad the faith of internet articles and commentary videos is enough for you to drop $60 (or any amount for that matter) on a game but that just doesn't cut it for me. I need to have the game or the demo in my hands to be able and tell if I enjoy the gameplay, not someone else telling me if it is or isnt.

 

I know of one game where I was told by everyone it was great at first. I got it, my friend got it, we played through it together. It was pretty fun, but I think people made it out to be more than it actually was. I'm referring to Dead Island by the way. Maybe I was expecting more out of it than I received, but I didn't think it was as good as it should have been.

 

But yea, you can't always trust other peoples' opinions on games because you might find out you're in the minority of people that don't like the game, even though it looks and sounds amazing when you actually get your hands on it it may not be all that great. Actually I think that happens more than it should, people talk about how amazing a game is and it turns out to be utter crap (in my opinion) like MW series, I didn't even like MW 1 let alone 2 or black ops or what the hell ever. They're okay to kill some time, but to actually sit down and play as much as my friends do is stupidly insane. If it wasn't for my brother (in my opinion) wasting his money on the game and letting me try it I might of actually bought it.

 

So yea, that's why I like to have demos. No matter what. What would be even better is if games like COD that are now online orientated would have a sort of online demo. Like where you can only play one map or something and had a certain amount of weapons and stuff or something, I dunno. It would be great though, gives people a real feel of what the game is about instead of the single player thing. I dunno if any games do this (except Crysis, I know it did) but it would be great.

[EnigmaGrey]

I'd buy the same amount of games as I do now if there wasn't piracy. I'd actually buy less, because there's a lot of games I've pirated before giving my money. The rest were shit. And that's why they didn't get money. Try-before-you-buy is cool-as.

So much less . . . that I swore of spending money on games for 4-5 years, without downloading them.

[CrazyEyes]

Good read! Here we go.

*gaaaaaaasp*

Piracy and potential profit versus loss.

Here is the core concept: a game is a digital thing. This cannot be argued; it is simple fact. As a non-physical piece of information, once it is completed it can be copied as many times as is desired. The process of creating a copy does not depete the stock in any way.

It it free? No - not for the users, pirates or otherwise. The publisher or a third party will pay to host the game on dedicated servers from which it can be downloaded and, in the case of online games, played. Anyone who buys a copy of the game goes through this system and uses their bandwidth - which they paid for with their legitimate purchase of the game. For the purposes of digital distribution the stock is "replenished" by this transaction.

Now suppose one of these legitimate customers takes his digital copy and cracks it for the purpose of uploading a pirated version. This doesn't cost the developer or publisher anything, because the user is doing it to the copy he already paid for on his own time. It costs the user in time and effort, but that is their choice.

Now, the user uploads their pirated version of the game to a popular BitTorrent site. Again, this doesn't cost the devloper or publisher anything, since this is the client's bandwidth being used and the game servers are no longer involved. People begin to download and share the pirated game, creating a distribution network running entirely on the pirates' bandwidth.  
 
The pirates "pay" for the privelage of downloading these copies of the game by subscribing to an internet service.  However, most people do not acquire an internet connection for the sole purpose of piracy. There is also, for example, pornography on the internet.  Because it's impossible to always know how much bandwidth is being used by piracy and how much is dedicated to pornography, the exact "cost" of a pirate downloading a game is impossible to quantify.

No matter how many copies of this pirated game are downloaded, the publishers do not lose any money. That is important. The only part of the piracy process that would cause them to actually have less money than before you clicked download is the bandwidth involved in transferring that original copy of the game - except that copy was bought, legitimately, within the system. That cost to the publisher has been paid.

Those people that pirated it could have bought it. But they didn't, and many won't. They might never have bought it if the pirated version hadn't been available, but then again they might have. You can't know how much money you would have gotten, but it didn't cost you anything. That's potential profit. Not how much you lost - if anything - but how much you might have earned.

The only other "loss" they incur - which has little to do with piracy - is the cost incurred during the development of the game. If a game turns a profit through legitimate sales, which many do, that number would have been higher if pirates had bought the game but isn't lower because they didn't.

tl;dr: Piracy damages the potential profit that publishers and developers might have made from additional sales of the game. However, since the publisher can copy the data an unlimited number of times (and therefore restocking is not an issue) and the distribution of the pirated copy is taking place on the users' connections at no cost to the publisher, there is no loss involved.

 
*gaaaaaaaaasp*

My personal thoughts on piracy!
 

I've pirated games since I was in high school and I continue to pirate games all the time.  I pirated Fable 3 last week.  Played through it, didn't like it.  I was glad I hadn't wasted my money, but then I knew all along I would never have bought it anyway.
 
Money is, generally, what it comes down to.  What are they selling me, how much do they want for it, and who is it going to.  It's not as though I'm broke, but asking for $30-60 every time a game piques my interest is a bit much.
 
When I was in high school it would have been impossible for me to pay for most of the games I played.  I just didn't have the money.  Back then, piracy didn't seem so much like a moral dilemma as it did the only way I was going to get to play new releases.  Now that I have more money I buy games a lot more often - what it usually comes down to is whether or not I like the game and I want to support it.  My current Steam library is something like 130 games, and there are dozens more on discs, from back when that used to be a thing.
 
I pirated Bioshock Infinite when it came out - and then bought it for full price because any game that makes me want to play all the way through it again immediately is deserving of my money.  When I was done with Fable 3's terrible story, bad design and empty victory, I just didn't buy it.  I wanted Saints Row IV so much I pre-ordered it.  I wanted Shadowrun Returns, but I was concerned about how it might play and there was no demo.  I pirated it and played some of the first level, and when it was fun I gave the team my $20 for the game on Steam - in that case, also because I didn't want to pirate an indie developer's game. I'm a huge fan of the Assassin's Creed series, but when 3 came out I couldn't afford to buy it on the 360.  Because I couldn't wait, and knew I'd buy it when I had the chance, I pirated it for the PC and found that it was actually not a very good game and not worth my money.  $60 was saved that day.
 
I could read reviews or watch let's plays but I don't.  My tastes tend to differ from most gamers that review sites cater to.  If you're lucky, you'll be able to find a reviewer that shares your taste in gaming and you can stick to them like glue.  If not, you're stuck trying to read in between lines of multiple reviews to figure out how you might enjoy the game.  Trailers are just cinematic, and Dead Island and - God help us - Aliens: Colonial Marines sould tell you how much a cinematic trailer says about gameplay.  Unfortunately, gameplay trailers are usually designed to show you the best aspects of the game in the coolest way possible with a developer talking about how awesome the game is.  Let's plays are probably the most reliable but aren't available right away and are time-consuming to watch.
 
To me, it just seems like a lot less hassle to just play the game and see for myself.  Once I've played the game I know exactly how I feel about it and - if I can afford it - whether the developers deserve my money.  It works on the honor system.
 
Also?
 
Deep,
 
deep down?
 
I just don't care. 

 

*gaaaaaaaaaaaasp*.... *wheeze...*

 

Whew.  Okay.  If anybody actually reads all of that you get a cookie.

 

Bottom line is, there's no arguing that piracy harms game development.  Pirates do not subtract money from publishers when they steal games but obviously if the pirates paid for their copies the publishers would benefit more.

 

Arguing about the reasons an individual chooses to pirate a game - from poverty to apathy - are subjective and could be argued in circles forever.  The only debate is how much piracy hurts game development, in what way (besides not having extra money), and what positive effect, if any (like word of mouth) piracy might have on a game.

 

I'm, uh.... that was a lot of words.  I'm gonna go to bed now. 

 

 

[Sev Dreamweaver]

The problem with claims such as "I'd buy less if there wasn't piracy" is that it's a claim that only the person making it is able to verify, much like "I always buy the games I like after trying out the pirated copy". It's why personal anecdotes are generally weak arguments for or against any point.

 

Furthermore, that claim completely goes against how we would generally expect people to behave, in a similar circumstance. Since there was mention of groceries, consider this - Let's say a local store decides that they will not stick a price on any of their stuff - You can just walk in, take what you need, and leave. Let's also go all the way and assume that said stuff didn't cost the local store anything, just to make the comparison more similar. The local store is giving away this stuff with the expectation that their customers will be honest enough to pay them the fair market price for the stuff they've taken, after taking it home with them.

 

Now - would you expect most people come back later to pay them for stuff they already own, or is it more likely that most of them would self - justify not paying because "Eh, it's not like Mr Shopkeeper is making a loss anyway", "Eh, I found a couple of rotten apples in the carton I brought home. He doesn't deserve all that money ". Or, as the above poster is honest enough to admit at least "Eh, I don't really care". Do you honestly expect people to be paying more overall for the things they have taken?

 

I think the reaction of most people to piracy already pretty much shows how most of society would behave in a situation where piracy is completely justified.

 

Add in internet anonymity to that mix, and you don't even have a social pressure incentive for treating the "shopkeeper" fairly.

 

Yes, you say you would be fair and honest. Doesn't everyone? But you are not most people. If for every 9 people who quietly kept their stuff without paying - despite having enjoyed the benefits - you became the 10th who did pay what your stuff is worth, the shopkeeper is still being treated unfairly.

 

So no, the earlier point still stands - You are still forcing your version of a "fair" deal on developers who - Unlike the hypothetical generous grocery store - do not agree to what you're doing, and in fact actively protest against what you're doing. It's "Cool as-is" only because you're on the winning side of that deal. Whether or not the developer is making a "loss" as defined by you - Which already screams bias - remains irrelevant to whether the deal was conducted in a fair and equitable manner to both sides.

[Sev Dreamweaver]

Just in the hope that the "Piracy does not cause losses to the developer, it's all potential profit" argument can stop, or at least move in a new direction - Here is my counter - point, once again - That is not for you to decide on behalf of the developer.

 

I brought up a comparison with you getting bullied by your boss at work. How's that? Are you suffering any sort of material loss? Is your hearing impaired because you got yelled at? Did he take your wallet and beat you over the head? No - But you believe that he caused you damages nonetheless - Emotional damages, mental damages, taking away your dignity - All non - material losses that your boss may feel is trivial, but could be considered very real and damaging to the victim. As I have argued far earlier in the thread, "material" losses are not the only losses to be considered here.

 

So for the developers - Loss of control over their intellectual property, feeling that they're being treated unfairly, all can still be considered as losses on the part of the developers.

 

You may argue the severity of said loss and whether it's trivial, whether it was damaging enough to warrant compensation or any other form of corrective action, but you - As the perpetrator - should not be telling the victim that he cannot claim he suffered loss at all on the sole basis of material losses. That - again - Is not for you to decide, since material losses are not all there is.

 

As an additional point, you are not just lowering potential profit - You are also causing potential losses to the developer. How's that? Every time you pirate, you have the potential to cause people who actually did pay for the game to feel like they got the wrong end of the deal. They worked for their money, paid for the game, and at the end of it they ended up with the same product that someone else pirated for free. It is entirely possible that will stop paying for it in future and pirate games themselves, thus causing the developer to reach a point where they are unable to pay for any more development, and have to cease operations. Your actions directly contributed to a potential stage in future where they actually suffer losses from a behavior that you were complicit in.

 

And that's only if the developer manages to turn a profit this time round. A lot of pro - piracy opinions conveniently forget that your much touted potential "profits" are only profits if the legit sales of the game have already paid for all the costs involved. If rampant piracy of their most recent game contributed to the developer ceasing operations in the present due to inability to repay their costs, then there is no profit at all - It is then entirely justifiable to argue that they did suffer an immediate loss due your actions.

[LeoIvanov]

Just in the hope that the "Piracy does not cause losses to the developer, it's all potential profit" argument can stop, or at least move in a new direction - Here is my counter - point, once again - That is not for you to decide on behalf of the developer.

 

I brought up a comparison with you getting bullied by your boss at work. How's that? Are you suffering any sort of material loss? Is your hearing impaired because you got yelled at? Did he take your wallet and beat you over the head? No - But you believe that he caused you damages nonetheless - Emotional damages, mental damages, taking away your dignity - All non - material losses that your boss may feel is trivial, but could be considered very real and damaging to the victim. As I have argued far earlier in the thread, "material" losses are not the only losses to be considered here.

 

So for the developers - Loss of control over their intellectual property, feeling that they're being treated unfairly, all can still be considered as losses on the part of the developers.

 

You may argue the severity of said loss and whether it's trivial, whether it was damaging enough to warrant compensation or any other form of corrective action, but you - As the perpetrator - should not be telling the victim that he cannot claim he suffered loss at all on the sole basis of material losses. That - again - Is not for you to decide, since material losses are not all there is.

 

As an additional point, you are not just lowering potential profit - You are also causing potential losses to the developer. How's that? Every time you pirate, you have the potential to cause people who actually did pay for the game to feel like they got the wrong end of the deal. They worked for their money, paid for the game, and at the end of it they ended up with the same product that someone else pirated for free. It is entirely possible that will stop paying for it in future and pirate games themselves, thus causing the developer to reach a point where they are unable to pay for any more development, and have to cease operations. Your actions directly contributed to a potential stage in future where they actually suffer losses from a behavior that you were complicit in.

 

And that's only if the developer manages to turn a profit this time round. A lot of pro - piracy opinions conveniently forget that your much touted potential "profits" are only profits if the legit sales of the game have already paid for all the costs involved. If rampant piracy of their most recent game contributed to the developer ceasing operations in the present due to inability to repay their costs, then there is no profit at all - It is then entirely justifiable to argue that they did suffer an immediate loss due your actions.

 

Oh, boy.

 

Let me rather ask you one thing - There is always a minority of people who pirate the game instead of buying it, there is no doubt to that. Let's say 4 out of 10 people pirate the game instead of buying it, so you get 4 people less to pay for your game. If piracy did not exist, do you think there would be 4 more people to pay for the game? No, there would still be 4 out of 10 people that wouldn't pay for it, they just won't play the game either.

 

The thing about piracy is that we don't know if those 4 out of 10 people will ACTUALLY buy the game in the future. More to add - people who pirate the game and like it may tell their friends about it, it means only more people's attention will be brough to the game, meaning more ruckus between people and potentially more people to buy your game. You can argue all you want about how unfair it is to pirate, but you won't change the fact that piracy indeed also does good for the developers who create the games for their customers to ENJOY, and not suck the money out of them.

 

I am talking about those developers who release games solely because they want to have their customer satisfied. Quality over Quantitiy. If we had a lot of people pirate those kind of games, then believe me a LOT of people from those who pirated it will have thoughts about buying it. If the game is just a copy of their old game with a couple of new features that is made for the purpose of sucking the money out of your wallet, I don't think piracy would really bring them any potential or future profit.

 

To end my point, I want to copy something I've found while browsing through the internet.

 

The problem with the anti-piracy group is that they sit on a moral high ground. Whenever someone tells them why they pirate, the anti-piracy group responds by saying its wrong no matter what. In the process, they defend the industry that causes people to commit piracy in the first place.

 

Most people that pirate, don’t want to. They would rather go the legal route but it is often at the own doing of the film industry that impedes that. Forbes had a good article on this issue.

 

Most people before committing piracy look at the following factors:

Availability: is content available to purchase legally?

Affordability: is content priced fairly?

Accessibility: are you allowed to download content to a variety of devices

Reliability: Are you given an unlimited amount x to redownload?

Convenience: Does it take as long as a torrent to download?

Integrity: Does the company deserve my money (based on answers to the previous factors).

[CrazyEyes]

...relating digital things to physical objects, and most certainly trying to quantify an electronic resource (as well as assigning monetary values to those) will almost always end up flawed.

This.  I don't know why the people in ths thread, who otherwise seem intelligent and reasonable, are comparing Saints Row IV to apples or being yelled at.  I think we can all understand the concept of a download without using a crutch.  If not, I tried to outline the process of piracy in terms of digital distribution as best I could in my post - if that model seems flawed I'd love to discuss it.

 

But in terms of money - and money alone - piracy doesn't cost the devlopers a cent.  I'd prefer to stick to this concrete idea of profit as money rather than the abstract ideas of "loss" like a programmer's feelings being hurt or feeling undercompensated for his work.  We can't know that piracy does hurt a game developer's feelings any more than we can know it doesn't. It's not a topic any of us are equipped to debate and it's so subjective we could argue about it forever. In short, if what consitutes loss to the developer is not for me to decide then it's not for any of us to decide.

 

Also, let's please try and stop talking about why people shouldn't pirate or what would make them stop.  The answer is nothing.  People pirate because they want to and because they can.  Piracy isn't always the crutch of the poor gamer (although sometimes it is).  The reasons individuals pirate are dependant on the individual and there's no reaon to try and assert one viewpoint over another.  We're not going to convince anybody in this topic to change their minds by arguing back and forth about who is more wrong.

 

I didn't give my thoughts on piracy to defend myself, only to explain why I pirate.  I don't check that list of Accessibility or whatever before I pirate a game. There's no moral high ground to claim - "the honor system" doesn't justify acting outside the law.  Am I wrong to pirate?  Yep.  Are others wrong to do it?  Yep.  Will they (or I) stop because of a post on the internet saying why my reasons for doing it are wrong? Nope.

 

As an additional point, you are not just lowering potential profit - You are also causing potential losses to the developer. How's that? Every time you pirate, you have the potential to cause people who actually did pay for the game to feel like they got the wrong end of the deal. They worked for their money, paid for the game, and at the end of it they ended up with the same product that someone else pirated for free. It is entirely possible that will stop paying for it in future and pirate games themselves, thus causing the developer to reach a point where they are unable to pay for any more development, and have to cease operations. Your actions directly contributed to a potential stage in future where they actually suffer losses from a behavior that you were complicit in.

Classic logical fallacy - the slippery slope argument. If I do A, then A leads to B and B leads to C and C leads to D so A leads to D. Nobody can predict the future or what my actions will cause others to do. It's not debatable. The only thing my piracy directly leads to is the game developers not selling me a copy of the game. Whether or not thier feelings are hurt by my act of piracy they have not incurred any monetary loss because of it.

 

If you're not convinced it's a fallacy, there is this: "potential profit" and "potential loss" are essentially the same thing when it comes to the effects of piracy because neither of them can be measured.

As to piracy directly contributing to a lack of sales? Sure, I can see that. My individual tendency to pirate doesn't cause this alone but the burden of ten million pirates might. Then again, a game might have failed simply because it was bad. Unless a publisher straight up says a game didn't make money due to an insane amount of piracy then we're only speculating when we see that a game wasn't profitable and say it was because of pirates.

 

I'll leave it at here for now, some friends want to play video games - that I legally acquired with United States currency, no less!

[nuget102]

Boo hoo. They should make a better game if they want me to buy it, because then I'd like it.

In my opinion consumers shouldn't HAVE to say that. It should always be "Okay guys, we're going to make a new game. Let's try something new and original that will also catch peoples interest, what do you guys say?" Not "Okay, MW did pretty good, let's try making a second. Okay that one did good, let's make something remarkably similar on the same freakin engine and hope people keep mindlessly buying it." It is stupid and I hate it. When I see someone playing a game I want to be able to tell it apart from other games, not have to actually ask which one in the series it is.

 

I know COD may be a bad example but my point is this: I want original games, something that makes me feel like I've never played anything quiet like it before. Not something where I can say "This game is similar to" and be able to name off games. I guess i'm a pretty picky gamer but uh well, it's what I want. That's the reason I love PZ so much, I have never played anything quiet like it. The only games I can think of that are similar are Cataclysm and Rouge Survivor, both of those are rogue-likes though. 

[Rathlord]

LeoIvanov I'm only on page two but I feel a strong urge to reply to your posts there. Your points here are completely off-base. Just because something is on the internet doesn't mean it's not real. 

 

 

You could use your exact same logic for a car someone is selling online. You may not be able to feel it or so it in any way other than the owner shows you, but that doesn't make it any less real. Additionally, following your broken logic out to its logical conclusion, by your chain of thought you could go out, steal that car, drive it for a few months, and THEN pay the owner for it if you decide you want to. Because, you know, it's not real.

 

Physical attributes have nothing to do with the "reality" of items, and just because something is not a physical good does not in any way change the rules of fair trade as they have been since the dawn of mankind.

 

You can give 'reasons' for pirating games, but you can't give 'justification.' Justification implies a factual accounting for ones actions and that is literally impossible for piracy. There is no situation where by the moral standards set by society and the laws that bind us together where piracy is justifiable.

 

Edited to remove minor douchebaggery.

[Rathlord]

 

1) "I can't get any objective information on the quality of the game" - Already answered. You do, from a wide variety of outside sources. You just choose not to use them in favor of getting a full pirated copy of the game.

Do these "wide varieties" of sources include written articles and video footage? Because those are both piss poor criteria for judging a game. It should be standard practice by now to release demos of games and its that fact that it isn't is what even drives me to piracy. I refuse to let the bad business practices of any company make me gamble my money on a product. 

 

I can't tell you how many times I read an article or watched a video propping up a game then when purchased I was more than disappointed with my product.

 

 

Being disappointed with a product is poor justification for stealing. "I'm sorry, sir, I stole this Ferrari Enzo because I wasn't sure if I was going to like it or not."

 

There is no requirement for developers to include demos for games. None. That's entirely their choice. If a car dealership doesn't let you test drive a car, you don't bash the windows out and take it anyways. You either buy it, or you don't. Video games are exactly the same way. Saying that video games are a different medium is a non sequitur and is 100% logical fallacy. I'll show it in math, because that's the best way I know how:

 

(1) <-- this number exists on it's own with no correlation to the next statement

A + B = C  <--- A is a product. B is using the product without paying for it. C is stealing

 

(3) <-- this number exists on it's own with no correlation to the next statement

A + B = C  <--- A is a product. B is using the product without paying for it. C is stealing

 

In this example the number '1' represents physical media, and the number '3' represents digital media. They do not factor into the equation either way. Stealing is stealing.

[Rathlord]

I mean really, when you buy a book you don't get to read the entire thing in advance. Many bookstores will get angry with you if you even try to read it in the store.

 

We should count ourselves lucky with video games. We get more information about video games that release than any other product that's ever existed. Between game reviews, trailers, and full Let's Plays we should count ourselves privileged without even factoring in demos. I mean fuck, I ordered a hamburger yesterday that tasted like shit that I threw away. That would be no justification for me going to steal it from McDonalds (or, worse yet, going and stealing it first because they wouldn't let me taste their food before I paid for it).

[Rathlord]

Pixel Bombs I'm afraid I just really can't get behind anything you're saying. If you boil it down beyond all of the justifications, what you're saying is "companies must provide me a demo or I'll steal their things." As has been pointed out to you, you show pressure to a company by not buying their things, and telling others not to buy their things. You wouldn't steal a Ferrari Enzo because they wouldn't let you test drive it. You'd buy it or you'd leave.

 

The only thing you can come up with that makes video games different than the above situation is that you feel like they should include a demo. Even if they should have a demo, even if there was some rule somewhere that all games must have a demo and they were breaking it that's still no justification for stealing something.

[Rathlord]

Leo your points on the third page miss entirely the idea of Intellectual Property. If you would argue that intellectual property doesn't exist and all copyrights, trademarks, and brands should be open for anyone to use then sure... make that argument.

 

Otherwise, the owner of the IP has indeed lost something, that something being the Intellectual Property which is owned ONLY by him and the people he licenses it to, no one else. Furthermore, you've missed the entire point of a license which is how most video games are sold nowadays. Licenses are used in lieu of physical media to represent the property of the owner of the game. When you steal a game, you are stealing the license to use it. It may not be something you can hold in your hands but that (once again) makes it no less viable of a unit of property.

 

Edit: And in response to one of your replies, loss of potential profit is not the same as loss of license/IP. This is recognized worldwide in international law. If you want to argue this point then feel free to send them an email and they'll be glad to take it up with you.

[Rathlord]

All this anti-piracy talk can be obtained in a similar (see - it's also similar, but not the SAME) way. If everyone were to buy jewelry they wanted, jewelry making company would gain so much more profit, but instead some of them go for the cheaper stuff. Or if everyone were to go and see the movie they wanted, movie makers would gain SO much more profit, but instead, not all of them have the money/time for it, therefore they don't gain profit. Are those things considered theft? No. So shouldn't piracy.

 

In conclusion - Pirating and Theft are VERY SIMILAR to each other, however they are not the same, and therefore should be treated/looked at in a different perspective.

 

This is only an applicable example if people who didn't have the time/money for the jewelry took it and used it anyways. You are using a game. You're struggling with the concept of reality versus physical form and losing in my humble opinion.

 

Your points about physical stock are things that matter to the original owner. If nothing else, you can (and should) still argue that pirating a game is wrong because you are taking something that doesn't belong to you, even if as you say no one could ever possibly be hurt by piracy.

[Rathlord]

Boo hoo. They should make a better game if they want me to buy it, because then I'd like it.

 

Ok, good point. Now go out and steal a Ford Fiesta, and justify it because it wasn't a good car. Go on, I'll wait. Seriously.

[LeoIvanov]

Finally a response that does not repeat the same thing over and over again under different examples.

 

I like your point a lot, although there are a couple of flaws I've encountered. You kept refering to piracy as "stealing a game" when in fact it wasn't. I've already replied not long ago that stealing is a term for taking something away, meaning the person looses it, or gets deprived of something. "Stealing a game" in ideal matter would mean there was something like a unique CD of a game that you've got, and someone goes in your house and steals it. When people pirate, owners don't loose their games. Therefore it is wrong to name it "stealing".

 

Intellectual property is a different thing. That is something worth arguing about.

[Rathlord]

Let me rather ask you one thing - There is always a minority of people who pirate the game instead of buying it, there is no doubt to that. Let's say 4 out of 10 people pirate the game instead of buying it, so you get 4 people less to pay for your game. If piracy did not exist, do you think there would be 4 more people to pay for the game? No, there would still be 4 out of 10 people that wouldn't pay for it, they just won't play the game either.

 

 

The problem with the anti-piracy group is that they sit on a moral high ground. Whenever someone tells them why they pirate, the anti-piracy group responds by saying its wrong no matter what. In the process, they defend the industry that causes people to commit piracy in the first place.

 

Most people that pirate, don’t want to. They would rather go the legal route but it is often at the own doing of the film industry that impedes that. Forbes had a good article on this issue.

 

Most people before committing piracy look at the following factors:

Availability: is content available to purchase legally?

Affordability: is content priced fairly?

Accessibility: are you allowed to download content to a variety of devices

Reliability: Are you given an unlimited amount x to redownload?

Convenience: Does it take as long as a torrent to download?

Integrity: Does the company deserve my money (based on answers to the previous factors).

 

 

I may not be able to prove this with exact numbers, but I assure you in... say... the NES era, if people had had access to pirated versions of the games they would have taken those over the legitimate ones. This, in and of itself, completely debunks your point. Even if one person (ever) had bought a game that they might not have if they had access to a pirated copy, this completely breaks your point.

 

Here's the problem with your above quote:

"causes people to commit piracy in the first place"

 

No one can every force another person to commit piracy. It is now and will forever be a choice that is made on the individual level. Just like no one forces someone to steal a car (or no one forces you to buy a car, either). This is wrong.

[Rathlord]

 We can't know that piracy does hurt a game developer's feelings any more than we can know it doesn't. It's not a topic any of us are equipped to debate and it's so subjective we could argue about it forever. In short, if what consitutes loss to the developer is not for me to decide then it's not for any of us to decide.

 

Speaking of logical fallacies... just because you can't define how much someone has been hurt by something doesn't make it any less real. Can you define how much rape hurts someone mentally? No? That doesn't make it any less true. I can prove to you right this very second that 'feelings' have been hurt, if you want to call it that. There have been plenty of public outcries, sincere sadness, and outright outrage via Twitter, Blogs, Forums, etc. from any number of game designers.

 

You're right about the slippery slope argument. That one is false.