Piracy

[Battra92]

You are fucking retarded if you complain about piracy but provide no legal alternative.

 

The thing is, for whatever reason companies make business decisions. It could be a complex study or because of what their Magic 8-Ball said. It's frustrating but what can you do?

 

Well, I have a Region Free DVD player/recorder that converts PAL to NTSC so I buy UK and Japanese DVDs and run my Wii through the Composite inputs and outputs on the player and play UK games on my Wii using the Homebrew channel. I've never pirated a Wii game and I prefer to buy DVDs so I've found something that works for me most of the time.

 

But a lot of companies won't listen to consumer demands. It's just a sad reality. Look how long it took the RIAA to allow things like iTunes and AmazonMP3 to make sense?

[deanb]

You are fucking retarded if you complain about piracy but provide no legal alternative.

It's frustrating but what can you do?

Pirate it. Same as always. Just seems silly to whine people offshore pirate your content but that's the only way to get at it. Only "legal" way to do it over here is buy an import, but folks aren't gonna bend over backwards to get region free players.

 

As for RIAA and iTunes I'm unaware of any issue they ever had with each other but I know that the film & TV industry have taken issue with iTunes and it's general raping of the music industry.

 

 

ps. : Just to note but apart from random clips, and many many more "not in your region" screens, I don't actualyl watch Colbert Report, it was just a handy example to bring up.

[Battra92]

I currently own three Region Free DVD players not counting my PC and Macbook. They are exceptionally cheap and many just require you to look up a code on Videohelp.com, punch it in and Bob's your uncle!

[Johnny]

See, the thing is, I'm not willing to spend even more of my highly limited disposable income because some company decided to make it hard for me to purchase their product.

[Battra92]

See, the thing is, I'm not willing to spend even more of my highly limited disposable income because some company decided to make it hard for me to purchase their product.

 

So you have two choices: get more disposable income or do without.

[deanb]

Even with more disposable income why should you go out of the way to get hold of their content legally if they make it such a pain to do so. They should come to you not the other way around.

 

Also are we even certain on the legality of "region-free" players. Seems a bit wibbly-wobbly since it's circumventing the DRM on the disc.

[Johnny]

See, the thing is, I'm not willing to spend even more of my highly limited disposable income because some company decided to make it hard for me to purchase their product.

 

So you have two choices: get more disposable income or do without.

 

Except I really have a third choice, to pirate. Just because some people would call me evil for it, does not mean it's not a choice.

I'll cooperate with the companies as much as I can afford to, as long as they cooperate. When they don't, I'm not just gonna roll over and let them kick me when I'm down.

[FMW]

All this talk of PC emulation before Zelda is even out makes me really sad. The Legend of Zelda games are my absolute favorites. Nintendo has stated that Skyward Sword is their most expensive production ever. This took five years to make, and if it doesn't sell very well then I'm afraid Nintendo won't invest as much into the franchise in the future. Which would mean lower quality Zelda games or longer waits between. If people want to play Zelda, it's important that they buy Zelda. Then there can be more Zelda for them to play in the future. You give some so you can get some

 

I mean, what's the justification for grabbing the game for free online anyway? It's not like the consumer is getting a bad deal by buying the game at retail price. If you pay $70 for the limited edition and play through the game in 35 hours (sounds like it's about that without too much sidequesting) then you're paying only $2 per hour of playtime. If you don't do the rest of the side quests. And if you only play it once. That's a fantastic deal guys. So unless the argument is that the game is poorly crafted and unworthy of even this meager investment, I don't see too much justification here.

 

I see this counter argument coming - "but I don't own a Wii, so I wouldn't buy it anyway. So I'm not altering the game sales by piracy".

 

I smash this counter argument immediately. By this logic it is acceptable to pirate all console software as long as you never buy the hardware. But if you can access all the software without the hardware, then there isn't any reason to buy the hardware. So then when the next game you want comes out, your justified in piracy all over again. It's cyclical logic.

 

Here's how the market works. The price of the Zelda Skyward Sword experience is $170. A used Wii with motion plus and the regular edition of the game. Once you've bought the hardware, the price of other experiences drops hugely. Down to $50 or less depending on the game. Buying hardware is like buying a discount ticket for every other experience released on the hardware. The cost of any experience is the net cost of all the hardware and software needed to play. But your controller, console, and TV don't need to change with each game. So actually you're getting a huge discount on the experience because of all the things you don't need to buy again and again.

 

I argue that even $170 for Zelda isn't an unreasonable value, because that also buys you the "season pass" to discount every other Wii game out there. You are getting more than just Zelda for this high one time cost.

[FMW]

See, the thing is, I'm not willing to spend even more of my highly limited disposable income because some company decided to make it hard for me to purchase their product.

 

So you have two choices: get more disposable income or do without.

 

Except I really have a third choice, to pirate. Just because some people would call me evil for it, does not mean it's not a choice.

I'll cooperate with the companies as much as I can afford to, as long as they cooperate. When they don't, I'm not just gonna roll over and let them kick me when I'm down.

 

And as long as I'm in this thread, I'd like to jump into this dialogue here. Johnny, a company not releasing a product in your area in a consumer friendly way (or at all) is not "kicking you while you're down". The company is under no obligation to provide anything to you at all. Access to ownership and consumption are not rights you're being denied. That's sort of the downside of letting corporations control as much of good/service distribution as we do in this world. Corporations will provide as much or as little product to you as they feel like, in whatever format they feel like. This is not a personal attack against you. This is a company trying to pursue what it views as it's most profitable prospects. I guess Sweden isn't too high on some company priority lists right now. And that's fine. That's legal and fair.

[RockyRan]

See, the thing is, I'm not willing to spend even more of my highly limited disposable income because some company decided to make it hard for me to purchase their product.

 

So you have two choices: get more disposable income or do without.

 

Except I really have a third choice, to pirate. Just because some people would call me evil for it, does not mean it's not a choice.

I'll cooperate with the companies as much as I can afford to, as long as they cooperate. When they don't, I'm not just gonna roll over and let them kick me when I'm down.

 

And as long as I'm in this thread, I'd like to jump into this dialogue here. Johnny, a company not releasing a product in your area in a consumer friendly way (or at all) is not "kicking you while you're down". The company is under no obligation to provide anything to you at all. Access to ownership and consumption are not rights you're being denied. That's sort of the downside of letting corporations control as much of good/service distribution as we do in this world. Corporations will provide as much or as little product to you as they feel like, in whatever format they feel like. This is not a personal attack against you. This is a company trying to pursue what it views as it's most profitable prospects. I guess Sweden isn't too high on some company priority lists right now. And that's fine. That's legal and fair.

 

I'm fairly certain he knows about that. I'm assuming (and I don't really want to put words in Johnny's mouth here, so stop me if I'm wrong, Johnny) what he's talking about is a company's complete apathy to taking care of a particular subset of their consumers properly. I'm assuming he maintains that he doesn't really see a need to support businesses that doesn't really see the need to satisfy his "type" of consumer in the first place. Just because one type of apathy is legal and the other isn't doesn't necessarily mean that the former is automatically on higher moral ground than the latter.

[FMW]

Even with more disposable income why should you go out of the way to get hold of their content legally if they make it such a pain to do so. They should come to you not the other way around.

 

I disagree with the mindset behind this. It is a good idea for a company to be kind to consumers. It increases their profits. Remember though, a company is not required to be kind to consumers. There is no "they are obligated to do this" or "they are obligated to do that" in terms of making products available to a market. They will do as they damn well please, and they must be allowed to. Captialism depends upon it. The nature of international capitalism is that certain markets will always get preferential treatment, and that firms will move to satisfy demand wherever it grows in any significant quantity.

 

It's also the nature of capitalism that poor people won't be able to access all the same luxury goods as rich people. These inequalities are built into the system. It's normal. Do you feel like this should not be the case? If so, what change(s) do you propose to the macroeconomic structure of competitive trade to ensure that all markets and all income brackets have equivalent access to all media?

[fuchikoma]

All this talk of PC emulation before Zelda is even out makes me really sad. The Legend of Zelda games are my absolute favorites. Nintendo has stated that Skyward Sword is their most expensive production ever. This took five years to make, and if it doesn't sell very well then I'm afraid Nintendo won't invest as much into the franchise in the future. Which would mean lower quality Zelda games or longer waits between. If people want to play Zelda, it's important that they buy Zelda. Then there can be more Zelda for them to play in the future. You give some so you can get some

I agree with this argument. When people can pay for media they consume, they should. By extension, you would think that also means that if they can't pay, they shouldn't consume the media, but as a moral relativist, I can't make a solid case for that because if they cannot pay in the first place, what else they do is really moot and irrelevant unless they've actively affecting the profits another way. The slippery slope is that if they can justify to themselves that they couldn't afford it, they get free games, so there's a strong temptation to intellectual dishonesty. Nonetheless, advocating a position based on a slippery slope argument is not only a fallacy, it's formally recognized as one.

 

Personally though, not as a philosopher? Yes, buy if you can because it rewards good material and encourages further development.

 

I mean, what's the justification for grabbing the game for free online anyway? It's not like the consumer is getting a bad deal by buying the game at retail price. If you pay $70 for the limited edition and play through the game in 35 hours (sounds like it's about that without too much sidequesting) then you're paying only $2 per hour of playtime. If you don't do the rest of the side quests. And if you only play it once. That's a fantastic deal guys. So unless the argument is that the game is poorly crafted and unworthy of even this meager investment, I don't see too much justification here.

I couldn't justify piracy with that, but I have to nitpick the idea of $2/hr being a fantastic gaming deal. Personally, I see each game as "worth what it's worth" as a whole - I bought the whole Orange Box set because I wanted Portal on a disc... and I don't regret it, even if it was a TERRIBLE cash value per hour.

 

Still, I could buy something like Jetpack Joyride for $0.99 and play it for 99 hours at $0.01/hr. It's ridiculous to think you'd only play it once, as a short game, so the replayability is really a matter of personal taste. To be more realistic though, I tend to like short arcade type games over epic narratives, so to take real world examples, I could buy something like Resonance of Fate, or Deadly Premonition, which I enjoyed both of... but to me, a game that takes that many hours to clear is like craving beef and trying to eat an entire cow. I could only ever see the end of a game that long if I lived in a vacuum where no games were ever released again. I probably got about 3 hours in to RoF and maybe 8-10 into DP. Terrible hourly rate. I've also bought games like Touhou Komakyou - Embodiment of Scarlet Devil for around $20, and sunk dozens of hours into them, so games like that I pay probably closer to $0.50/hr and still falling. I don't even have to describe what the hourly rate is for a game like Minecraft...

 

But... I guess what I'm trying to say is that while I really feel that a game's worth is more abstract than dollars per hour, justifying a AAA title on its cost per hour will always make it look like a horrible ripoff in the modern gaming climate when competing with things like iPhone games, PSP Minis, regular DS and PSP games, Steam sales, and things like the Humble Indie Bundle. Again, I'm just nitpicking, but with my play style, when I realized this, I practically stopped buying big name games because the value was so awful compared to smaller, simpler games that I play for years instead of weeks. I'm actually deterred from buying a game that advertises dozens of hours because I know I'll never get half of what I paid for out of it.

[fuchikoma]

And as long as I'm in this thread, I'd like to jump into this dialogue here. Johnny, a company not releasing a product in your area in a consumer friendly way (or at all) is not "kicking you while you're down". The company is under no obligation to provide anything to you at all. Access to ownership and consumption are not rights you're being denied. That's sort of the downside of letting corporations control as much of good/service distribution as we do in this world. Corporations will provide as much or as little product to you as they feel like, in whatever format they feel like. This is not a personal attack against you. This is a company trying to pursue what it views as it's most profitable prospects. I guess Sweden isn't too high on some company priority lists right now. And that's fine. That's legal and fair.

 

In Canada, there was an issue of people getting grey market satellite TV receivers and watching American TV stations for free. At one point, the issue went to court, and it was found that because these companies are not selling their signal in Canada, then legally, it has no value and if people are able to decode it, they can go ahead.

 

I'm not sure where that stands today. It was basically found though that since they were not depriving the owner of material or profits, that it could not be called stealing. This seems very close to software that is not offered in certain regions.

[Johnny]

I'm fairly certain he knows about that. I'm assuming (and I don't really want to put words in Johnny's mouth here, so stop me if I'm wrong, Johnny) what he's talking about is a company's complete apathy to taking care of a particular subset of their consumers properly. I'm assuming he maintains that he doesn't really see a need to support businesses that doesn't really see the need to satisfy his "type" of consumer in the first place. Just because one type of apathy is legal and the other isn't doesn't necessarily mean that the former is automatically on higher moral ground than the latter.

 

You are pretty spot on.

In reality, it's not actually the companies kicking me when I'm down, as much as it is these knight-in-shining-armor anti-pirates demanding I pay (and pay extra!) for something that the company clearly does not even have an interest in selling to me.

 

If you want to make money off of me, then you need to put in the minimal effort to make sure it's not a pain in my ass to pay for your product. Otherwise I'm not interested.

 

 

 

 

I disagree with the mindset behind this. It is a good idea for a company to be kind to consumers. It increases their profits. Remember though, a company is not required to be kind to consumers. There is no "they are obligated to do this" or "they are obligated to do that" in terms of making products available to a market. They will do as they damn well please, and they must be allowed to. Captialism depends upon it.

 

And so will consumers!

Particularly the (goddamned large) subset of consumers that could be labeled as pirates.

[Thursday Next]

See, the thing is, I'm not willing to spend even more of my highly limited disposable income because some company decided to make it hard for me to purchase their product.

 

So you have two choices: get more disposable income or do without.

 

Why the hell is this being downvoted? It's a perfectly reasonable position. You are not being offered a luxury/entertainment item at a price you can afford. You should therefore work harder so can afford it, or accept that you cannot afford it and do without.

 

I think that it is fundamentally wrong that people find it acceptable to take without permission instead of doing without.

[Thursday Next]

You are pretty spot on.

In reality, it's not actually the companies kicking me when I'm down, as much as it is these knight-in-shining-armor anti-pirates demanding I pay (and pay extra!) for something that the company clearly does not even have an interest in selling to me.

 

No one is demanding you pay anyone anything. I will however say that if you don't want to pay the price, don't consume the content. You're not a five year old, you should by now have learnt that you can't have everything you want.

[deanb]

Even with more disposable income why should you go out of the way to get hold of their content legally if they make it such a pain to do so. They should come to you not the other way around.

It's also the nature of capitalism that poor people won't be able to access all the same luxury goods as rich people. These inequalities are built into the system. It's normal. Do you feel like this should not be the case? If so, what change(s) do you propose to the macroeconomic structure of competitive trade to ensure that all markets and all income brackets have equivalent access to all media?

The UK isn't exactly rubbing shoulders with Zimbabwe in the economic charts. Neither is most of Europe (or quite frequently Canada too). And yet American corporations, such as Viacom, feel okay to live on both sides of the fence of both restricting content from these nations, while also wailing of how the evil international pirates leech off their creative works. It's a bit hypocritical and that's my main issue here. If they're not selling the content abroad anyway is there even any issues really? It's the age of the internet, the world wide web. Even if you don't want to extend your Hulu service abroad Youtube is already there with a global distribution network. All you need to do is strip out your country restrictions, the ad network is built in, so bobs your uncle.

 

The change I would propose is to either start offering your content in a legal fashion, or stop fucking complaining people access your content through illegitimate ones.

 

Just to reinforce for the various Americans who don't see this kind of thing often:

It's not exactly a rare occurrence.

 

Currently what happens is random site links a video on your channels site. "lol, look at Conans wall, it's a bit like Mario". Then the international users try to watch, get the "we don't like your country, fuck off" signs and moan a bit. Then friendly american rips the video from the legit site, and re-uploads region free on Youtube for the other few hundred million eyeballs to oggle at. If however the main site didn't have silly region locks, then the likelihood of the video ever ended up on youtube is massively decreased. (is it even worth noting that Viacom are one of the main companies involved with Hulu?)

 

 

(btw I'm hoping those of you here with the line of thinking of respecting the content creators wishes better bloody well not be running adblock on this forum n blog)

 

 

You are pretty spot on.

In reality, it's not actually the companies kicking me when I'm down, as much as it is these knight-in-shining-armor anti-pirates demanding I pay (and pay extra!) for something that the company clearly does not even have an interest in selling to me.

No one is demanding you pay anyone anything. I will however say that if you don't want to pay the price, don't consume the content. You're not a five year old, you should by now have learnt that you can't have everything you want.

It's not that he doesn't want to pay the price, it's the fact that he can't.

[Thursday Next]

You are pretty spot on.

In reality, it's not actually the companies kicking me when I'm down, as much as it is these knight-in-shining-armor anti-pirates demanding I pay (and pay extra!) for something that the company clearly does not even have an interest in selling to me.

No one is demanding you pay anyone anything. I will however say that if you don't want to pay the price, don't consume the content. You're not a five year old, you should by now have learnt that you can't have everything you want.

It's not that he doesn't want to pay the price, it's the fact that he can't.

 

Ok then, if you "can't" pay the price, don't consume the content.

[Mal]

Ok then, if you "can't" pay the price, don't consume the content.

I'm going to shift it to music for a moment since my pirated material is mostly that. Music.

I'll be amazed if I can get copies of (retail) CDs [preferred medium] and/or legal downloads from some of the Japanese/foreign stuff I listen to like Michita and nujabes. Second hand copies only means negative stuff for publishers so I can't help them out by getting second hand (I'm actually trying find them. Some of the stuff are REALLY hard to find, not to mention expensive as hell.).

Yeah, I could just not consume those content but I follow the following saying "No music, no life". I really do take it all the way with that phrase, especially with those folks I named. Hell, I almost think music should be free. I do understand however got to make a living so I help out when I can. For example, Blind Guardian. They're my next target to buy from and to support from CD or even merch purchase.

 

But yeah, the harder ones to find, which can in cases be impossible to find. I'm really stuck with those guys like Michita and nujabes. As far as I know, there is absolutely no way I can support them. If I find a way, oh man, I will. Man, I'll be a broke bastard when everything becomes digital...

 

Going back to games... yeah, they're a whole different beast all together.

Sorry for any typos. Spell check died.

[Thursday Next]

Not being able to find it at all is not the same as not having the disposal income to afford to buy things. The attitude of Jonny and some others here is that they have a right to consume all content created and that if they can't afford it or find it inconvenient to import it that makes it ok to pirate it.

 

The point Battra and I are making is that you can't have everything you want just because you want it. You do not have the right to consume everything however and whenever you want. Where something is legitimately available and you can't afford it, you skip on it. End of.

 

It's about being a grown up and saying "I want this now but for whatever reason I can't get it right now, so I'll wait till I can get it, or I'll skip it." Rather than, "I want this now so I'll take it without permission and everyone else can go to hell."

 

I also still don't see any reason for Batra's post getting downvoted, other than that he did not agree with some people.

[FMW]

Dean, you speak of situations where media is not legally available in a territory. Fine. I'll give you that. No harm is done by watching The Daily Show in England when it isn't available there otherwise.

 

But you don't address either of the following two situations:

 

The media is available in a region, but at a higher price than others.

 

The consumer is poor and can't afford to buy media.

 

I mean, whatever happened to looking after your own budget? I can't afford every game I want, I only buy a new game every month or two. I'm stingy with entertainment spending. So am I justified in downloading all game(s) that didn't make the cut for immediate purchase? I live with only being able to play some of the games I like, and I understand that if I wanted to buy more then I could get a second job to earn more money. If media is available at no cost to people without the means to buy it, then what is the incentive to contribute to an economy? Governments ensure that you won't starve or freeze to death, and you have access to countless high quality movies, games, and television shows. That isn't how capitalism is supposed to work. Lack of luxury goods is supposed to be one of the main motivators in getting people employed.

 

In our economic system, the wealthy have things that the poor do not. Is your argument against this basic inequality? If so, then we're jumping into the deep end of microeconomic theory. I would be happy to argue that poor people not having nice things is good for the system as a whole.

[Battra92]

Governments ensure that you won't starve or freeze to death, and you have access to countless high quality movies, games, and television shows. That isn't how capitalism is supposed to work. Lack of luxury goods is supposed to be one of the main motivators in getting people employed.

 

Which is actually a relatively new thing, really. Governments were instituted among men really just to make sure that there were laws, mutual protection from neighboring countries and for things that benefitted the public as a whole (such as building a road.) The idea that a government should make sure you don't starve is an idea foreign to people of 150 years ago. That was the work of the clergy, churches and various charities. Feeding, clothing and sheltering your family for thousands of years was the main motivator for employment.

 

In our economic system, the wealthy have things that the poor do not. Is your argument against this basic inequality? If so, then we're jumping into the deep end of microeconomic theory. I would be happy to argue that poor people not having nice things is good for the system as a whole.

 

Indeed! Just this morning while driving into work I got to thinking. My wife and I wish to purchase a house in the next year or so. I got to thinking about how nice it would be if I just had the money and could put it towards the house and to get other items I've been wanting (a larger television, nicer furniture etc.) The truth of the matter is, I can either get a better job, a second job or spend less. Since I have a huge backlog of games, DVDs and Blus and a great collection of old ones I've opted to spend less on new items and enjoy what I have and sell what I don't want any more.

 

I could be at home living with my parents, eating their food and spending all of my money on video games and movies and iTampons and stuff or I could not work (or work very little) and pirate all my entertainment. But I don't. It's part of being an adult.

[deanb]

Dean, you speak of situations where media is not legally available in a territory. Fine. I'll give you that. No harm is done by watching The Daily Show in England when it isn't available there otherwise.

 

But you don't address either of the following two situations:

 

The media is available in a region, but at a higher price than others.

 

The consumer is poor and can't afford to buy media.

I addressed neither of those situations because there weren't topics on the table, just the initial point of companies complaining that their content, not available in many territories in a legal fashion, is acquired illegally.

 

If you're wanting to discuss the other two I'd meet up with Thursday hard n fast law, cos he's the one discussing those situations not me. (unless when you carry on saying "poor people" you're meaning brits again?)

 

Cos other than that you've "given" me the point on content not being available in other territories which is all I was discussing.

[TheMightyEthan]

I'm in a weird middle zone here: I almost never pirate anything (I think the last thing I pirated was an episode of a TV show that the local affiliate fucked up on broadcasting so I couldn't see a huge chunk of it on TV), but I also don't think it's wrong to pirate something unless you're causing some tangible harm to someone by doing so. I've already explained my philosophy at length though, and won't do so again here.

 

What I wanted to say was that any posts I downvoted I did so because of the attitude of the post rather than the viewpoint. Some of the posts in this thread equating one viewpoint to being adult and the other being childish, and similar things, are very condescending. People may disagree on the morals of something, but morality isn't objectively verifiable; neither side is "right" and neither side is "wrong."

 

You may think it's part of being an adult to recognize you can't have everything you want, but others would argue that that is a concept that is outdated when applied to infinitely reproducible digital goods. Neither viewpoint is wrong, they're just different. Calling someone childish because they don't hold exactly the same moral beliefs as you is not doing anything to advance the conversation.

[Strangelove]

I feel weird for agreeing about people being buttholes for thinking theyre entitled to everything in this world whether they have the money for it or not, but that being said....I pirate a lot of shit. All the time. I just pirated Sonic Generations on my pc. It didnt run well, so I deleted it.

But I totally know its wrong. In my own moral code, it feels wrong. The thing is, I dont care. Im not going to even bother to justify it.