Piracy

[Mr. GOH!]

Well from what we'd been told most of those companies don't mind because when you go and work in the business that's what you end up using. And the company will be buying the legit stuff. They're well awarre the average home owner won't be able to pay. But it also gets the name out here. The cover of a magazine is photoshopped, not paintshop pro'd or gimped.

 

As for skeptical I was sure it was a K but chrome carried on trying to correct me. Unless it's a US/UK thing and I'm trying to use a US spelling.

 

Adobe doesn't care about piracy from home users? I did not know that.

 

I do know for a fact that the company has mixed feeling about the use of photoshop as a generic term for photo manipulation because it fears its trademark will become, well, generic.

[HotChops]

 

edit: @Hotchops: I had a topic on the last place called "The Games Industry as gone to shit" Which covered similar topics like all games costing $60 and the publishers having too much power compared to days of old. I could remake it here. I kind of enjoyed it. Even if the name was a bit too inflammatory

 

Whatever's clever, Trevor.

 

If you don't post something, I definitely will later this afternoon. I'm going to go jog and nap first. Nice to know that the subject's been brought up before.

[Little Pirate]

I only pirate DS games. Mainly stuff like My Sims or Animal Crossing. Games that I know I will beat or get bored with in about two hours. I don't want to spend $25-30 on something I'll immediately return or trade back. Now games like Layton and the such I am proud to spend my money on.

 

Otherwise it's just SNES and MAME games that find their way onto my computer.

[Chewblaha]

After my copy of Legend of Legaia shattered (RIP), before I had a job, I downloaded that game with PSX onto my computer and it's still there despite owning two copies of the game now.

[Little Pirate]

Some games are rare to find, too. I tried finding the original Silent Hill because my copy was borrowed and never returned by a friend who moved. No used gaming store had it. The prices on Amazon were ridiculous. Honestly, the pirated version was so laggy and horrible I didn't get to play it all the way through.

 

I know own the copy, mind you. Someone traded it at Gamers and my name was on the waiting list~

[Johnny]

Why should a difference in semantics completely negate the spirit of an argument? Copying might not fit the legal definition of "stealing", but it does fit the legal definition for "copyright infringement." Unlicensed distribution has been proven to incur very real losses in some cases. If you need a rational argument for that, there's plenty of case law out there for you to choose from. Just make sure that you have a legal dictionary handy in addition to that Websters of yours.

The point was not to put up a defense for piracy, the point was to stamp out a misconception that serves as a basis for a lot of people's arguments about piracy. Wether right or wrong, piracy is not theft, logically or legally, and thus basing anything on the "fact" that it's theft is just terrible.

 

As for my own opinions on piracy... Eh, it's a grey area as far as I'm concerned.

[HotChops]

 

edit: @Hotchops: I had a topic on the last place called "The Games Industry as gone to shit" Which covered similar topics like all games costing $60 and the publishers having too much power compared to days of old. I could remake it here. I kind of enjoyed it. Even if the name was a bit too inflammatory

 

Whatever's clever, Trevor.

 

If you don't post something, I definitely will later this afternoon. I'm going to go jog and nap first. Nice to know that the subject's been brought up before.

 

okay, screw the nap. I'm working on the thread now.

[deanb]

bu-u but.

I'm already browsing through the old thread looking for good starter points.

Meh we'll see where yours goes. We may have different things in mind.

[Chewblaha]

Some games are rare to find, too. I tried finding the original Silent Hill because my copy was borrowed and never returned by a friend who moved. No used gaming store had it. The prices on Amazon were ridiculous. Honestly, the pirated version was so laggy and horrible I didn't get to play it all the way through.

 

I know own the copy, mind you. Someone traded it at Gamers and my name was on the waiting list~

 

GameStop no longer takes in old Xbox games, so whenever someone comes in with some, it's nice to see if there's anything they have that I owned before my house was robbed. One time, this thirteen year old kid brought in Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic and I gave him five bucks for it. Yeah the game was kinda scratched, but I cleaned it. It has a couple of minor glitches going through it, but the game remains as fun as I once had it.

 

 

I never knew how to pirate old Xbox games.

[Mr. GOH!]

Pirating is stealing.

People who claim piracy is stealing should not be allowed to enter into any discussion of any sort ever. Why is this, you ask?

Well, because you are basing your whole argument on a FACTUAL ERROR. Why the hell would you do that? You are making yourself look like an idiot while contributing absolutely nothing to the discussion at hand.

Piracy is the act of making a copy of a product. It does not remove the original product. Hence, logically not stealing.

Furthermore, it is not legally considered stealing either. It is considered copyright infringement.

So, oppose piracy if you want to, but please, for the love of whatever deity you believe in, base that on some sort of rational argument, not a plain lie.

 

Why should a difference in semantics completely negate the spirit of an argument? Copying might not fit the legal definition of "stealing", but it does fit the legal definition for "copyright infringement." Unlicensed distribution has been proven to incur very real losses in some cases. If you need a rational argument for that, there's plenty of case law out there for you to choose from. Just make sure that you have a legal dictionary handy in addition to that Websters of yours.

 

What cases have established that unlicensed distribution of virtual media (i.e., piracy) incurs real losses? I don't disbelieve you, I'm just interested in this factual assertion since almost all my knowledge of copyright law stems from decisions of law rather than trial findings of fact. I know that some piracy by businesses (or folks using the media for-profit)demonstrably reduces revenue for the copyright holder, but that's not what we're talking about here.

 

From policy reading, though, my understanding is that although piracy of consumer media has some effect on revenues, there's not really much agreement as to the extent of that effect. Some (overly simplistic) sources assume that every pirated copy is a loss in revenue equal to the consumer price of the media, while others factor in the fact that a lot of pirates wouldn't download the media but for the fact it's free, among other methodological differences. I also recall that most studies have been about mp3 and film piracy, which are different beasts than game piracy for a number of reasons.

 

 

Just to reiterate: piracy is illegal, and the pirate does benefit from a work without compensating the creators or owners of that work. I do not advocate piracy at all.

[CorgiShinobi]

Piracy is a form of theft, not in the literal sense because that applies to what you may call the "physical realm." Prepare for analogies, alright?

 

You know how the used games business receives a negative reputation? That it builds upon the work of the video game industry, but keeps its profit in regional business. In a sense, more people are experiencing a game than what the sales show.

 

I'm very sure most of us have copied a CD we've purchased, correct? Would I be wrong to say we gave out copies of that CD as well? It's not like we're going back to the store we purchased the disc from and stealing more, but think of it in this manner.

 

If you and four other friends have the same CD, but only purchased one, the artist (and those associated) are out four sales because your one sale has satisfied the wants of five individuals. Instead of that CD being sold for $15.00, it now has been reduced to a sales point of $3.00. Now, how likely is it that out of those four friends will any of them legally own a copy? I mean, the disc may be silver and say "Memorex," but it contains the same material as the disc on a store shelf.

 

Now you may justify this as a unique experience. Exactly how many others could possibly fit this same scenario? I find that as we advance in technology, the common man is capable of far more illegal behavior online. The conscience is soothed more as you have no physical manifestation of your possession.

 

I'll take a personal example: my roommate's 2TB External Hard-drive. Stored on that device is almost a whole terabyte of DVD rips. From his own mouth, only a handful of those rips are from his own DVDs. The rest are from friends, who (follow me) received it from other friends, and those friends received more from other friends. All along this chain they were ripping their DVDs, going online for pirated copies, illegal theater recordings.

 

The justification: "Well, somewhere along the line someone paid for it."

 

My response: Yes, someone paid for it. Someone. ONE!

 

Now before I'm crucified for my crimes against the Associated Pirates of Entertainment Services, I have done some "pirating." However, I'm under the impression that media unavailable on the current retail market is protected from any law enforcement. I dunno, I'm sure someone will find the legal writing somewhere. Anyway, it was mainly old video games and anime subs. I use to have a modded PSP, so until I reverted back, that was about the extent of my pirating. Well, I guess video game soundtrack rips count as well, but if the music was never compiled into a soundtrack album, I don't think it matters at large.

 

There it is, you can have your way with me you damn dirty APES!

 

EDIT: As far as demoing the game with a pirate copy, as long as you treat it as such, have at it. Thing is, how many people actually adhere to that process? After all, you do have the entire right there. I've found humanity desires laziness, and so I have to wonder what the percentile is for those who back out of the demo behavior.

Edited January 1, 2011 by Atomsk88

[Mr. GOH!]

What cases have established that unlicensed distribution of virtual media (i.e., piracy) incurs real losses? I don't disbelieve you, I'm just interested in this factual assertion since almost all my knowledge of copyright law stems from decisions of law rather than trial findings of fact. I know that some piracy by businesses (or folks using the media for-profit)demonstrably reduces revenue for the copyright holder, but that's not what we're talking about here.

 

I regretted the way I worded that as soon as I hit the submit button. I guess there is no editing it now.

 

That's what I get for trying to post while I'm in the middle of coding and talking to Dean.

 

I didn't mean to imply that any kind of unlicensed distribution is treated as a loss in a general sense. What I meant was that there are cases where plaintiffs have proven damages due to unlicensed distribution. If you are still interested and it wasn't just my poor wording in the OP that intrigued you, then I could find some cases.

 

From policy reading, though, my understanding is that although piracy of consumer media has some effect on revenues, there's not really much agreement as to the extent of that effect. Some (overly simplistic) sources assume that every pirated copy is a loss in revenue equal to the consumer price of the media, while others factor in the fact that a lot of pirates wouldn't download the media but for the fact it's free, among other methodological differences. I also recall that most studies have been about mp3 and film piracy, which are different beasts than game piracy for a number of reasons.

 

How would you approach it?

 

Yeah, I'd be interested, insofar as consumer media piracy goes. I've read cases involving business defendants (even individuals) in which real losses have been proven at trial. That is, the media pirated has been used to make money for the defendant.

 

How would I go about doing a quantitative study on piracy's effects on revenues? Well, I'd do a series of surveys with large n's to get some self-reporting piracy behavior numbers amongst computer gamers and folks who purchase games. I'd also run a series of smaller studies (social science-type experiments) amongst the general population to determine the effects of more specific behaviors, such as how a product's cost affects piracy, the amount of people who would normally pirate a game but would also pay for a game in the absence of a free alternative, and so on. It would have to be a massive study to be definitive. This would be expensive and time-consuming and would likely paint a complicated picture of piracy, so it's doubtful it will get done soon.

 

As it stands, I think a significant number of pirates wouldn't buy the games they pirate at the prices the games currently sell for, but would buy the games for a lower price. I'm not sure what price point would capture some of these pirates, but I suspect that Steam sales manage to get a lot of business from would-be pirates due to the massive discounts and relative ease of use (pirating games can be a hassle for those not savvy).

 

A great number of pirates, I think, wouldn't buy the games they pirate at any price and these pirated games can't be considered a loss in revenue at all (though the pirates still are breaking the law).

[Mr. GOH!]

 

 

Now before I'm crucified for my crimes against the Associated Pirates of Entertainment Services, I have done some "pirating." However, I'm under the impression that media unavailable on the current retail market is protected from any law enforcement. I dunno, I'm sure someone will find the legal writing somewhere. Anyway, it was mainly old video games and anime subs. I use to have a modded PSP, so until I reverted back, that was about the extent of my pirating. Well, I guess video game soundtrack rips count as well, but if the music was never compiled into a soundtrack album, I don't think it matters at large.

 

 

 

Just because it isn't available at retail doesn't mean you can pirate it, at least in the US. Copyright holders may not protect such media, but they very well could.

[CorgiShinobi]

Everyone remember that indie game bundle where the consumer could pick the price to pay? People could have paid a penny and five games would be given to the consumer. However, people still pirated the blasted thing.

 

Not only was money withheld from developers, but it was for a charity as well. I mean, that's even worse than your typical piracy. I forget the percentile, but it sickens me to think that the number of people experiencing those games doesn't equate to the amount raised for a sincere cause.

[CorgiShinobi]

Just because it isn't available at retail doesn't mean you can pirate it, at least in the US. Copyright holders may not protect such media, but they very well could.

All the more reason we should have more video game soundtracks! It seems that honor is only given to Grand Theft Auto and Halo.

 

The only real video game soundtrack I have is the orchestral Super Smash Bros. Melee soundtrack that came in Nintendo Power.

[Mr. GOH!]

Everyone remember that indie game bundle where the consumer could pick the price to pay? People could have paid a penny and five games would be given to the consumer. However, people still pirated the blasted thing.

 

Not only was money withheld from developers, but it was for a charity as well. I mean, that's even worse than your typical piracy. I forget the percentile, but it sickens me to think that the number of people experiencing those games doesn't equate to the amount raised for a sincere cause.

True. And people pirate World of Goo despite the fact that you could pay what you wanted to for it at one point.

 

But that just proves that people will pirate anything, i.e., people will take anything if it's free.

 

On the other hand, the Humble Bundles raised something like $4 million (not sure if that was just the amount for charity or total amount sold).

[deanb]

Everyone remember that indie game bundle where the consumer could pick the price to pay? People could have paid a penny and five games would be given to the consumer. However, people still pirated the blasted thing.

 

Not only was money withheld from developers, but it was for a charity as well. I mean, that's even worse than your typical piracy. I forget the percentile, but it sickens me to think that the number of people experiencing those games doesn't equate to the amount raised for a sincere cause.

 

Just to throw this out there but this time around they've now implemented unique download URLs (Last time they just emailed a single unprotected link to everyone), and added in bittorrent downloads and unlike last time they've given nary a peep on pointing out people are pirating the bundle. People clearly still are, but not as wholesale as last time to cause folks to pipe up about it being a huge issue.

 

A bit of forethought the first time around would of helped with piracy sharing issues the first time around me thinks.

[Cyber Rat]

Just because it isn't available at retail doesn't mean you can pirate it, at least in the US. Copyright holders may not protect such media, but they very well could.

All the more reason we should have more video game soundtracks! It seems that honor is only given to Grand Theft Auto and Halo.

 

The only real video game soundtrack I have is the orchestral Super Smash Bros. Melee soundtrack that came in Nintendo Power.

 

So if you justify pirating game OSTs without a retail release because there should be more, does someone pirating SecuROM and Ubisoft DRM games to prove a point also have a justification?

Edited January 2, 2011 by Cyber Rat

[CorgiShinobi]

Just because it isn't available at retail doesn't mean you can pirate it, at least in the US. Copyright holders may not protect such media, but they very well could.

All the more reason we should have more video game soundtracks! It seems that honor is only given to Grand Theft Auto and Halo.

 

The only real video game soundtrack I have is the orchestral Super Smash Bros. Melee soundtrack that came in Nintendo Power.

 

So if you justify pirating game OSTs without a retail release because there should be more, does someone pirating SecuROM and Ubisoft DRM games to prove a point also have a justification?

That kinda seems like apples and oranges, don'cha think? On one hand, I obtained some audio tracks that were never soundtrack pieces, i.e. Tetris Type A. With SecuROM and Ubisoft DRM, well, they're still games that have a retail value. Just saying, I'm not fully aware if I can actually get in trouble for downloading songs that have no presence on any retail market. Heck, I even checked FYE yesterday to see if they had any other video game soundtracks aside from GTA and Halo. While I found dozens of anime soundtracks, it was as I thought: GTA and Halo.

 

Anyway, I can't help but think of Penny Arcade's take on DRM and piracy.

 

If I may use another analogy, that whole ordeal is like something out of grade school. Say Ubisoft is the teacher and the students are the consumers. Well, obviously you'll have your troublemakers and so those will be the pirates. As a teacher, it's in your best interest to stop the troublemakers(pirates) from causing trouble(piracy). If left alone, the rest of the class may begin to act up and cause trouble themselves due to the lack of authority and/or discipline.

 

However, there are different methods that attempt to correct such behavior. With the "current methods," the rest of the class is feeling punished as well. Why is it that they have to suffer when it's the troublemakers who are responsible. I mean, look at them! They don't even seemed phased by the punishment. It's through this that while the teacher may have wanted to maintain a stable classroom(business), it's resulting in the entire classroom to murmur and view the teacher in a negative light.

 

TL;DR

A company shouldn't be faulted for attempting to prevent piracy, but pirates are gonna pirate. There should be a practical balance and transition in improving anti-piracy technology so that those who follow the rules, a.k.a. "pay," should not feel punished/hindered.

 

EDIT: As far as proving a point...

 

I dunno, do you believe lying to prove someone is a liar to be morally correct?

 

I can understand the logic of doing something illegal to improve on performance, i.e. white hat hackers. If you're going to pirate a game to say, "Hey, I still pirated your game with all that DRM crap," to me that furthers the reasoning to create tougher DRM. I mean, they'll still view it as someone pirating their game, just like a white hat hacker hacked into a network.

Edited January 2, 2011 by Atomsk88

[Cyber Rat]

You are trying to justify your copyright infringement with "it's not available in retail". It is still copyright infringement regardless.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

You are trying to justify your copyright infringement with "it's not available in retail". It is still copyright infringement regardless.

 

Yes, it is, however, besides legality, is there anything wrong with that? I like to think of "morality" when it comes to issues like this in terms of "effect on owner." If it's not released, and someone just rips it from the game, then it's not doing anything to the owner as there was no opportunity to make money off of them. If anything, it's good and free publicity, and gives people a stronger connection to the game (and thus, its sequels.)

 

 

That was way too many commas.

[Johnny]

If I may use another analogy, that whole ordeal is like something out of grade school. Say Ubisoft is the teacher and the students are the consumers. Well, obviously you'll have your troublemakers and so those will be the pirates. As a teacher, it's in your best interest to stop the troublemakers(pirates) from causing trouble(piracy). If left alone, the rest of the class may begin to act up and cause trouble themselves due to the lack of authority and/or discipline.

A closer analogy would be that the teacher is punishing the whole class for a behavior which is not affecting the other students in a real way and in the end the "troublemaker" finds a way to avoid the punishment.

[Cyber Rat]

You are trying to justify your copyright infringement with "it's not available in retail". It is still copyright infringement regardless.

 

Yes, it is, however, besides legality, is there anything wrong with that? I like to think of "morality" when it comes to issues like this in terms of "effect on owner." If it's not released, and someone just rips it from the game, then it's not doing anything to the owner as there was no opportunity to make money off of them. If anything, it's good and free publicity, and gives people a stronger connection to the game (and thus, its sequels.)

 

 

That was way too many commas.

 

Problem is I never brought the morality of any kind of copyright infringement into the discussion. If we're talking legal, then both "real" piracy and ripping resources from a given work counts as copyright infringement, and thus are both a crime. Justifying yourself with "Yea, it's not legal, but I'm not hurting anyone as much as people downloading the whole thing" is kinda hypocritical. I could just as easily justify myself "I'm not hurting anyone by downloading Fallout New Vegas because I never would have bought the game in the first place and my copy didn't stop anyone from enjoying their legally purchased copy, thus no money gained or lost."

Edited January 2, 2011 by Cyber Rat

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

You are trying to justify your copyright infringement with "it's not available in retail". It is still copyright infringement regardless.

 

Yes, it is, however, besides legality, is there anything wrong with that? I like to think of "morality" when it comes to issues like this in terms of "effect on owner." If it's not released, and someone just rips it from the game, then it's not doing anything to the owner as there was no opportunity to make money off of them. If anything, it's good and free publicity, and gives people a stronger connection to the game (and thus, its sequels.)

 

 

That was way too many commas.

 

Problem is I never brought the morality of any kind of copyright infringement into the discussion. If we're talking legal, then both "real" piracy and ripping resources from a given work counts as copyright infringement, and thus are both a crime. Justifying yourself with "Yea, it's not legal, but I'm not hurting anyone as much as people downloading the whole thing" is kinda hypocritical. I could just as easily justify myself "I'm not hurting anyone by downloading Fallout New Vegas because I never would have bought the game in the first place and my copy didn't stop anyone from enjoying their legally purchased copy, thus no money gained or lost."

 

This isn't about you. I'm bringing morality into this because this is a multi-faced issue. I already agreed that it's copyright infringement. You can't argue that. It's law. If that's "okay" or not is thus what should be discussed. I don't see how it's hypocritical. Especially when your example includes full games when we're talking about a game's soundtrack. Keep it consistent. Are we talking about parts of the game (an argument closer to sampling in music than downloading albums) or the games as a whole? The subject at hand is a specific portion of a game that isn't available to be purchased (when other games do have this available to be purchased.) Should people just not download the soundtrack when it isn't available to purchase? Simply because it's illegal? I really don't think so. If anything, disregarding legality, that the studio would be happy to have people enjoy their work and I already mentioned the institutional benefits of this. This is why musicians are typically in support of piracy. They lose the CD sale, and get the concert and t-shirt sale. Developers and publishers will get the sequel sale. The brand loyalty sale. Etc.

[Cyber Rat]

You are trying to justify your copyright infringement with "it's not available in retail". It is still copyright infringement regardless.

 

Yes, it is, however, besides legality, is there anything wrong with that? I like to think of "morality" when it comes to issues like this in terms of "effect on owner." If it's not released, and someone just rips it from the game, then it's not doing anything to the owner as there was no opportunity to make money off of them. If anything, it's good and free publicity, and gives people a stronger connection to the game (and thus, its sequels.)

 

 

That was way too many commas.

 

Problem is I never brought the morality of any kind of copyright infringement into the discussion. If we're talking legal, then both "real" piracy and ripping resources from a given work counts as copyright infringement, and thus are both a crime. Justifying yourself with "Yea, it's not legal, but I'm not hurting anyone as much as people downloading the whole thing" is kinda hypocritical. I could just as easily justify myself "I'm not hurting anyone by downloading Fallout New Vegas because I never would have bought the game in the first place and my copy didn't stop anyone from enjoying their legally purchased copy, thus no money gained or lost."

 

This isn't about you. I'm bringing morality into this because this is a multi-faced issue. I already agreed that it's copyright infringement. You can't argue that. It's law. If that's "okay" or not is thus what should be discussed. I don't see how it's hypocritical. Especially when your example includes full games when we're talking about a game's soundtrack. Keep it consistent. Are we talking about parts of the game (an argument closer to sampling in music than downloading albums) or the games as a whole? The subject at hand is a specific portion of a game that isn't available to be purchased (when other games do have this available to be purchased.) Should people just not download the soundtrack when it isn't available to purchase? Simply because it's illegal? I really don't think so. If anything, disregarding legality, that the studio would be happy to have people enjoy their work and I already mentioned the institutional benefits of this. This is why musicians are typically in support of piracy. They lose the CD sale, and get the concert and t-shirt sale. Developers and publishers will get the sequel sale. The brand loyalty sale. Etc.

 

"This isn't about you?" What?

 

I simply said that both are copyright infringement and thus both illegal. If we're looking it legally, then no, you SHOULDN'T be ripping soundtracks, because it is the law. Now, if we look at it practically, yes, it does serve to promote games. A friend of mine bought Nier because of listening to an illegally obtained OST, thus giving the developers money. And piracy can work the same way. I could pirate a game, see that I actually like it and then pay money for a legal copy. Did I break the law in both cases? Yes. Did the developers gain a sale? Yes they did. The hypocrisy of some people is that the former seems to be perfectly ok, while the latter is frowned upon and put in the same basket with people who pirated the Charity Bundle.

Edited January 3, 2011 by Cyber Rat