Jump to content

Piracy Discussion


nuget102

Recommended Posts

You've impressively debunked my points by:

 

Calling me out on using baseless arguments while you still refuse to say anything other than "I think it's right so it's right,"

 

And bantering about semantics. As I said before, a Ferrari Enzo is a copy of an idea (the blueprint). The physical-ness of something is not tied to the real-ness of it. Even if said Ferrari Enzo was completely free to produce, it would still have worth. And even if it was completely free to produce, no one would ever design one if people just stole them (even if Ferrari had an infinite number). You're just another person who thinks that they're entitled to something that isn't theirs because they have access to it.

 

In your broken, twisted world no music, games, books, movies, or any other kind of art would have ANY meaning in electronic media because "hey, it's not 'taking' it's copying." This is utter bullshit- obviously these copies have worth because people work hard to produce and sell them- if they had no worth, they wouldn't be made in the first place. All I see is sad attempts to justify piracy in someone without the stomach to man up and say they're breaking not only the law but the basic principles of right and wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 154
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Although, the "no one really gives a crap what you think" is complete, utter bullshit.

 

You've taken this entirely out of context in the most obtuse way possible. The point is not "your opinion doesn't matter," it's "just because one guy says something is okay, doesn't make it okay." Intentionally misinterpreting things vastly out of context to make someone else look bad is the sign of a failing argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saying the law's there, and people should hypothetically abide by it, but in this situation I don't agree with it. I think it's rubbish,. It does not stop it being illegal. And you're the ones asserting that society almost universally agrees piracy's wrong, not me. Don't you have the burden of proof? I think.

 

 

 

I happen to agree that the law is not something to be taken as an absolute. Many laws have often proved to be detrimental to mankind's and society's overall interest, instead of serving to advance it. I also disagree with the premise that something's necessarily right / wrong just because a large/larger portion of society agrees/disagrees with it.

 

Whether or not something is morally right or wrong should be decided by constant evaluation of the facts, logic, and reasoning behind the issue, not based on blind adherence to laws (Which should only be meant to codify and enforce the conclusions of such analysis) or just because it happens to be the popular thing to believe in at that time (Popular does not necessarily mean right. In fact I personally hold the view that popular opinion is often the ignorant one)

 

That being said...I am saying that piracy remains morally wrong, and any arguments in favor of it remain weak. I can't speak for anyone else, but I am arguing this not based on laws or popular opinion nor have I ever have, because as mentioned, it completely misses the main point. I have already repeated my arguments based on principles of fair play multiple times. I will not retype them in entirety just for individuals who have not bothered to read the thread and previous discussions, so here's a copypasta:

 

My original arguments were based off principles of fair play - Which the pro - piracy side has yet to address, forever repeating the "piracy causes no losses" mantra in all its forms like a broken record.

 

To answer the last point - Once again you beautifully illustrate the self - centredness of the arguments from your position. Why do you assume that you are automatically entitled to enjoying a digital product that's a luxury good? If do not like a particular luxury car company in real life, what justifies you causing harm to that car company just based on your dislike of their products/services? If it's not available, just don't buy it. If it's not affordable, you don't buy it. If it's not accessible, you don't buy it. If it's not reliable, you just don't buy it. If you don't like someone, you are free not to deal with them - You are still not justified in causing harm - Real or perceived - By taking what you want from them without their consent. You think that list is some sort of superior argument for piracy. It misses the point completely, so - It's not. The point is that not only you should feel the deal is fair. A fair deal necessitates both sides agreeing without being under duress. And if either side feels the offered deal is not fair, they can decline the deal. You may not, however, force them into another deal of your own making.

 

That's where that neatly compiled list falls to pieces. It only takes into account your perspective, and assumes that if the developer does not meet your requirements you are somehow justified in forcing the deal on your terms. It goes in with the underlying assumption that if you don't like the deal originally offered by the developers, you are still entitled to get your hands on goods rightfully owned by them anyway. You have the choice of walking away from the deal you don't like, but you are depriving developers of the same freedom of choice. I have repeated this argument a few times, now.

 

Here's how the deals are playing out, with your reasoning:

Developers don't meet your requirements (All the points in that list) -> You are allowed to take for yourself what you want from them anyway (Their product), they are not allowed to just walk away and take their product with them.

You don't meet developer's requirements (Money, respecting their IP) ->  They are not allowed to take for themselves what they want from you (Your money), but you are allowed to walk away and take your money safely with you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, this is a pointless back and forth, since both parties (ignoring the "I pirate and think it's wrong" team) disagree on the fundamental point to his argument, if it's moral or not. 

 

No, that misses the point of debate entirely. As I have explained, something being moral or not should be based on facts, logic, and reasoning. Whether something is moral or not is the conclusion reached by debate on the underlying arguments, not the fundamental starting point.

 

If my underlying arguments are shown to be weak under examination and yours strong, then the conclusion is that piracy should be considered moral. If your underlying arguments are shown to be weak after examination with mine strong, then the conclusion is that piracy should be considered immoral. If something is logically and reasonably shown to be moral / immoral, you still have the option whether or not to abide by it. Most people are going to continue doing what they were doing anyway. That's why it was mentioned earlier that the point of the thread is not to change behavioural patterns, immediately.

 

The point is to examine arguments on both sides, and if the stance that you are taking (Piracy is morally justified) is shown to be fundamentally weak under examination - Which is the opinion I hold, and which I believe I have adequately reasoned out in the thread - to at least get people thinking about what they're doing is really okay. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we get into an argument over the validity of this debate, then it's really going to become the Monty Python Argument Clinic. That's a topic I'm not as interested in exploring, so I'll just leave it that we're all entitled to our opinions of the discussion overall.

 

However I will point out that you have come in many times, engaged with the discussion, presented your arguments, and only now when I have presented a serious challenge to their validity and given my own counter points do you start claiming that you think the argument is pointless to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a good point. Also, I didn't read your post before I said that.

Anyway, the issue with the copypasta assumes all piracy is where someone downloads a product, enjoys it, and then keeps the pirated copy. I've repeatedly said that's the case where it's not justifyable.

 

To be honest i haven't read most of the thread. you guys take too long to say things.

 

Well, personally my own contribution to the length of this thread has mostly come from repeating the point on fair play every other post, because we keep getting new entrants into the debate who bring up arguments that are just slightly differing forms of the old ones.

 

As for your point - Yes, it's a generally accepted fact that not all piracy is of the "Pirate and keep" nature. However, this point still does not address the point of fair play because:

 

1) The issue of fair play arises at the point of trade, not what you decide to do with what you've gained afterwards. For instance, if someone threatened you into giving up all the money in your wallet "In exchange for your safety", the fact that he gave some of that money away later to an orphanage still does not mitigate the fact that you were coerced into giving him what he wanted, against your will and to your detriment. (Also for anyone reading this, please do not go into the "No real money was lost" argument again)

 

2) Just as the statement that not all piracy is "Pirate and Keep" implies, there are still going to be many who do pirate and keep the game. Furthermore, how are you going to prove that those who said they didn't keep it are telling the truth? It's the same problem when trying to justify piracy with "I still pay for it later when I can afford it". It's an unverifiable claim that depends on the person with the most to gain from lying about it to tell the truth. It also strongly links back to point 1), as the developers are - justifiably - going to have the same perspective and feel unfairly treated by this "Pirate first, maybe pay later" deal they're being forced to accept..

 

3) As mentioned earlier, despite whatever you may think of a "lousy" product, it is safe to say that most people still derived some entertainment value from it. Therefore, you still gained something from piracy without paying for it, even if you didn't keep the game. And it is entirely possible that some people actually got a lot of entertainment value out of a game or other digital media due to differing tastes. I may think Farmville is a waste of time and a shameless grab for cash with an inferior product - But apparently there are still millions out there who are willing to throw cash at Zynga for it. That still does not justify me causing harm - Real or perceived -  to the company just solely on that basis. That still does not justify me forcing their company to accept an alternate deal - Where I hack into their servers to pass out free colored cows/barns/whatever to their users until they come up with a better product, for instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only games I've pirated without intent to pay for are Fallout 3, New Vegas, and those two are because I already own them on my PS3 and don't want to pay again just to play them on PC. The other is The Sims 3 and all the addons, because I really don't feel like paying almost $200 for the game and all the DLC.

 

I'm not saying it's OK to do, I'm just saying I do it because I have a more "Devil may care" kind of moral compass. I do bad shit if I feel like it, but I still try to be a good dude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you take a good look, I'm pretty sure most of society's opinion on piracy contradicts yours.

And all the crap I've said was never debunked, because this whole thread is a writhing mass of opinions. You went about various vaguely related things like developer's feelings and potential profit. Potential profit is complete toss. Nothing's lost from someone pirating a game in situations where, for example:

1) The person pirating can't afford the game, but eventually buys it.

2) The person pirating could never get access to the game due to all kinds of various issues.

3) The person doesn't know whether they like the game, and after playing..

3a) Buys the game, because it's good.

3b) Doesn't buy the game, because it's arse.

 

The only bad outcome is 3c, where the person keeps the pirated copy and would be willing to buy the game, because they're a cheap cunt.

You may think that you're perfectly in the clear on moral issues involving little to no (depending on the types of piracy, for example online piracy where the developer's server is used causing people to lose money (i.e. the early cracks for project zomboid)) loss, but it doesn't change the fact you're (probably) not.

Any time a game is pirated it hurts the game developer because - regardless of whether the pirate goes back and purchses the game - that pirated copy still looks like a missed sale to the publisher.

Say 500 people buy a game and 500 people pirate it. Then 250 of the pirates decide they like the game and buy it. The publisher has sold 750 copies, but because 500 pirated copies were downloaded it looks like there were 500 players who didn't buy the game and it could have made up to 1250 sales.

The very thing that keeps piracy so safe - anonyminity - prevents a publisher from knowing how many downloads were never paid for and how many are pirates-turned-cutsomers. They have to assume it's all failure to sell, and that could make the game they're publishing look like a bad investment.

Even a scenario where a pirate downloads a game to try it, likes it and buys it isn't as harmless as you think.

But I'm not just "stealing" it. In the example of the Ferrari Enzo, it's paramount to a test drive. You drive it, and then either don't buy the car, or buy the car. In only the case where piracy isn't acceptable because it's not for trying something out temporarily, then it equates to what you're saying. 

What I think is that I'm entitled to a fair evaluation of my product before I pay money. This is less of an issue in the context of physical products, with return policies and UK law entitling me to a refund. Problem is it doesn't work with games. Once they're opened once, you've lost £60 on whatever you've just bought, whether you like it or not. Can't even do it on Steam. I can't try it, before I buy it. Even games with a demo - Usually demos feel misleading and present the best parts of something in a small period of time to convince you "this game is dope, please buy it asap". You're entitled to a fair evaluation of your product with pretty much everything except games and (most) food, which is unrelated.

Your agrument for why a game's demo is misleading could be applied to stealing a car instead of taking it for a test drive.

Just sayin'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've said so many times my head is spinning at this point, just because you haven't tried a product doesn't make it right to take it. There's no law, be it moral or legal, saying a company must give you a demo of a project. You're using an irrelevant outside fact to justify something with no relation to it.

 

But I digress... This thread happened, then it was happening, and now it has happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Any time a game is pirated it hurts the game developer because - regardless of whether the pirate goes back and purchses the game - that pirated copy still looks like a missed sale to the publisher.

Say 500 people buy a game and 500 people pirate it. Then 250 of the pirates decide they like the game and buy it. The publisher has sold 750 copies, but because 500 pirated copies were downloaded it looks like there were 500 players who didn't buy the game and it could have made up to 1250 sales.

 

 

I just can't stop getting amazed how the anti-pirate people started off with the facts and ended up talking about feelings of people and how they react to the piracy, instead of taking an actual review of financial graphs.

 

With your example over there you CLEARLY made it obvious that piracy doesn't hurt you in a financial way, but instead brings profit.

Majority of examples I've seen were mostly built on "what if"s and "developers feelings". If you look at it from the perspective of a developer, and if you look at it in a POSITIVE way, "What if" there were no pirates, and the game was only bought by 500 people? The other 500 obviously would have no way to pirate the game, so they'd just walk by. Developer is left with overall sold 500 copies of the game, Period. He ends up with less money, but his feelings are good because he never knows about those 500 who did not buy the game.

 

Now, out of those 500 people who pirated, 250 actually liked the game, and bought it, leaving a developer with overall 750 copies sold. That's no less than 1/4 of what he has gained profit from so far, and it's actually a damn achievement. In the end you gain more profit than from original sells, but hell, you feel shittier because you now know that you didn't sell those extra 250 copies. Pretty bad, right?

 

Now the pirated copy of the game might LOOK like a missed sale, but let me tell ya', MAJORITY of those who pirate, if they were stood between a choise of "buy or not to buy" unable to pirate the game, they won't. That is like counting how many people have watched the trailer and comparing it to overall sales. Trailer got around 1000 views but you only ever sold 750 copies. Oh no, now I feel like it was a missed sale. It wasn't though.

 

We can argue tirelessly over hours and days and weeks about how unfair it is to pirate a game and how a developer feels about it, but in the end, I'd rather have a discussion that is more based on FACTS, rather than assumptions and "what if"s. And I'm sorry for having this reply look too aggressive or arrogant, I just rarely can stand people who accuse other side of the arguement of things they do themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your logic there is backwards Leo.

 

Instead of selling 500 (if pirating didn't exist) he probably would have sold 900, and 150 of them may have hated the game once they got it, but they still would have paid for it. Like I said... in the era of the NES people who would pirate now would simply buy the game and test it out and hope to whatever deity they worship it was good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your logic there is backwards Leo.

 

Instead of selling 500 (if pirating didn't exist) he probably would have sold 900, and 150 of them may have hated the game once they got it, but they still would have paid for it. Like I said... in the era of the NES people who would pirate now would simply buy the game and test it out and hope to whatever deity they worship it was good.

 

I was rummaging through his example rather than setting up my own. And all of my words were coming out judging by things that Sev said. (If you don't feel the game deserves the money/don't have money for it/don't want to buy without trying, Don't buy!) It is rather unfair to judge how things would go as in digital world there are hardly any refunds available once you bought the game. And I'm pretty sure in your worshipped NES era (oh god don't kill me) you could return game to the store you bought it from and buy some other game. Or in the end, sell it to your friend, because the game oh so much sucks. You can't do all that with digital downloadable games. The best you can do is sell your steam/origin account with all the games you have ever bought on it, and I hardly think that is even legal.

 

Also, if you have actually found a flaw in me scanning through the guy's example, may you please explain how out of total of 1000 people (500 who bought and 500 who pirated) you suddenly get 1050?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparing trailer views to movie ticket sales isn't the same as comparing pirated games to purchased games.  Games have trailers too and I'm sure developers don't count the views those get as a direct indication of sale figures either.  It's more like comparing the number of movie tickets bought to the number of people that snuck in (if that could be measured somehow).

 

I don't know where you got 1050 either, I'll assume it's a typo and you mean the 150 people in Rathlord's example who felt dissatisfied with their purchase of the game.  It wasn't meant to be a solid figure, only an arbitrary number to illustate that if piracy is not an option, more people overall purchase the game.  This isn't specualtion - people (myself included) did this when living in an era when piracy wasn't an option.  Some of them were dissatisfied with their purchase but it didn't matter because the publisher already had their money.

 

And no, you couldn't just return a used game, at least not where I live.  If the game was even worthy of being taken off your hands you'd get a pilthy amount of store credit that isn't coming out of the publisher's pocket.  The idea of a returned video game was almost as foreign then as it is today.

 

I suppose you could sell a suck-ass game to your friends for enough money to recoup your loss... if you didn't want your friends to like you anymore. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember taking a game back to the shop the day after... It was a $ 25 game and they told me they'd give me ¢ 75 for it. So... yup. Go buy an Xbox game from Gamestop, play it a bit, bring it back and tell me what happens XD

 

And, as Crazy said, you didn't understand my example correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember taking a game back to the shop the day after... It was a $ 25 game and they told me they'd give me ¢ 75 for it. So... yup.

 

And, as Crazy said, you didn't understand my example correctly.

Or leaflets in Electronic-Boutique (back when they were small) game boxes with "NO RETURNS IF OPENED." :cry:

Walmart wouldn't even take games back, cartridge or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I just can't stop getting amazed how the anti-pirate people started off with the facts and ended up talking about feelings of people and how they react to the piracy, instead of taking an actual review of financial graphs.

 

With your example over there you CLEARLY made it obvious that piracy doesn't hurt you in a financial way, but instead brings profit.

Majority of examples I've seen were mostly built on "what if"s and "developers feelings". If you look at it from the perspective of a developer, and if you look at it in a POSITIVE way, "What if" there were no pirates, and the game was only bought by 500 people? The other 500 obviously would have no way to pirate the game, so they'd just walk by. Developer is left with overall sold 500 copies of the game, Period. He ends up with less money, but his feelings are good because he never knows about those 500 who did not buy the game.

 

Now, out of those 500 people who pirated, 250 actually liked the game, and bought it, leaving a developer with overall 750 copies sold. That's no less than 1/4 of what he has gained profit from so far, and it's actually a damn achievement. In the end you gain more profit than from original sells, but hell, you feel shittier because you now know that you didn't sell those extra 250 copies. Pretty bad, right?

 

Now the pirated copy of the game might LOOK like a missed sale, but let me tell ya', MAJORITY of those who pirate, if they were stood between a choise of "buy or not to buy" unable to pirate the game, they won't. That is like counting how many people have watched the trailer and comparing it to overall sales. Trailer got around 1000 views but you only ever sold 750 copies. Oh no, now I feel like it was a missed sale. It wasn't though.

 

We can argue tirelessly over hours and days and weeks about how unfair it is to pirate a game and how a developer feels about it, but in the end, I'd rather have a discussion that is more based on FACTS, rather than assumptions and "what if"s. And I'm sorry for having this reply look too aggressive or arrogant, I just rarely can stand people who accuse other side of the arguement of things they do themselves.

 

 

You - are - arrogant, but not really because of the tone of your reply, that's just a minor part compared to the elephant in the room. It's because - as showcased by every single one of your posts in this thread - You quite obviously think your reasoning is already too good to stoop to things like actually reading and responding to the points that were already made to old arguments. Multiple times, even. You have not justified anything you've said with any modicum of reasoning, except with silly and condescendingly insulting "I'm right, and you're wrong!" proclamations with no basis or any attempt at explanation, like:

 

With your example over there you CLEARLY made it obvious that piracy doesn't hurt you in a financial way

 

Now the pirated copy of the game might LOOK like a missed sale, but let me tell ya', MAJORITY of those who pirate, if they were stood between a choise of "buy or not to buy" unable to pirate the game, they won't.

 

We can argue tirelessly over hours and days and weeks about how unfair it is to pirate a game and how a developer feels about it, but in the end, I'd rather have a discussion that is more based on FACTS, rather than assumptions and "what if"s

 

 

What's really amazing is that you say you'd rather have a discussion based on facts, but are still able to concoct a scenario based on your own set of 'what ifs' - "What if" out of the 500 pirates, 250 bought the game? "What if" the majority of those who pirate simply don't buy the game if they can't pirate? etc, etc. Just because you phrase them as "This is right!" certainties with some implied statement that they're as solid as "financial graphs" doesn't make them any less of a hypothetical scenario, with no basis in fact. (The original example you were referring to was weak for that reason as well). In actuality your hypothesis is even worse than some others presented, because you just claim it as "fact" without even the support of reasoning out why it is likely so.

 

If you're claiming that feelings shouldn't be taken as consideration, if the fair play argument is invalid, I challenge you to justify why. I - along with others -  have already presented extensive reasons why they are valid and due consideration. You have answered none of them. Don't keep running away from the main arguments by:

 

1) Claiming that they're "non - facts", writing them off completely so you don't have to tackle them

2) Attacking only the most irrelevant examples

3) Going on to provide your own hypothetical constructs which you quite ironically present as "the facts" instead.

4) Claiming that the whole mess of disjointed thoughts, extremely poorly reasoned cop - outs, and equally unverifiable "what ifs" you've presented somehow magically justifies piracy.

 

You have presented no "facts" or "financial graphs". Just because numbers were present in your post does not make it a "fact". Those numbers were merely to simulate a hypothetical scenario for better understanding, a situation based on several assumptions. Assumptions that are the real underlying basis for justifying that scenario. And as mentioned, your grounds for arguing validity for your scenario are equally weak as anyone else's predictions, if not more so. If I claim that 10 people love me based on the grounds of "because I'm awesome", the numbers alone are not what makes the statement a fact or fiction.

 

Also, if you're  going to make some vague statement about the "Anti - pirate people accusing the other side of things they do themselves", I'm going to have to ask you to explain this. It's a pointed accusation which you've made a couple of times now, I believe. And as is par for the course, you've given no reasoning to support it.

 

This one also made me laugh a bit:

 

 If you look at it from the perspective of a developer, and if you look at it in a POSITIVE way

 

 

"If the guy I extorted actually looked at it in a POSITIVE way, I was merely offering him an amazing trade to give me a mere hundred bucks in exchange for his priceless life!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of selling 500 (if pirating didn't exist) he probably would have sold 900, and 150 of them may have hated the game once they got it, but they still would have paid for it. Like I said... in the era of the NES people who would pirate now would simply buy the game and test it out and hope to whatever deity they worship it was good.

 

Also, if you have actually found a flaw in me scanning through the guy's example, may you please explain how out of total of 1000 people (500 who bought and 500 who pirated) you suddenly get 1050?

 

900 - 150 = 750 = the number of people in the original argument that bought the game at some point.

900 is the number of people in Rathlord's example that bought the game, 150 more than in the buy-after-pirating example.

 

Elementary (math), my dear Watson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You - are - arrogant, but not really because of the tone of your reply, that's just a minor part compared to the elephant in the room. It's because - as showcased by every single one of your posts in this thread - You quite obviously think your reasoning is already too good to stoop to things like actually reading and responding to the points that were already made to old arguments. Multiple times, even. You have not justified anything you've said with any modicum of reasoning, except with silly and condescendingly insulting "I'm right, and you're wrong!" proclamations with no basis or any attempt at explanation, like:

 

With your example over there you CLEARLY made it obvious that piracy doesn't hurt you in a financial way

 

Now the pirated copy of the game might LOOK like a missed sale, but let me tell ya', MAJORITY of those who pirate, if they were stood between a choise of "buy or not to buy" unable to pirate the game, they won't.

 

We can argue tirelessly over hours and days and weeks about how unfair it is to pirate a game and how a developer feels about it, but in the end, I'd rather have a discussion that is more based on FACTS, rather than assumptions and "what if"s

 

 

What's really amazing is that you say you'd rather have a discussion based on facts, but are still able to concoct a scenario based on your own set of 'what ifs' - "What if" out of the 500 pirates, 250 bought the game? "What if" majority of those who pirate simply don't buy the game if they can't pirate? etc, etc. Just because you phrase them as "This is right!" certainties with some implied statement that they're as solid as "financial graphs" doesn't make them any less of a hypothetical scenario, with no basis in fact. (The original example you were referring to was weak for that reason as well). In actuality your hypothesis is even worse than some others presented, because you just claim it as "fact" without even the support of reasoning out why it is likely so.

 

If you're claiming that feelings shouldn't be taken as consideration, if the fair play argument is invalid, I challenge you to justify why. I - along with others -  have already presented extensive reasons why they are valid and due consideration. You have answered none of them. Don't keep running away from the main arguments by:

 

1) Claiming that they're "non - facts", writing them off completely so you don't have to tackle them

2) Attacking only the most irrelevant examples

3) Going on to provide your own hypothetical constructs which you quite ironically present as "the facts" instead.

4) Claiming that the whole mess of disjointed thoughts, extremely poorly reasoned cop - outs, and equally unverifiable "what ifs" you've presented somehow magically justifies piracy.

 

You have presented no "facts" or "financial graphs". Just because numbers were present in your post does not make it a "fact". Those numbers were merely to simulate a hypothetical scenario for better understanding, a situation based on several assumptions. Assumptions that are the real underlying basis for justifying that scenario. And as mentioned, your grounds for arguing validity for your scenario are equally weak as anyone else's predictions, if not more so. If I claim that 10 people love me based on the grounds of "because I'm awesome", the numbers alone are not what makes the statement a fact or fiction.

 

Also, if you're  going to make some vague statement about the "Anti - pirate people accusing the other side of things they do themselves", I'm going to have to ask you to explain this. It's a pointed accusation which you've made a couple of times now, I believe. And as is par for the course, you've given no reasoning to support it.

 

This one also made me laugh a bit:

 

 If you look at it from the perspective of a developer, and if you look at it in a POSITIVE way

 

 

"If the guy I extorted actually looked at it in a POSITIVE way, I was merely offering him an amazing trade to give me a mere hundred bucks in exchange for his priceless life!"

 

 

I do read and try to understand the point that the other side is giving to me. I also understood the policies of the "fair play" and how it is unfair from a business perspective related to the Developer. It started to get on my nerves when you in particular talked about it in a different way over and over again, sometimes missing out on the point that I wanted to get across, just to prove that your term is correct, as if you already haven't for like a dozenth time. I did mention that you were right in some extent, but some of your examples just looked way out of place and IMO weren't correct to apply them in this discussion. What did I get in return? You, explaining what a "fair play" is in a different way.

 

Do get this - I was responding to a guy who made a very flawed post about why piracy is bad for the Developer, when all he pointed in the example was Developer getting sad for seeing 500 pirate downloads. Although he did wrote : "let's say even 250 out of those 500 people liked the game and bought it", and I tried to (with his own logical path) prove him wrong. I did not get numbers out of my head, I did not "assume" that 250 bought the game, I even put 'what-ifs' in brackets to illustrate the way OP was spreading his point around.

 

If you wrote that it means I got my point across.

 

The exact same reason why policemen don't arrest people when someone claims that "Whatever the guy did is unfair". From the business standpoint, however the salesman feels about the trade does not matter financially. When he sells something, he takes the object from the stock and gives it away, receiving money for this. In this case he looses that 1 item but gains money in return. Then, he uses (let's say) 2/4 of that money to refill the empty place in the stock with a new object. Whatever is left (In our case - 2/4 from the deal) - is a profit. When someone steals that object from the stock with no intention to pay for it, salesman looses that initial cost he spent on buying the object, meaning he did not just "not receive profit", but also lost the money he bought the object for. He is deprived of both : Money to buy the future object in the stock, and profit. In this case - This is a crime; -Robbery- .

 

That does not apply to the digital stock management. You may pay to store the file on the server, but the amount of downloads this file gets does not depend on how many of it's copies you bought initially. You do not pay for each of the copy individually. A copy of the file does not cost you any extra money. You do not refill the stock.

 

So, whenever someone buys a copy of the game, you gain a "clear profit". (minus the costs to create the game + storing 1 file on the server). When someone downloads not legitimate copy of the game, you do not exactly "lose the copy from the stock" (For two reasons : Whoever cracked the original copy had to buy it first, and a copies of "cracked version" are most likely stored on a different server, independant from you). You are not deprived of any money whatsoever. You carry on the deal, as if nobody bought the copy yet. You are however deprived of "potential profit" that you would've carried out if the said person who pirated the game - bought it instead. But the "potential profit" is not physical, meaning technically you are not deprived of it, as you never had it in the first place. -This is a crime. But it is not a robbery.

 

This isn't my another one of "hypothetical constructs" as you claim. That is how businesses work.

 

On conclusion, from the business standpoint, piracy does not do anything relatively bad, however it does from emotional/thoughtful one. I get your point, and I see what you mean behind the "Fair use" policy. But it is relatively incorrect to include emotional/thoughtful point into business one and claim piracy as robbery based on just that.

 

And I get it - you did spread your point across about what "fair use" is. I don't want to end up with yet another big post explaining to me in high detail what it is. I'd rather love a much more grounded reply that proves me wrong from the "business point" about the piracy. I can't argue about "Fair Use" policy, because honestly, I agree with it. I don't agree to the way it is used in this arguement, however. Or do I also have to clarify why these are two different things? I hope all of it answers your demand.

 

Facts don't have to be written in a science book as a thermin to be a fact. An example that handles the things the way they would in real life can also be considered a fact. The logical chain that follows in an example is not "fictional", it's how it will go when it'll happend, and there is no way you can make it go otherwise, unless you change the example and it's logical chain/fundament itself.

 

As for my "accusation", I already told you why I did that a couple of paragraphs earlier.

 

That line was nothing more than an attempt to portray a developer who would've taken the time to consider if those 500 downloads actually were a "monetary loss" or not. It was all regarding his example, so don't take any of the points to the level of "I have wrote this in a way I wanted to have people see it". Yes, I considered the statement "even if 250 people out of those 500 actually bought it" positive, and wanted to spread this view to the OP.

 

Does this look like a less arrogant reply now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, your latest post comes across as significantly less arrogant now, but I will point out that it's because you've quietly backtracked on many things that you were strongly asserting, much earlier:

I just can't stop getting amazed how the anti-pirate people started off with the facts and ended up talking about feelings of people and how they react to the piracy, instead of taking an actual review of financial graphs.

You were saying, quite directly, that the feelings of developers are not considered facts. What you're saying now is this:

And I get it - you did spread your point across about what "fair use" is. I don't want to end up with yet another big post explaining to me in high detail what it is. I'd rather love a much more grounded reply that proves me wrong from the "business point" about the piracy. I can't argue about "Fair Use" policy, because honestly, I agree with it. I don't agree to the way it is used in this arguement, however. Or do I also have to clarify why these are two different things? I hope all of it answers your demand.

...That you agree with...What, exactly? You agree on principles of fair use but you think that developers are not allowed to think that they are treated unfairly? Or that you agree that developers can feel unfairly treated, but that this is not allowed to be considered one of the "facts" of the discussion for some reason?

Come clear on what you're actually saying here, and make stand on what you mean by "I don't agree to how it's used in this argument":

1) Whether you think the developers feeling unfairly treated is considered one of the "facts" to be considered, and if not:

2) Why is the perception of unfair treatment not considered a fact

Yes, you can ask only for opinions of the business aspect of piracy, but that is just one of the factors to be considered, not the be - all - end - all argument. If you acknowledge that developers are justified in feeling unfairly treated, then that's one of the facts to be considered when talking about piracy, unlike what you asserted earlier about that being "non - facts".

Next up, you now claim that you were "just" innocently making a point that there are other possible outcomes to Crazyeyes' example:

Do get this - I was responding to a guy who made a very flawed post about why piracy is bad for the Developer, when all he pointed in the example was Developer getting sad for seeing 500 pirate downloads. Although he did wrote : "let's say even 250 out of those 500 people liked the game and bought it", and I tried to (with his own logical path) prove him wrong. I did not get numbers out of my head, I did not "assume" that 250 bought the game, I even put 'what-ifs' in brackets to illustrate the way OP was spreading his point around.

If you wrote that it means I got my point across.

....Except you didn't just present a potential alternative as such. You went all the way to claim that your hypothesis was the correct outcome, earlier:

With your example over there you CLEARLY made it obvious that piracy doesn't hurt you in a financial way, but instead brings profit.

Majority of examples I've seen were mostly built on "what if"s and "developers feelings". If you look at it from the perspective of a developer, and if you look at it in a POSITIVE way, "What if" there were no pirates, and the game was only bought by 500 people? The other 500 obviously would have no way to pirate the game, so they'd just walk by. Developer is left with overall sold 500 copies of the game, Period. He ends up with less money, but his feelings are good because he never knows about those 500 who did not buy the game.

Now, out of those 500 people who pirated, 250 actually liked the game, and bought it, leaving a developer with overall 750 copies sold. That's no less than 1/4 of what he has gained profit from so far, and it's actually a damn achievement. In the end you gain more profit than from original sells, but hell, you feel shittier because you now know that you didn't sell those extra 250 copies. Pretty bad, right?

Now the pirated copy of the game might LOOK like a missed sale, but let me tell ya', MAJORITY of those who pirate, if they were stood between a choise of "buy or not to buy" unable to pirate the game, they won't. That is like counting how many people have watched the trailer and comparing it to overall sales. Trailer got around 1000 views but you only ever sold 750 copies. Oh no, now I feel like it was a missed sale. It wasn't though.

So yes, your stance is more reasonable now - But only because you've changed your stance midway. You were not just "spreading your views" on an alternate outcome. You were, in fact, making the claim that your hypothesis was the correct one, and Crazyeyes' was wrong.


As for this point:

The exact same reason why policemen don't arrest people when someone claims that "Whatever the guy did is unfair". From the business standpoint, however the salesman feels about the trade does not matter financially. When he sells something, he takes the object from the stock and gives it away, receiving money for this. In this case he looses that 1 item but gains money in return. Then, he uses (let's say) 2/4 of that money to refill the empty place in the stock with a new object. Whatever is left (In our case - 2/4 from the deal) - is a profit. When someone steals that object from the stock with no intention to pay for it, salesman looses that initial cost he spent on buying the object, meaning he did not just "not receive profit", but also lost the money he bought the object for. He is deprived of both : Money to buy the future object in the stock, and profit. In this case - This is a crime; -Robbery- .

That does not apply to the digital stock management. You may pay to store the file on the server, but the amount of downloads this file gets does not depend on how many of it's copies you bought initially. You do not pay for each of the copy individually. A copy of the file does not cost you any extra money. You do not refill the stock.

So, whenever someone buys a copy of the game, you gain a "clear profit". (minus the costs to create the game + storing 1 file on the server). When someone downloads not legitimate copy of the game, you do not exactly "lose the copy from the stock" (For two reasons : Whoever cracked the original copy had to buy it first, and a copies of "cracked version" are most likely stored on a different server, independant from you). You are not deprived of any money whatsoever. You carry on the deal, as if nobody bought the copy yet. You are however deprived of "potential profit" that you would've carried out if the said person who pirated the game - bought it instead. But the "potential profit" is not physical, meaning technically you are not deprived of it, as you never had it in the first place. -This is a crime. But it is not a robbery.

Yes, I am aware that it is not a robbery. A robbery, by definition - Involves unlawful use of force. Piracy is closer to the definition of theft, which is what you're really arguing here. For the benefit of the discussion I'll include the textbook definition of theft, courtesy of Wikipedia and Merriam - Webster:

theft noun \ˈtheft\

Definition of THEFT

1

a
:
the act of stealing;
specifically
:
the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

b
:
an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

In common usage,
theft
is the taking of another person's
without that person's permission or
with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

So no, piracy is not robbery - It does not involve force. However, a very real case can be made for piracy being considered theft. Before anyone gets started on "But the owner isn't deprived of the original copy!", I will point out that piracy already unquestionably fulfills the first half of 1a, and the conditions for 1b, if we're going to get pedantic and argue about dictionary definitions.

That's not including what has already been discussed to death about the deprivation of control and deprivation of a developer's freedom of choice regarding how to sell and market their product. Which fall under the definition of "Hurt feelings", to put it rather simplistically.

So - Piracy is a crime. It is not a robbery, however there are extremely strong grounds for considering it theft morally. My entire argument on fair play was leading up to that, even if you didn't catch the point. Legally, it is already considered theft. You are just repeating the same old argument about costs and potential profit and using that to try to justify piracy as "not theft". No. There is no exception clause in the definition for something being "not theft" just because you think that the developer did not lose anything material. You:

1) Took something that belongs to another person,

2) Did it without consent - Indeed, often against the other person's wishes

and (What my arguments were pointing towards):

3) You deprived the other person of several things in relation to the product - Most importantly being freedom of choice, because you coerced them into accepting a deal they did not want.

What you're doing is taking just one subset of "Deprivation" - potential profits - and getting hung up over it. I fully admit that this point is debatable - But it's debatable on both sides of the fence - Your potential "profits" hinges on the blithe assumption that the developer has already broke even on the development costs. Someone else might consider the equally possible scenario where the developer is not able to recoup his costs, ends up having to downsize/close down the company - A "Potential loss". Neither argument is stronger than the other. (In fact, that it could either be potential profits or potential losses to the company was already discussed long ago) You are considering profits and losses on a limited, per - product basis. It is however also justifiable from a business perspective to look at profits and losses from an overall perspective - Whether the product has covered all the sunk costs involved in developing it. Operational costs are not the only valid argument to be had.

Your "Potential" profits argument, in other words, is not the concluding argument for the business side of things that you seem to think it is. It is not a "fact". It is an opinion you have of what might be the outcome - Based on many underlying assumptions. You may be right. However, you could just as readily be wrong. You consistently fail to realize that many of your arguments hinge on future predictions that you are hard - pressed to justify as inherently superior to the other side's opinion.

The point was to show that all the conditions for piracy to be considered an immoral act, akin or equal to theft / extortion are already fulfilled. Numbers 1, 2, and 3 are already justified, whatever the outcome of the contentious subset of point 3 - The monetary side of things. Hence the number of statements that your arguments - Whatever the results - were already mostly irrelevant.

So no, I did not "misunderstand" you and ended up repeating irrelevant arguments - You failed to understand how my point was meant to address the more readily proven part of number 3 (Emotional/mental losses) because you are constantly harping on the idea of "potential profits" and failing to follow the discussion as it has evolved.

This isn't my another one of "hypothetical constructs" as you claim. That is how businesses work.

You miss the point. The hypothetical construct I was referring to is the scenario that you claimed was true based on your own underlying assumptions (Pirates who don't have the ability to pirate a game will simply not buy it, etc). This hypothesis:

If you look at it from the perspective of a developer, and if you look at it in a POSITIVE way, "What if" there were no pirates, and the game was only bought by 500 people? The other 500 obviously would have no way to pirate the game, so they'd just walk by. Developer is left with overall sold 500 copies of the game, Period. He ends up with less money, but his feelings are good because he never knows about those 500 who did not buy the game.

Now, out of those 500 people who pirated, 250 actually liked the game, and bought it, leaving a developer with overall 750 copies sold. That's no less than 1/4 of what he has gained profit from so far, and it's actually a damn achievement. In the end you gain more profit than from original sells, but hell, you feel shittier because you now know that you didn't sell those extra 250 copies. Pretty bad, right?

Now the pirated copy of the game might LOOK like a missed sale, but let me tell ya', MAJORITY of those who pirate, if they were stood between a choise of "buy or not to buy" unable to pirate the game, they won't. That is like counting how many people have watched the trailer and comparing it to overall sales. Trailer got around 1000 views but you only ever sold 750 copies. Oh no, now I feel like it was a missed sale. It wasn't though.

...In which you made no mention of stocking costs, digital stock management and other business concerns. Your hypothesis only talked about probable behaviors on the part of the consumer. Which, I emphasize again, you quite vehemently asserted to be the true outcome of events.

Next:

Facts don't have to be written in a science book as a thermin to be a fact. An example that handles the things the way they would in real life can also be considered a fact. The logical chain that follows in an example is not "fictional", it's how it will go when it'll happend, and there is no way you can make it go otherwise, unless you change the example and it's logical chain/fundament itself.

Somewhat incoherent, but I think I get what you're trying to say, and I agree. However, you still do not justify how the aforementioned hypothetical construct is more true than what Crazyeyes has presented. "Let me tell ya, this is how people are going to react" is not valid reasoning.

Both of your (Yours and Crazyeyes') scenarios are based on equally shaky ground as it stands - Your own observations and conclusions of how society would react in a hypothetical situation. Your assumption that a large portion of pirates would not buy the game anyway, or your assumption that a large portion of pirates would buy the game anyway - They're all weak arguments. I would remind you that in your presentation of your scenario, you did not give any reasonable proof why a lot of people who like the game would not buy it anyway, were they not able to pirate it. You talk about logical chains, but you have not even justified the underlying assumption of your scenario. The only "chain" came afterwards when you said that because of your assumptions, it would produce a certain outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...That you agree with...What, exactly? You agree on principles of fair use but you think that developers are not allowed to think that they are treated unfairly? Or that you agree that developers can feel unfairly treated, but that this is not allowed to be considered one of the "facts" of the discussion for some reason?

 

Come clear on what you're actually saying here, and make stand on what you mean by "I don't agree to how it's used in this argument":

 

1) Whether you think the developers feeling unfairly treated is considered one of the "facts" to be considered, and if not:

2) Why is the perception of unfair treatment not considered a fact

 

 

You don't need to tell me how to properly make a point and defend it if you haven't fully understood what I was trying to get to you. The difference between me and you is a language barrier. As much as I know English, I don't have as much practice of properly delivering my thoughts through text as you. I might miss good chunks of proper explanation or logical connection, but that is just the way I am.

 

I was never implying that Developer's feelings are not a fact, and that a "Fair Use" is a pointless term in this arguement. It is however rather irrelevant (Again IMO) to include it here, as I might aswell easily reverse the point and count as many unfair things from developer's side and deliver it as a crime.

 

The most bothersome thing about the digital management that frustrated the nuts out of me was the way it was delivered to it's customers - when you buy a copy, you buy it for life, doesn't matter if in the end the product doesn't even work - no refunds, and DARE to try sell that copy to someone else. I want the games that I buy to be mine, I don't want to get sued just because I sold a copy of the game I BOUGHT to someone else. I also want to make sure I can atleast PLAY the game when I buy it, but you buy it on your own fear and risk.

 

From Developer's standpoint of view, they are also (in an arguable way) forcing the deal their way. Some of them work their ASSES off to make sure the money you put into the deal won't go back, aswell as still retaining control over the copy of their product even AFTER IT WAS SOLD TO CUSTOMER. That is almost similar to when you sell your radio controlled toy car to the customer and never give out that remote device to control it. You just end up playing with it like it's a normal car, and you can't sell it to someone else as "radio controlled car toy", because there is no remote to it. Is this example relevant to this case? Most likely no. Is it as equally unfair? Yes. Does anybody care and compare it to the crime, accusing them of unfairly selling us copies of games while still retaining control over it? Almost nobody, because it seems like the customers have long adapted to it.

 

If we cannot assume that all people who pirate do that because developers are selling out games at unreasonably high price + not allowing the refund + not giving us full control of the copy (As all we really lose is an opportunity to do whatever we want with an item that we bought), we cannot assume that developers suffer from people breaking the "fair use" policy, as technically all they really loose is a non-existant, non-physical item like "potential profit".

 

I think it will be fair of me if I say that if developers want to encourage people into equal, fair deals, they should start off from changing themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

Edit :

 

 

 

Facts don't have to be written in a science book as a thermin to be a fact. An example that handles the things the way they would in real life can also be considered a fact. The logical chain that follows in an example is not "fictional", it's how it will go when it'll happend, and there is no way you can make it go otherwise, unless you change the example and it's logical chain/fundament itself.

 

 

Somewhat incoherent, but I think I get what you're trying to say, and I agree. However, you still do not justify how the aforementioned hypothetical construct is more true than what Crazyeyes has presented. "Let me tell ya, this is how people are going to react" is not valid reasoning.

 

 

My entire point of that reply was to show how much things would change if they went the way you people want. You have already not once told us that "If you don't have the money/don't feel like buying/don't think the game deserves/all other reasons you have to pirate, Don't buy it!", so I pushed away from that.

 

Piracy still exists because people have reasons to do it. Those who do not pirate just either don't have them and/or aren't looking for one. Shall we we judge this way, Crazy's example would not magically turn "pirates" into "legitimate customers". You look for a reason to pirate because you don't want to spend money on product. Shall Piracy not exist, you wouldn't want to spend money on that product any more than you already are. So in the end, you are most likely ending up never buying that product.

 

That was everything I was trying to point out in that rummage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't need to tell me how to properly make a point and defend it if you haven't fully understood what I was trying to get to you. The difference between me and you is a language barrier. As much as I know English, I don't have as much practice of properly delivering my thoughts through text as you. I might miss good chunks of proper explanation or logical connection, but that is just the way I am.

 

...Still with this accusation that I didn't understand you? Claiming language problems is the easiest way to avoid admitting that you made gross errors in reasoning your stand. If the problem was really language, we'd be seeing poorly - worded reasoning, something along the lines of your last paragraph that I quoted as being somewhat incoherent, but that I still agreed to. Poorly worded, probably with spelling and grammar errors, but the intent and the reason being given would still be relatively clear.

 

That is not the case for a large portion of your early statements. There was simply little to no attempt at reasoning, however poorly - worded. Language was not the problem.

 

 

 

The most bothersome thing about the digital management that frustrated the nuts out of me was the way it was delivered to it's customers - when you buy a copy, you buy it for life, doesn't matter if in the end the product doesn't even work - no refunds, and DARE to try sell that copy to someone else. I want the games that I buy to be mine, I don't want to get sued just because I sold a copy of the game I BOUGHT to someone else. I also want to make sure I can atleast PLAY the game when I buy it, but you buy it on your own fear and risk.

 

From Developer's standpoint of view, they are also (in an arguable way) forcing the deal their way. Some of them work their ASSES off to make sure the money you put into the deal won't go back, aswell as still retaining control over the copy of their product even AFTER IT WAS SOLD TO CUSTOMER. That is almost similar to when you sell your radio controlled toy car to the customer and never give out that remote device to control it. You just end up playing with it like it's a normal car, and you can't sell it to someone else as "radio controlled car toy", because there is no remote to it. Is this example relevant to this case? Most likely no. Is it as equally unfair? Yes. Does anybody care and compare it to the crime, accusing them of unfairly selling us copies of games while still retaining control over it? Almost nobody, because it seems like the customers have long adapted to it.

 

If we cannot assume that all people who pirate do that because developers are selling out games at unreasonably high price + not allowing the refund + not giving us full control of the copy (As all we really lose is an opportunity to do whatever we want with an item that we bought), we cannot assume that developers suffer from people breaking the "fair use" policy, as technically all they really loose is a non-existant, non-physical item like "potential profit".

 

 

No. And the reason for rejecting your premise is quite simply this: You are not, and have never been "forced" into buying a game and living with a developer's terms (Money, Respect for their IP, Terms of Service, etc).

 

If you feel a developer is offering unfair terms, overhyping his product, not giving you enough information via a demo, etc. you have the choice simply not to give your money to them for their product. If the developer feels that you are offering unfair terms, they still have little to no choice but to watch you take and pirate their game.

 

Therein lies the difference. There's where the discrepancy of Freedom of Choice between the pirate and the developer comes in. That's a point that has been explained to you, multiple times. You complain a lot about "repetitive arguments", but the only reason they're being repeated is that you repeatedly ignore them in favour of chanting the same old lines about "Potential profits" and "Developer's terms don't meet my requirements", justifications that have already been thoroughly examined and shown to be weak with other posters.

 

 

My entire point of that reply was to show how much things would change if they went the way you people want. 

 

Piracy still exists because people have reasons to do it. Those who do not pirate just either don't have them and/or aren't looking for one. Shall we we judge this way, Crazy's example would not magically turn "pirates" into "legitimate customers". You look for a reason to pirate because you don't want to spend money on product. Shall Piracy not exist, you wouldn't want to spend money on that product any more than you already are. So in the end, you are most likely ending up never buying that product.

 

"How much things might change if they went the way we want". Someone still hasn't learned his lesson about making unverified claims about future scenarios.

 

That explanation makes two major assumptions:

 

1) It assumes that the motivation for everyone is the same "You look for a reason to pirate because you don't want to spend money on the product". No, I could like the product enough to spend money on it, but I just don't do that because there's a no - cost alternative in piracy.

 

2) It assumes that the original argument is that "all" pirates would turn into legitimate customers. Of course not all pirates would magically turn into legitimate customers. The point being made is that those who do become legitimate customers would be giving to the developer more of what they deserved, what they were being deprived of before. Just because the new situation is not perfect does not mean it is not an improvement over the old.

 

So once again, your hypothetical scenario - and the conclusion - remains founded on the basis of weak assumptions. 

 

 

 

I was never implying that Developer's feelings are not a fact, and that a "Fair Use" is a pointless term in this arguement. 

 

Yes. Yes, you were:

 

I just can't stop getting amazed how the anti-pirate people started off with the facts and ended up talking about feelings of people and how they react to the piracy, instead of taking an actual review of financial graphs.

 

 

We can argue tirelessly over hours and days and weeks about how unfair it is to pirate a game and how a developer feels about it, but in the end, I'd rather have a discussion that is more based on FACTS, rather than assumptions and "what if"s. 

 

 

 

There's no misunderstanding here, and thankfully this time I scarcely need to explain why. If you were simply bad at English, that is no real impediment to constructive debate - Everyone else might have some trouble understanding what you were trying to say, but we would understand your reasons for it once we figured how to work through the language barrier.

 

It's a different matter entirely when you're just being intellectually dishonest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...