Piracy

[fuchikoma]

I would even go so far as to say that given the economic troubles the industry has faced in the last decade, without the worldwide adoption increase due to piracy, there may not BE an anime industry today - or at least it would certainly be smaller and hard to compare to what we have now.

 

While we're speculating you could just as easily say that without piracy the Anime industry wouldn't be struggling.

 

That's fair. It is speculation. However, I think more of the problems the industry faces is due to outsourcing and competition with wages in South Korea or China. It is hard to be competitive in modern Japan as animation pays too little to live on, but too much to make a project profitable for a great number of productions.

 

I have however found an interesting read about how piracy led to the birth of the American anime market though. I can understand skepticism of the source, being firsthand, but this link explains how what may have been the first fansub group was also the first company to commercially translate anime for English audiences as a primary business model, calling it anime. That has led to untold billions of dollars flowing into the Japanese industry in licensing fees and royalties.

[MasterDex]

That's not really true because people knew what Anime was before pirates brought it over. Anime only began because Americans brought their cartoons over to Japan. At best your argument is that Piracy greases the wheels of the market but that's a tenuous argument and it's not to say that it doesn't do so at cost to the IP owners.

'People' is a very generalised term to use. Yes, people knew but that group of people was a limited size. Piracy resulted in more people knowing what anime was. You're also ignoring the majority of my comment and in doing so, misrepresenting what my argument is.

 

I'm arguing that we cannot view piracy as a moral dichotomy.

Edited October 6, 2011 by MasterDex

[Cyber Rat]

Also, you're right, people who had witnessed anime and showed it to friends created a demand for it. If Anime had been shown legally in America the demand would have grown too.

 

But it wasn't, and it's highly questionable whether it ever would have been because Japan produces an insane amount of various media and merchandise, most of which was never brought to the West or if it was, it was heavily modified. Heck, Sengoku Basara 1 and 2 were brought as Devil Kings and were big flops. Then, all of a sudden, Sengoku Basara 3 is brought without the "Westernization" just two years after the anime aired and the Western anime community went berserk over it? The same community which watched it via fansubs?

[Yantelope]

Piracy is a market force.

No, piracy is a product of market forces not a force itself. If supply is low and demand is high piracy increases in order to meet demand.

 

accepting that piracy is a multi-faceted, morally ambiguous force allows us the flexibility to diminish the problems associated with it that the strict, heavy-handed and outdated copyright laws don't have.

 

I don't believe piracy to be morally ambiguous and as such I don't agree that it's a grey area. I don't see anything grey about it. You're only saying it's grey because of this singular argument that piracy helped spread anime which I've also been rebutting.

 

Copyright law is constantly being looked and and lobbied over as is patent law and the vast majority of companies are wanting the rules to be stricter and not more lax. They want the rules to be stricter because they can make more money that way. If piracy really helped them make money they'd be lobbying for it because the most powerful of all motives is the profit motive (this is my opinion but I think it's pretty clearly observable in human behavior).

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

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.

If piracy really helped them make money

 

Here's the thing: How do you quantify that? Business requires numbers, statistics, figures, etc. Just like with any other industry and its piracy it can be hard to attach a figure to things. There's only evidence such as a band suddenly exploding before their album is officially released and people going to their show and knowing all of the songs. How do you attach a statistic to that? For this reason alone piracy will not be looked on as a positive thing to major game companies and it's left to independents to embrace it and use it to their advantage.

[Johnny]

I'd run over anyone's lawn if I had a reason outweighing whatever disadvantages that held.

 

A pity then, that "for my own entertainment" seems such a weighty reason.

 

Remind me to never give analogies a second of my attention. It's like giving people a "feel free to ignore the core of my reply" card.

[Yantelope]

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.

 

Well, so far the only example I've gotten is that piracy might have spread anime and that demoers buy games they pirate. I know law isn't morality which is why I explained my position previously.

 

Here's the thing: How do you quantify that? Business requires numbers, statistics, figures, etc. Just like with any other industry and its piracy it can be hard to attach a figure to things. There's only evidence such as a band suddenly exploding before their album is officially released and people going to their show and knowing all of the songs. How do you attach a statistic to that? For this reason alone piracy will not be looked on as a positive thing to major game companies and it's left to independents to embrace it and use it to their advantage.

 

I'm not trying to attach a statistic to it. I'm only making the statement that companies exist to make money and I find it reasonable to assume that they're going to pursue the course that they believe will make them the most money. Maybe you think that companies make more money by embracing piracy but the vast majority of software companies would beg to differ with you. I agree that there's not a ton of evidence either way but it seems to me the burden of proof is on the pirates to show that it's advantageous and not traditional business to prove that it's still successful.

[RockyRan]

@Rocky, but like I said, Tim Schaffer and Double Fine and musicians and other people sign agreements with publishers and producers to manufacture and sell their goods. Of course they'd love to profit more but it's a bit wrong of them to suggest pirating the game which other people have contributed actually bringing to market and then pocketing money off of gear. Valve may say piracy doesn't affect them but Steam has DRM built in right?

 

Musicians is a great example. They don't make much money off of their CDs so they don't give a crap about if you buy those or not. They want you to come to their shows and buy their shirts. The problem is that the people who make them famous and get them radio time and invest money in producing their music, paying for studio time and marketing their albums do make money from the CD sales so for a band to benefit from all those services and then suggest that fans undercut the record label is ridiculous. If you want to give away your music go for it, just don't sign with a label saying you wont.

 

I feel you're tiptoeing around my point.

 

You asked for examples of where the ends justify the means, and I gave you several. Now, instead of acknowledging said examples, you're claiming even the creators of the content are "wrong" by either not caring or outright encouraging piracy. Previously you painted the creators as the "victims", but now that I've suggested that even the "victims" don't care sometimes you're saying even the "victims" are wrong. You've said it's morally "wrong" no matter what to pirate a creator's work against his will, but I've given several examples where it's not even against the will of the creator and now you're battling everyone, consumers AND creators, because they're behaving in a way that doesn't suggest that piracy is 100% "wrong" all the time.

 

I just want to know how long you're going to keep making the same blanket statement. We've proven it to you several times already, and your'e just repeating that everything is "wrong".

Edited October 7, 2011 by RockyRan

[MasterDex]

We're not out to prove that piracy is going to make everyone richer, we're simply saying that piracy is not an issue full of negatives, that there can be positive effects and that piracy itself can't be considered morally wrong all the time.

 

It seems a bit pointless continuing to argue when you're just shooting down everything we say because it doesn't conform with your own narrow views on the subject.

Edited October 7, 2011 by MasterDex

[Thursday Next]

Whether piracy helps or harms is totally moot. Publishers create the content. They offer you the limited right to consume it provided you do so as they direct. You then ignore the rights and wishes of the publisher and do whatever the hell you like. You should respect the rights and wishes of others. It's about as black and white as you can get. No lives are on the line, you will not suffer any harm by abiding by the publishers wishes, there is no moral dilemma here.

 

If anime publishers in Japan decided to release anime via torrents to build awareness then that's their business. They have said, "This is my content, and I'm willing to share it for free." Just because that model may have proved successful for one industry, or one publisher within that industry, doesn't mean that you get to force it on another industry or publisher.

 

You are not the CEO of Activision, Ubisoft or any other publisher, neither are you a major shareholder (unless you are, in which case, you should publicly announce that x product is to be freely available via torrent, but you'd appreciate people going out and buying it and/or your other products), you don't have the right to decide what to do with that companies IP any more than you do to rearrange the furniture in their office.

[deanb]

http://torrentfreak....max-ceo-111004/

 

the tl;dr is that Mirimax CEO says the film industry fears a distribution monopoly over piracy. Apples iTunes monopoly and the baggage that comes with that is far more damaging than Napster was. So they're spreading their load over various services (apparently. I duno I only see Hulu n Napster)

“When consumers tell you what they want, give it to them. Figure out a way to give it to them, because they will figure out a way to get it.” aka if they want it in digital form there n now...

 

It's actually somewhat related to a comment I saw the other day in relation to the French three strikes law. That you can be done for downloading movies/tv etc, yet the companies that pushed the law have no legal alternatives in place. It's easier to slap people on the wrist than to develop the business.

 

@Masterdex: Why'd you think I've stopped responding a page n a bit ago? When I realise I'm having to go down to the same level with hypotheticals I realised it wasn't going anywhere and not worth it any more. You can provide examples, counter-points, etc all you want but all you get back is:

And it's only funny on Scrubs.

[Yantelope]

Marathon discussion continues!!!

You've said it's morally "wrong" no matter what to pirate a creator's work against his will, but I've given several examples where it's not even against the will of the creator and now you're battling everyone

No, what I said was that if you promise someone (sign a contract with them) that you will give them a % of your profits and not give your game away then it's wrong to encourage people to pirate your game.

 

I just want to know how long you're going to keep making the same blanket statement. We've proven it to you several times already, and your'e just repeating that everything is "wrong".

 

I don't know where I'm making blanket statements. I'm trying to respond to your points directly.

 

We're not out to prove that piracy is going to make everyone richer, we're simply saying that piracy is not an issue full of negatives, that there can be positive effects and that piracy itself can't be considered morally wrong all the time.

 

It seems a bit pointless continuing to argue when you're just shooting down everything we say because it doesn't conform with your own narrow views on the subject.

 

I'm not sure I'd call providing counter points "shooting down everything we say". If anything it seems to me you guys are intent on not acknowledging the points that I make, rather you keep slightly shifting your argument rather than responding to me.

 

It seems to me the whole of the arguments that are coming to me are solely from the perspective of pirates and I understand why you are trying to defend your position but I'm simply trying to make you see it from the perspective of a content producer, publisher, marketer or retailer. Put yourself in their shoes for a moment and decide what you would do.

 

Maybe this helps, if publishers turn a blind eye to piracy in hopes that it helps their business then that's their choice. If they sue the pants off you as is their legal right then that's their business too. If you've made the decision to pirate their content, even just to demo, and you get sued I don't feel sorry for you at all.

 

http://torrentfreak....max-ceo-111004/

 

Monopolies are bad too. I am no fan of Apple. I also can't argue against the fact that they're great at making money.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Yantelope

[TheMightyEthan]

Disclaimer: Read all statements about morality and ethics with an implied "in my view/opinion" attached. Also, this is all ethical/moral theory of piracy, any application to real-world events would need to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

 

TN, the reason you and I will never agree is because I don't believe a creator has an *absolute* right to control their creation, though they do have a fairly strong right. However, I think piracy-to-demo (not piracy-to-own) falls into the category of fair use (ethically/morally, not legally). I believe people only have a right to stop other people from doing something if doing it hurts someone in some tangible way. The metaphysical injury of "they're using my creation in a way I don't want them to" isn't alone sufficient to create a moral right to stop them from using it in that way. Unless and until the creator suffers some tangible harm from the use they have no right to stop it.

 

I do believe creators of intellectual property own their creation, however I believe its nature as intangible and effectively reproducible at 0 cost limits some of the ownership rights we generally associate with physical objects. I have the right to say "no you can't try out my laptop" because by its very nature if you're trying it I'm being deprived of it and thus suffering harm. But with infinitely reproducible property the person wanting to try it merely makes a copy to try, and the owner is deprived of nothing to which they have a right.

 

IP owners though do have a right to profit from their creation, control the means of commercial distribution, etc. Trying out the creation is fair use, but simply taking it without compensating the creator is not. Obviously, however, there's no easy, cut-and-dried way to determine at what point the use stops being merely a "trial" and the user assumes the moral duty to either purchase the product or stop using it. There would be some clear cases, such as the person who pirates Civ V and plays it for 500 hours; obviously that is more than a mere trial, and that person has wronged the content owner. From a theoretical perspective would be whether the user was actually and in good faith sampling the product, or whether they wanted to have it as owner, but as has been well established in the real world there's no way to know that.

 

I would simply say that while piracy maybe shouldn't be legal, as simply making it blanket illegal is the most easily applied in a real world in which we can't know the thoughts and intents and others, perhaps people shouldn't be so quick to condemn every single act of piracy as a moral wrong against the content owner, or say that piracy is always wrong in all circumstances. Maybe most acts of piracy would be wrong under my framework, or maybe not, none of us can know that.

[deanb]

You forgot to add "Lorem ipsum", "ex copyritum" and "wingardium leviosa". Us little people can understand what you're saying to Thursday.

[Yantelope]

@Ethan, Typically fair use is covering referring quoting or referencing somebody's copyrighted work on for the applications of criticism, comment, reporting etc. I don't know why you feel justified in extending it to the actual usage of the product itself. You can show the Nike logo in a report about Nike but you can't borrow the logo for it's actual usage which is to sell apparel. You could use the name or screenshots of a game to talk or report on the game but fair use never actually results in playing the game, watching the movie or reading the book itself.

 

I know you're a lawyer so I know you know all this so on what basis do you feel it's fair to extend fair use, especially in a moral sense? You guys have been all over me about confusing morality with law but now you're using legal terms to describe your morality?

Edited October 7, 2011 by Yantelope

[TheMightyEthan]

I just meant "fair use" as in what the words literally mean: use that is fair. I know it's a legal term, which is why I included the parenthetical explaining that I wasn't speaking legally, merely ethically/morally: to avoid that confusion. The rest of that paragraph explains why I think that use is fair from a moral/ethical perspective.

[Yantelope]

You don't really explain it though. All you do is say that you think it's fair. That's fine I guess.

[TheMightyEthan]

You're right, I only explain one side of it: that it doesn't harm the content owners because it doesn't deprive them of anything to which they're entitled. The other side is that consumers have a moral right to make informed decisions about their purchases, which includes a right to sample a product before buying it provided that doing so does not violate the rights of the product owner. Piracy to demo is fair because it allows the consumer to sample the product, gathering information with which to make an informed decision, in a way that does not violate the (moral) rights of the content owner (which I've explained above).

 

Again, this only applies to the honest demo. Someone who pirates to own is violating the moral rights of the content owner and therefore is not using the product in a fair manner.

 

I would also like to add that in a situation where the content owner provides an official demo then generally pirating to demo would not be fair use. The content owner does have rights to control the manner of use of the product, and while those rights are not absolute if the content owner has provided a reasonable opportunity for the consumer to sample the product then the consumer's right to sample has been satisfied.

 

Basically the pirate-to-demo circumstance is a balance between the consumer's right to make an informed decision and the owner's right to control their property. If the owner provides a reasonable opportunity to sample then the consumer's right in that regard has been completely satisfied and therefore they do not have a right to forcibly sample more on their own terms.

 

*Edit* - Again, the above disclaimer about all this being "in my opinion" applies.

[Yantelope]

consumers have a moral right to make informed decisions about their purchases, which includes a right to sample a product before buying it provided that doing so does not violate the rights of the product owner. Piracy to demo is fair because it allows the consumer to sample the product, gathering information with which to make an informed decision, in a way that does not violate the (moral) rights of the content owner (which I've explained above).

 

Not a big fan of caveat emptor eh? I agree that consumers should have a right to make an informed decision about a product. I think where we differ is whether or not a play test is actually required to make an informed decision. For many of you the answer is that a play test is necessary, for me it's not. If we want to break analogies down a little bit more I think that sampling a physical product that fulfills a need to see if it suits your particular needs is slightly different than sampling media to see if it fulfills your tastes. It's really easy to guarantee that a car will go when you press the gas pedal but it's impossible to guarantee that someone will find the car pretty. Most consumer protections do not extend to the preferences of individuals.

[Thursday Next]

Pretty much agree with everything Ethan said. We will just have to agree to disagree on whether the right to control your content should be absolute.

 

EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm assuming that all references to "rights", "fair use" and so on are used in their natural sense, not their legal definitions.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Thursday Next

[TheMightyEthan]

Yeah, whenever I mentioned rights or fair use or anything like that I meant its natural meaning, not whatever legal meaning it might have.

[Johnny]

I'd like to just mention something real quick.

 

As a pirate AND a legitimate consumer, it's very hard to retain any sympathy for big publishers with the amount of times they point their fingers at pirates and blame them for all the evils in the gaming industry.

I know more than one person who will refuse to buy anything except the odd online title because he's had enough of spending money on an industry that hates him.

 

Not saying I agree with those who do that, but I see why they do it. I still buy games when I can afford them - hell, I buy them a lot of times when I really shouldn't spend any money - but it's often been VERY tempting to just stop doing that.

[RockyRan]

Marathon discussion continues!!!

No, what I said was that if you promise someone (sign a contract with them) that you will give them a % of your profits and not give your game away then it's wrong to encourage people to pirate your game.

 

OK...not sure how that changes my point.

 

You originally said it was "wrong" to pirate a work against the will of the creator, did you not? Now I gave you examples of creators encouraging people to pirate the game, and now you call even the creators "wrong". You're shifting your argument now that I've pointed out that the "poor victims" aren't really always "poor victims".

 

I don't know where I'm making blanket statements. I'm trying to respond to your points directly.

 

I mean the blanket statement that piracy is always wrong no matter what, even if it benefits both the creators of the content and the consumer, and even if the creators actually encourage it. Looks to me like you're insisting that piracy is "wrong" simply because it's illegal.

 

It seems to me the whole of the arguments that are coming to me are solely from the perspective of pirates and I understand why you are trying to defend your position but I'm simply trying to make you see it from the perspective of a content producer, publisher, marketer or retailer. Put yourself in their shoes for a moment and decide what you would do.

 

I don't know how you can possibly say this when we've given several examples of the industry itself supporting and benefiting from piracy in a variety of different scenarios. We've gone beyond just talking from the pirates' side of things. It's like you're not even listening to anything we're saying.

[TheMightyEthan]

consumers have a moral right to make informed decisions about their purchases, which includes a right to sample a product before buying it provided that doing so does not violate the rights of the product owner. Piracy to demo is fair because it allows the consumer to sample the product, gathering information with which to make an informed decision, in a way that does not violate the (moral) rights of the content owner (which I've explained above).

Not a big fan of caveat emptor eh? I agree that consumers should have a right to make an informed decision about a product. I think where we differ is whether or not a play test is actually required to make an informed decision. For many of you the answer is that a play test is necessary, for me it's not. If we want to break analogies down a little bit more I think that sampling a physical product that fulfills a need to see if it suits your particular needs is slightly different than sampling media to see if it fulfills your tastes. It's really easy to guarantee that a car will go when you press the gas pedal but it's impossible to guarantee that someone will find the car pretty. Most consumer protections do not extend to the preferences of individuals.

Of course you can't guarantee that a particular person's subjective tastes will be satisfied by a particular product, but I don't see what that has to do with sampling. To go with your car analogy, the way you would "sample" its appearance would be to look at it, or look at a picture of it. Surely you wouldn't think it unreasonable for someone to want to see a car, or at least a picture, before buying it?

 

As for other media, people sample it in various ways. For movies the public is provided with official "samples" in the form of trailers and clips, and I believe iTunes allows you to sample songs before buying them. If not, there's always the radio, or watching the official video on Youtube. Games have trailers too, but the fundamental difference between a game and a movie is that in the game the product is the act of playing it, whereas for a movie it's the experience of watching it. So while a trailer for a movie provides that experience in sample form, a trailer for a game is missing a critical part of the experience. There's no effective way to sample a game without playing it.

 

The only reason my try-before-you-buy consumer right doesn't apply to tangible goods is because of the the fact that intangible products can be copied at essentially 0 cost to the owner, whereas to try a tangible good you must deprive the owner of something. I can't just open a bag of M&M's, taste them and then decide not to buy them if I don't like them because the M&M's I've consumed are gone, the bag is open and now no one else will want to purchase it, etc etc. I can't test drive a car without permission because I'm depriving the owner of access to the car, causing wear and tear on it, etc. Of course if the owner gives you their permission to try the product then everything's fine and dandy.

[Hot Heart]

Not much to add because I think Ethan and T-Next have covered it well but...

 

You originally said it was "wrong" to pirate a work against the will of the creator, did you not? Now I gave you examples of creators encouraging people to pirate the game, and now you call even the creators "wrong". You're shifting your argument now that I've pointed out that the "poor victims" aren't really always "poor victims".

 

Yant is making a distinction between a creator (in this case a developer) and a publisher. Tim Schafer might be OK with you pirating Psychonauts because Double Fine now own the publishing rights and such, plus it's an old release that everyone who would consider buying it at a beneficial price probably has by now. I doubt he'd encourage you to pirate Brutal Legend because EA put money into its development and published it.

 

And the same goes for musicians. Record companies may not pay them a lot for record sales, but they do a lot for the bands. Chances are, they still cover the actual touring costs and arrangements. So while musicians may like to make money off merchandise and shows, there are still people behind them who need the income from music purchases.

 

Of course, it's not all black-and-white, because of how certain developers or musicians work (they may be independents that publish and manage their own stuff) but otherwise I think that is what Yant was trying to say.