Piracy

[Yantelope]

So what you mean to say was that you didn't post in honesty before, you were just trolling?

 

I think that actually IS an offense according to our rules.

I was merely trying to point out Deans comparison as being a silly one in a humorous fashion.

 

Oh, yeah, I've brought up libraries before. I do think it's funny that you can borrow movies and music which are easily ripable but you don't see publishers complaining about them like you see them complaining about used game sales and gamestop.

[MasterDex]

So what you mean to say was that you didn't post in honesty before, you were just trolling?

 

I think that actually IS an offense according to our rules.

I was merely trying to point out Deans comparison as being a silly one in a humorous fashion.

 

Oh, yeah, I've brought up libraries before. I do think it's funny that you can borrow movies and music which are easily ripable but you don't see publishers complaining about them like you see them complaining about used game sales and gamestop.

 

...and piracy. You can't talk about the rights and wishes of the publisher, label us immoral and then make a comment on the hilarity of a publisher angry about consumers not respecting their wishes and buying used.

[Yantelope]

Why not?

[MasterDex]

Why not?

Because when you use the rights and wishes of the publisher to prove a clear immorality in piracy then ignore the rights and wishes of the publisher when they don't agree with your views on used games, you're being a hypocrite.

[VicariousShaner]

I'm sure people buying Assassin's Creed weren't looking forward to watching guards hump walls, or riding horses that get twisted around bizarrely. Or that in Red Dead Redemption, that people would have to watch out for cougar people, ride donkey-faced women, do missions with a gunslinging coyote, or watch people fly around in the sky with knees bent, flapping their arms like birds.

 

I think that latter example was something that probably did not dissuade many people about buying the game. I mean, that stuff was not entirely common, did not effect the actual game much, and was also hilarious.

Edited October 8, 2011 by VicariousShaner

[Yantelope]

There's nothing hypocritical about saying that the publisher should respect consumers rights just as consumers should respect publishers rights.

[MasterDex]

No, but there's something hypocritical about claiming we've done something immoral by not complying with the rights and wishes of the publisher while having no problem with not doing so yourself in the case of used games.

[Yantelope]

You're not breaching any legal or moral rights by buying used games IMO. I'm not the one who brought the "wishes" of the publishers into the equation. You guys somehow tried to justify pirating saying that sometimes developers encourage piracy.

[RockyRan]

You're not breaching any legal or moral rights by buying used games IMO. I'm not the one who brought the "wishes" of the publishers into the equation. You guys somehow tried to justify pirating saying that sometimes developers encourage piracy.

 

"Somehow"? That's awfully dismissive of the point, don't you think? You know exactly what point we were trying to make when saying that.

[fuchikoma]

You're not breaching any legal or moral rights by buying used games IMO. I'm not the one who brought the "wishes" of the publishers into the equation. You guys somehow tried to justify pirating saying that sometimes developers encourage piracy.

 

 

You didn't seem to disagree that morality was about the will of the rights holders and that legality was not morality, so the natural assumption would be that since you didn't correct us, you agreed? What else are we to conclude from this discussion?

 

Legally, we can say with full confidence that the issue is black and white but ethics differ and it would be incorrect to make the blanket statement that piracy is ethically wrong because ethics are often personal.

It would be shortsighted to assume there is only one issue affecting morality, but yes, my main argument here is that legal or not, neither used games nor piracy helps those who make the games, and it is hypocritical to claim a moral high ground in used games simply because it is legal. Legality and morality are separate issues, and being legal is not the same as being moral, otherwise all forms of corporate exploitation would be morally acceptable.

(...)

It is clearly illegal, but that says nothing of morality.

Trying a product by force before making a purchase isn't an "immoral" act on any plane of reality. It's illegal, sure, but immoral? Forgive me if I don't buy into that notion.

That's not good enough for pirates and they take matters into their own hands. I'm fully willing to argue that even if you played a game that you didn't enjoy and you didn't pay for it then you're still doing something immoral. Your sense of entitlement is what's making you think it's not immoral.

You're confusing morality with legality. It's a common mistake but a mistake nonetheless. MORALS ARE NOT THE SAME AS LAWS.

So can you please explain why you believe that any piracy is immoral? I don't see much objection to the talk of no harm. So far I can only guess it is because it is illegal, and you believe breaking the law is inherently immoral?

 

At this point, we are debating your morality like many people debate "games as art" - that is, without defining the very thing we're debating - which is pointless.

I'd be happy to explain why I think any piracy is immoral. If somebody creates something in order to sell it and is acting under the protection of the law in order to do so I find it wrong for someone else to take that work against the will of the individual or group of people who created it. Many times it's not solely up to the developer to decide this since they sign a contract with a publisher which they have to abide by as well. If everyone who created and legally has rights to the game decided to give it away then fine but then it's not called piracy is it?

 

Ok - so then the immorality comes into play because the pirates are going against the will of the creators, or if nothing else, subverting the way the product was meant to be distributed?

As I said, causing harm is not part of the issue. Much as I hate to have to analogise... If you give blood to a Jenova's witness, that is wrong, even though abiding by their wishes will cause them to be dead while defying them could be the start of a complete recovery. So yes. Don't pirate/buy the games, even though it causes financial harm to a content owner. Content owners (mostly) don't want you to pirate their games so don't do it unless they say you can.

 

In proof reading this, I've just noticed my typo, but I'm leaving it in anyway cos I rather like it.

Yeah, I'm just going to nod and agree with TN an HH here.

Law is not morality. Piracy is definitely grey and I think you need to provide some proof that is it not. I can think of examples from every single industry for how piracy has helped some specific form of media.

 

But your justification for buying used games is:

I mostly buy new but there's actually no argument here because everything I do, buying used games is perfectly legal. Is you argument simply that the morality of your actions is purely based on the profit of a game developer?

 

We could only at this point imagine that your reason for moral objection is because piracy goes against the will of the creators as per how the game should be distributed and used. That would be hypocritical though, because game developers and publishers alike have come out against used game sales, tried to design them out of the picture, and have complained about how much it hurts their profits. Does it have to be both illegal and against the owners' wishes in order to be immoral? You were saying that it would be wrong for the creator to encourage piracy if the publisher did not allow it, or is that not because it's illegal, but breaks their contract?

 

So, again, what is it that makes demo piracy immoral? Is it, in fact, because it is illegal? Because then whatever is legal is moral.

 

You're also making an argument that as long as there's zero impact to the IP owner then the consumer has a right to sample the product prior to a purchase. I don't think you can prove that there's zero impact to the IP owner (based on our scifi timeline argument thingy) but holding that aside I don't agree with the premise of your argument.

You seem to agree it's not because it's illegal. You now say it's not because it violates the creator's wishes. Is it because there IS impact on the IP owner? How?

 

I think after we've spent this much effort digging for some justification for your absolute and unyielding opposition to the premises we've discussed, you owe it to us to make a concise, compelling logical explanation of why it is immoral, or cede that it isn't demonstrably so. In any case, if we still cannot reconcile this issue now, perhaps you should just leave us to explore the topic and conclude that most of us are wrong. (Disagreements from anyone?)

[Yantelope]

 

So, again, what is it that makes demo piracy immoral? Is it, in fact, because it is illegal? Because then whatever is legal is moral.

I'd be happy to explain why I think any piracy is immoral. If somebody creates something in order to sell it and is acting under the protection of the law in order to do so I find it wrong for someone else to take that work against the will of the individual or group of people who created it. Many times it's not solely up to the developer to decide this since they sign a contract with a publisher which they have to abide by as well. If everyone who created and legally has rights to the game decided to give it away then fine but then it's not called piracy is it?

 

Okay, I'm starting to understand what you're asking. In the case of piracy you have a group of people (pirates), who want to acquire that which they have no right to (software) against the will of the IP owners. In the case of used video games you have a goup of people (IP owners) who want to acquire that which they have no right to (software now licensed to the user) against the will of the IP owners (the person who purchased this license in the form of software). I don't see hypocrisy there. Sorry for the confusion.

Edited October 8, 2011 by Yantelope

[TheMightyEthan]

Okay, everyone's talked in circles, we know where everyone stands, no one's changing anyone's mind. So let's talk about something different but related:

 

How do people feel about the situation in which someone buys a game on one system, then later, maybe years later, pirates it on another system? So I buy an Xbox game, then a year or two later it's released on PC and I pirate that. Does it make any difference if at the time of the initial release they categorically stated it would NOT be released on the later system? What if you buy a game on console when you don't have a PC capable of running it, but 5+ years later now you do have a PC that can run it, are you morally obligated to buy the PC version or is it acceptable to pirate it?

 

Thoughts? I think I can guess what Yant and TN will think, but don't let that stop you from weighing in anyway.

 

*Edit* - Also, assume for the sake of argument that I keep my original copy, don't trade it in or give it away or anything, so I still possess whatever ownership rights the initial purchase granted me.

[Thursday Next]

You purchased the right to use that software on that system. If you want the right to use that software on a different system, then you need to pay to do so. I hope TME was sitting down for that one.

 

Personally, I would love for publishers to change this rule. Movie publishers have to an extent with the Triple Play Blu-Ray/DVD/Digital Copy. I'd like to see book publishers do the same with Kindle, so buying a book would give you access to the kindle version too, I'd also be a huge fan of buying on one platform giving you access to all, but so long as we have platform owners, it will never happen.

 

Also, on the "Buying pre-owned is against the publishers wishes" that's a good point. I'd say that while publishers are of course, not fans of the second hand market (though they do what they can to monetise it), they respect your right to sell on what you've purchased and place it above their right to control content, as does the law.

Edited October 8, 2011 by Thursday Next

[Thorgi Duke of Frisbee]

Unless you are 100% certain that the developers/publishers approve of it (like the whole "Transfarring" thing Kojima's doing with the MGS HD package), when it comes to playing the same game on another system, you should buy it again.

[deanb]

Right see I'm fuzzy on this one. Cos ripping DVD films and CD music to another system/format is perfectly fine. Why does that stop with games? (Or is it that Video games Exceptionalism that so often crops up)

[VicariousShaner]

Legally, I believe nothing has changed in that aspect. As Thursday said, you only purchased the right to play it on a single system.

 

Morally is more debatable, I believe. I would personally not be against it here. There is a slim to none chance that a person would buy a game for 2 different system's twice, with some exceptions. I bought the Orange Box twice on consoles and the computer, but that is because of steam sales and the massive differences between the two. Between a completely single player game such as RAGE or Bioshock, there would be absolutely no point in doing so. This of course, leaves the question of why, since you can not usually use multiplayer on pirated copies, bother with pirating the same game. But if it is something small like controller preference or graphics which would make you wish to play it on another system, I would not think that would justify a full purchase.

Edited October 8, 2011 by VicariousShaner

[Yantelope]

Yeah, It's also like how devices like Tivo get a pass despite technically only serving to illegally record content. I agree that we should be making a push to aquire the digital rights to software no matter what platform it's on. Also, I'm not sure that you're entirely correct TN saying you purchased the right to use it on that platform as the DMCA specifically allows cracking of DRM for the purpose of interoperability.

[Thursday Next]

The only video game exemption I'm aware of is ...

(4) Video games accessible on personal computers and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully obtained works, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing for, investigating, or correcting security flaws or vulnerabilities, if:

(i) The information derived from the security testing is used primarily to promote the security of the owner or operator of a computer, computer system, or computer network; and

(ii) The information derived from the security testing is used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate copyright infringement or a violation of applicable law.

http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/

 

TL;DR You may only hack PC games and then only to check for/fix security flaws.

Edited October 8, 2011 by Thursday Next

[TheMightyEthan]

I'm pretty sure it's illegal at least in most cases to pirate a game even if you own it on another platform, I'm more interested in people's opinions on whether it's Right Wrong or Neutral.

 

I'm torn on the issue. On one side I feel like as long as I paid them for the game in the first place the IP owner shouldn't care what system I play it on ultimately. At the same time, however, I recognize that porting a game to different systems requires extra resources, especially if the port is done separately after the fact, and that the IP owner is entitled to compensation if I'm going to make use of the results of that labor (subject to my discussion on sampling ). I also have a small but non-zero collection of games I purchased more than once for different systems, so I can't say owning it once means I wouldn't buy it again, though I tend to only do it if I find the second system's copy for ludicrously cheap *cough*Steam sales*cough*.

[fuchikoma]

Okay, I'm starting to understand what you're asking. In the case of piracy you have a group of people (pirates), who want to acquire that which they have no right to (software) against the will of the IP owners. In the case of used video games you have a goup of people (IP owners) who want to acquire that which they have no right to (software now licensed to the user) against the will of the IP owners (the person who purchased this license in the form of software). I don't see hypocrisy there. Sorry for the confusion.

 

I'm still not satisfied that we've defined morality yet, but we are close, so this will come back to bite us if we carry on any discussion here without establishing a base for comparison.

 

But to make sure we're on the same page, are you saying the creator's wishes do not impact the morality of a decision - it is a matter of respecting or contravening the legal rights of ownership? In other words, it is immoral to break the law?

 

(It really sounds like you're saying that piracy is immoral because it goes against the creator's wishes, but used games are moral because they are legal, and these two value systems directly conflict when applied asymmetrically like this. It is hypocrisy to claim the creator's wishes decide the morality of an action and then claim that something else that violates them is ok. If morality is justified by legality, then we need to address the issues with that as well.)

 

I said "So, again, what is it that makes demo piracy immoral?" But you have not said "morality is" or "it is immoral because;" you simply said what each side is doing. This is just "Accidentally the whole thing" with a new texture. If you can't define the issue, you've no right to argue it. Talking morality with someone who cannot define morality is like asking a gardener to design an apartment building.

 

 

How do people feel about the situation in which someone buys a game on one system, then later, maybe years later, pirates it on another system?

 

That is a very good dilemma... I bought Guitar Hero 3 for PS2, but later bought it for the PC because about 1 in 6 times, I'd load a level and there would be a loud hum all through the song. That made the game unplayable. If the PC version was made and distributed by the same team, I should have pirated it - but it wasn't, it was ported by Aspyr, and they had not sold me a faulty product. I also bought RE4 on GameCube, but later on Wii because I felt the Wiimote aiming would provide a unique novelty over the original version.

 

I think when the versions are more or less comparable, for instance a Dreamcast and PS2 version, or PS3 and 360 version, a case can be made for the consumer that they are just continuing to enjoy the same content. Again as a consequentialist, it is at least not wrong to do this because there is no impact - considering it's unlikely you'd buy two identical copies. However, the teams involved should be considered again - are you cheating people out of a sale who did not get your money for the first copy? That MAY be wrong. Or maybe you can justify that what you're doing is the same thing as if you'd simply dug out your other system and hooked it up? I won't impose a judgment for this onto others, but just mention the different factors to consider.

 

For enhanced versions, like Rez HD, SotC/ICO HD, or maybe even the low-res, widescreen Space Channel 5 pt. 2 on XBLA, I think it can be shown that while the game is the same in spirit and content, the experience of playing it is different, and it warrants some compensation. I also hold this standard to handheld ports. Own a Playstation game? Playing it on PSP now? That game was never pocketable before, and Sony made the Playstation emulator so that you can play games you purchased for the PSP. (Ports are... ports. Clearly it's a different product, running widescreen in your pocket.)

 

Would I always hold myself to the last standard there? Not always - My PSPs run open firmware, and I've ripped FF7 to them, before it was available on the PSP (is it even now?) People asked for this product endlessly, and it was not given to them, so there was no product to buy, thus no product to steal. It may have been an unauthorized use of the game and the emulator, but I was depriving no one of anything, even potentially.

 

This next part concerns the same console, but different game format:

 

Digital copies. I feel that if a game is released as a DRM'ed download, there is a certain understanding that it will not last forever, but I find it especially unscrupulous to sell it one generation after the next, or even to pretend that a copy locked to your hardware or account is a "sale." You can make a case that this is all part of the terms of the agreement, but I feel it's more about lack of consumer choice. My other games, I OWN. I can plug in Super Mario Bros right now and play it on my NES. I can grab my GameBoy and fire up Kirby's Dreamland. When my systems break, I can grab new ones, plug the games in, and keep playing. When this age of consoles has passed, my Wiiware games will only last as long as my Wii - after that, they are also broken. Likewise for any PSN or XBLA game once you cannot log into the service, or when they have stopped offering them for download. Even though you've paid for the games, they are taken away. This goes doubly for XBLI, since you need a net connection to play them; the day they stop allowing logins is the day all those games break for good. The companies that sell these games get to keep my money forever, but I don't get to keep their games, and I feel that's a moral infraction of the customer's right to the product they bought. To this end, I believe the customer is justified in doing what they can to preserve the game.

 

How does this tie into this question? Sometimes DLC is released on disc. I was a huge Wipeout fan. I had to have Wipeout HD. I really, really did not want to buy it as DLC for the reasons I already gave. I wanted to own it. $20 to me is too much for an intangible game, but I'd been waiting for this game since Wipeout XL/2097 (1997) came out. So I bought it. Then not long afterward, the European territories got a disc version. If I'd prepped my PS3 for piracy, I would absolutely pirate the disc copy for long term archival, and have zero qualms about it. Likewise if I'd bought The Lost and the Damned and The Ballad of Gay Tony for GTA4 - I'd argue that I bought the content, have a right to keep the content, and cannot do so with the only means presented to me, so I'd have to copy the permanent copy that was later released.

Edited October 8, 2011 by fuchikoma

[TheFlyingGerbil]

You can buy FF7 for the PSP/PS3 now, in fact it's been out for years.

 

With regard to games on different platforms. I think it is OK to emulate the version you bought on a new system but I don't think it's OK to pirate the new version as that is not what you originally purchased. For example, they've just released super mario land 2 on the eShop for my 3DS. I have many gameboy and GBA games (including SML2) but no console to play them on. If I could be bothered I would feel OK about modding my PSP to play them on that but if I could somehow mod my 3DS to get the eShop download for free, even though it is exactly the same as the original version I would not do that.

[Yantelope]

I cracked my PSP so I could rip my retail copy of FFVII and play it on my PSP. I don't think any of that should be illegal. There used to be an exemption in the DMCA for obsolete videogame formats but it wasn't renewed in 2010.

[Thursday Next]

I cracked my PSP so I could rip my retail copy of FFVII and play it on my PSP. I don't think any of that should be illegal. There used to be an exemption in the DMCA for obsolete videogame formats but it wasn't renewed in 2010.

 

How is it obsolete when you can buy it on that platform?

[Yantelope]

Well, at the time I ripped it you couldn't. I also don't see why publishers should be able to limit what platforms you can use your software on.

[Thursday Next]

It's in the license you agree to. As I've said before it's something that I (and in fact EA judging by some of their public statements) would like to see changed, but it's the fault of platform holders rather than publishers.