This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Discussion on IP piracy
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
Creating a separate thread so that the SOPA thread doesn't get completely derailed.
I'd like to nip this one in the bud. Why are so many people
for
the piracy of intellectual property? I keep hearing the idea that "it's not stealing", "stuff is too expensive", and "the big companies make enough money as it is", as well as similar comments.
I'd like to hear some answers from the community to the following questions:
1) If piracy isn't stealing, how is it different from entering GMC's headquarters and taking copies of their current and upcoming car designs?
2) An argument I hear is that pirating is OK to test a game and determine if it's worth paying for. How many people go out and buy a game afterwards? At what point do you determine if it was worth paying for? 20 hours of happy game play? 40 hours? 100 hours? 100 hours of moderately happy game play? If you download 10 games, and play each one for 10 hours each, therefore deriving 100 hours, do you feel justified in not paying for any of them?
3) Do you realise that the 'online only play' style games like SC2 or D3 (i.e. where you need to be connected to the internet to play single player) are primarily designed in that manner to disincentivise piracy, and that if we didn't have piracy, game companies would be less likely to build in that requirement?
4) Do you know what proportion of Activision Blizzard's revenue goes towards staff, game development, and profits? (Hint - the latter is quite small.)(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
916544
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
1) If piracy isn't stealing, how is it different from entering GMC's headquarters and taking copies of their current and upcoming car designs?
Difference is that they don't release their full car designs for a public audience, because they want to create an information disparity and prevent rational decision making when it comes to purchasing a product.
Post by
Skreeran
I'm not for piracy.
I'm against heqvyhanded attempts to stop piracy that take power from the people (e.g. the ability to share information) and give it to the govern+ent or a group of megacorporations to divy out as they please.
I think piracy is wrong, but I think the given alternatives are worse.
Post by
345624
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Some one in the other thread mentioned how it might effect things like fan art, instruction videos (for game) and parodies. I love fan art (sometimes, it's even better than the original) and wouldn't want things like that taken away.
I'd like to steer clear of SOPA discussions here. I agree that the SOPA legislation, as described (I haven't read any of it yet) is overly heavy handed. I want to, instead, discuss the general explicit principle on which SOPA is being introduced, as it's come up multiple times in the past, and leave the implicit issues of censorship to the other thread.
On your second point, maybe if they were less concerned about their games being pirated, they could do 'trials' similar to the ones that WoW does (I'd personally love that, especially for swtor), where they give you just enough of the game to get a feel for it and then you have to buy it to play the rest. I know some games have done that.
Indeed. In fact, I actually think that part of the reason less games provide decent trials is because they don't think it's worth the cost putting a trial out there, when people would just download the game anyway. That being said, others in the past have suggested that the WoW trial (for example) isn't sufficiently comprehensive enough to fairly decide whether to purchase a game or not, and that pirating a game allows them to have the time to fully test whether a game is worth buying (which I disagree with, for the points that DKinator makes).
And I don't want to derail this thread but is watching content on youtube considered piracy? Like watching a video by one of your favorite bands?
Worthy contribution. I believe (as in, legally), if it's an official music video and the content is licensed accordingly (i.e. it's not a breach of any licensing agreements made with the publishers and/or it has the publisher's express approval), then it's legitimate. If it's a hand-held video that was obtained illegitimately (i.e. against the conditions of entry that the video'er would have agreed to by attending the concert), then the act of uploading it is piracy, and the viewer (as an unknowing third party) wouldn't be pirating, but the upload should be taken down.
In my opinion, the big difference between Youtube piracy and game piracy is that a viewer doesn't know whether a video online is posted legitimately or illegitimately, whereas downloading and installing a game usually contravenes the terms of use that the user has agreed to abide by, especially if it requires a crack to contravene registration and other security restrictions.
Difference is that they don't release their full car designs for a public audience, because they want to create an information disparity and prevent rational decision making when it comes to purchasing a product.
Is it stealing though? You can go through and measure each part of a car you buy to reverse-engineer it, just like you can go through each bit of code in a program.
I'm against heqvyhanded attempts to stop piracy that take power from the people (e.g. the ability to share information) and give it to the govern+ent or a group of megacorporations to divy out as they please.
Are you talking about SOPA shutting down both legitimate and illegitimate parts of websites, or are you talking about people sharing pirated information? For example, if they adjusted the legislation to force specifically the pirated stuff to be taken down, and implemented a 'X strikes and you're out' sort of policy for the website as a whole, would that be an issue for you?
if you pirate a game more than like you are not going to buy that game. I dont know who would buy something after they acquired the full copy of it for free but if I did then I definitely would not buy it.
I generally agree that that's what most people would do - there are a few people here on the forum who believe they are of greater integrity, however.
Keep the thoughts coming.
Post by
Firallon
Squish, allow me to provide an example for you. Person A buys a CD, game, or DVD. Person B would like to trial A's merchandise, but for whatever reason, doesn't want to just out and buy it. A burns B a copy, and shares it. Person B now has a free version of the product. Theft? Let's consider that the product in question is music, because the RIAA is responsible for the majority of lawsuits against individuals. Let's say that Person B is an avid concert goer, and for every album he pirates, he attends one or more shows, where the ticket revenue is going to the artist and the band's crew, as opposed to lining an recording executive's pocket. Still theft, but as bad? Just questions, floating through my mind on the subject. If a product is truly worthwhile, it can and will make money, regardless of people stealing it.
EDIT: I just thought of another, better example, as it applies to me. I purchased Diablo 2 and Starcraft some time ago, and through the years my disks have become unreadable. Is it a crime that I torrented the iso's and used my CD keys on the install? What if I had lost the cd keys, would it be alright if I used a crack to play something I already purchased?
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
916544
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Let's say that Person B is an avid concert goer, and for every album he pirates, he attends one or more shows, where the ticket revenue is going to the artist and the band's crew, as opposed to lining an recording executive's pocket. Still theft, but as bad?
I don't disagree that a good product will make money, because people will still go to see the shows (i.e. the good product). This is similar to a subscription based game - it's the reason why WoW is a cash cow, and Star Wars Galaxies is dead. The question is - do you really want all our games to be subscription based?
I purchased Diablo 2 and Starcraft some time ago, and through the years my disks have become unreadable. Is it a crime that I torrented the iso's and used my CD keys on the install? What if I had lost the cd keys, would it be alright if I used a crack to play something I already purchased?
Legally? Yes, it's against the terms of use. Morally, it's more 'ok' than someone who never bought it in the first place.
(Practically speaking, the serial code 1234-5678-9012 still works in SC1, if I'm not mistaken - one of the worst copy-protection algorithms I've seen in my life)
If you just keep them for yourself then it's similar, except you were trespassing in your example. And you didn't pay them for it. "Pay them for it? I hear you say? Yes. In most cases, somebody has to purchase the original to create a digital version to distribute.
Yes, I'm ignoring the trespass component. And you're incorrect about paying them for it - in the case of the former, you (as a downloader) haven't paid them for it either.
To be technically correct, piracy in a video game sense is a contract violation.
2. I do. When I believe it's worth the price it's currently for sale for. I don't do that so I dunno.
What precisely don't you do? Play multiple games? Again - what measure are you applying to determine whether it's 'worth the price'? If a game was worth more than the current (sale) price, would you go out and buy two copies, to reimburse the company for releasing the game when it did?
4.
Hahahahahaha
. U so fun-e.
If you read the article comprehensively, you'd see that it made $381m in Q1 2010. If you look at their reports, you'd see they made $470m over the whole 2010 year. One quarter doesn't make an entire company, and Activision Blizzard makes significantly less money in the latter quarters of the year (i.e. post sales). Take a look at it's 2008 and 2009 filings.
It's also interesting to note that their biggest revenue generators (COD and WoW) are also MMO games in the sense that you need legitimate games and subscriptions to obtain the greatest value. From a piracy sense, their big cash cows aren't nearly as much at risk due to their gaming model (e.g. related to point 3), which is why they're now making profits. Compare that to pre-merger Activision and see the difference.
fan art or parodies and if they do/do not qualify as a form of piracy. They are 'original' works but they're based on already existing mediums and therefore, shouldn't someone be paying to use those?
If I'm not mistaken, fan art and parodies are protected mediums under existing legislation (i.e. legal and okay to do). It's sort-of like writing original works based on a person's life - do you need to pay Obama to use his name in a book?(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Alkony
I don't pirate anything, but I also buy very little in the way of modern entertainment. I have not bought a CD, for instance, in almost a decade. If I had decided to pirate some music, that would still not represent lost revenue for the music companies (which seems to be the main justification for the high fines RIAA sues for).
On the other hand, certain piracy prevention tactics *have* cost companies potential revenue from me. I was excited about "Spore" until I found out about the DRM that it was saddled with. The game was worth $50 to me, but the cost of dealing with having my ability to use a product I purchased as I see fit stripped pushed me into "will never buy" land.
1) If piracy isn't stealing, how is it different from entering GMC's headquarters and taking copies of their current and upcoming car designs?
Piracy, copyright infringement and theft are different things. Imagine you have a cat. If I take the cat away from you, that's theft; I have the cat and you do not. If I clone the cat that's copyright infringement; we both have a copy of the cat. If I sell the clone or clones of the clone, that's piracy; we both have cat copies, but now I'm making a profit off your property.
2) An argument I hear is that pirating is OK to test a game and determine if it's worth paying for.
Games may be different, but this happens all the time with music. People hear a band/song they like and seek out a copy of that music to purchase, whether they hear it on the radio, from a friend's CD or files they've downloaded.
3) Do you realise that the 'online only play' style games like SC2 or D3 (i.e. where you need to be connected to the internet to play single player) are primarily designed in that manner to disincentivise piracy, and that if we didn't have piracy, game companies would be less likely to build in that requirement?
And if game companies didn't build in such annoying measures to restrict their customers, people would be less likely to pirate. Blaming the customer is not a good business strategy. In my Spore example above, the *only* way I'd install the game would be a cracked copy of it. I would buy it too, since I value the work, but the DRM will never go in my system. Since the hassle is more than the game is worht to me, I will likely never play it, which is a shame.
4) Do you know what proportion of Activision Blizzard's revenue goes towards staff, game development, and profits? I fail to see how this fits in with your other points.
The problem with most anti-piracy measures and laws is that they cross the line between minimizing piracy and insulting paying customers. Think Sony Rootkit, DMCA and SOPA. Always-online games like D3 and Skyrim (via Steam) may help reduce piracy of those titles, but they also eliminate a portion of potential customers who don't have or don't want constant internet access.
Treating everyone like criminals all the time tends to have the effect of encouraging criminal behavior, because what have you got to lose?
Post by
gamerunknown
Is it stealing though? You can go through and measure each part of a car you buy to reverse-engineer it, just like you can go through each bit of code in a program.
In English law, it would be considered theft (say, photocopying documents related to car design and uploading them). There are laws against replicating the designs of a car regardless of how one determines those designs. The principle in English law is that if an item no longer has its goodness, it is theft. So if a person takes one's apple and returns it mouldy, then they committed theft. If a person takes one's bucket and returns it clean and in the same or better condition, it actually isn't considered theft. The goodness in the designs of the car reside in the exclusive ability to profit from them. Once those designs are in the public domain, that goodness is lost.
However, I reject the principle that exclusive ability to profit on intellectual property is the most efficient method to enforce legally. Well, my ideas on this waver from time to time: in a truly free market, there would be no limits in terms of customer safety (caveat emptor*) nor on intellectual property, since that would be a limitation on a person's ability to make a profit through more efficient means of distribution or subtle improvements on original designs. Since law enforcement would be mercenarised, copyright claims would inevitably be vied for by the largest corporations, with those on the outside prevented from competing. Something similar is enforced in law in the US at the moment, where pharmaceutical companies can set arbitrary prices for medication and the insurance companies must comply with those demands. The antithesis to this is that self-interested individuals seeking to profit to a greater degree may have the incentive to travel to countries with copyright laws.
I think a better system would be if artists felt secure in their ability to access their means of production (recording studios) and were remunerated fairly, removing the ability of recording labels to derive a profit from other people's work. Then the individuals that find the most efficient means of distribution (probably torrents) can release their work for them.
Discussed
here
I think.
* This principle is explicitly endorsed by
Friedman
. He has a wonderful elision: if reducing costs increases resources for the shareholder (and the costs aren't thus forwarded to the consumer) and the principle of currency means that everyone is better off as a result, why is there no evidence that is true in terms of quality of life indicators? The greater the left skew and the higher the kurtosis of distribution of wealth, the worse off the population on average. The ruling class understand this and jealously guard their wealth: they understand that "currency" is a ridiculous notion, since it would allow for redistribution of wealth on any lines as long as people kept making purchases. In reality, the wealth (control of resources) of the owners of the means of production increases as the wealth of the workers decrease and they accept this notion since they deserve it since they're wealthy (and thus more deserving of wealth) - delightfully circular. He also makes an exquisite admission: corporations have no legal responsibility to reveal defects in their product, the meagre compensation a consumer has is the ability to sue in court (and that capacity is often contingent on their own wealth). In fact, they went out of their way to claim their car was "
indestructible
" despite knowing that they cut corners that their calculations showed would cost lives.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
pezz
To expand on Firallon's point, though ... Piracy is actually a
good
thing for good artists in the current climate. And a good thing for society. The people it harms on a large scale are not the indie start-ups -- they're the big corporations who rely solely on mass-produced crap that they already know sells well; the ones who won't give indie games a second thought until they realise, "Oh, that's popular, let's try to beg/borrow/steal/buy out that idea."
So 'they have the same level of creativity as vaginal fungus' or 'well, they can afford it' are justification for stealing? I'm not disagreeing with either claim at all, I'm just pointing out that in this paragraph you a) freely admit that piracy is deleterious to these corporations and b) don't provide explicit reasons why the piracy is morally acceptable in this instance, other than perhaps the ones I paraphrased.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
pezz
I came up with this realisation a few hours ago, actually, and didn't put it into my post above:
Equating/analogising it with theft all the time harms its credibility as a crime in its own right, no? It's been said often enough that it's not the same thing.
How is it not theft? Just because the marginal unit cost of an mp3 is nil, or because there isn't a finite number of units doesn't mean they don't lose out when you download it without paying for it. You still obtained a copy, without the consent of the people licensed to distribute is, for less money than they were asking.
For me, the finite supply of a good or the cost to manufacture/obtain it are typical features of theft, but not inherent ones.
Post by
Adamsm
Hate to say it, but I'm a pirate and proud of it; I download music and audiobooks that cost way too much for me to justify buying them. I download movies from the cams because there are things in the theater that interest me, but I don't want to spend the cash on gas/ticket prices when I can get it for free at home. I download comics since the nearest comic book store is about an hour away(that said, I do purchase omnibus collections of series I really like) to see what is new and if I like the current story lines. I download TV and anime series for the simple fact that I don't want to spend 800+ for a full collection of all episodes of something.
Post by
Orranis
Hate to say it, but I'm a pirate and proud of it;
I don't get.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.