Following your logic. If i bought your source files, I would then own, them, they would be mine.
I could then upload it to where ever, and 1000 people then download said files, and it would be theft - according to you. Would you no feel robbed, would you not have lost the opportunity of getting paid for your work - robbed of it?
Exactly. If you paid for it, and then decided to give it away for free, I don't believe that I have further claim to it. I wouldn't feel robbed, no.
That I would have "lost the opportunity of getting paid" argument is pure conjecture. There is no way to prove that the people who you gave it for free to, would have otherwise paid for it, therefore it's not a crime. That's just what I believe personally.
I believe I do have the right to make a profit off of it in the short run. But not forever. Eventually, the stuff you make is just "out there"... once you sell something, it isn't yours anymore.
Again, morally speaking here. Not legally, as reality is obviously quite different.
Well, I'll tell you what I'm going to DO about all of this. I'm going to keep buying my games, and not redistribute them for free. I have enough respect for the people that made them to do that. What more can be said?
Nothing can be said. I respect that, and I do the same.
I'm not here advocating piracy. I'm saying that piracy is a symptom whose cause lays with us, the developers, not the pirates. It should be helped wherever possible, and I do spend a lot of my income on games and software that could be gotten through piracy.
Bigjohn: You can't eat software. Copying food would literally eliminate just about every basic problem and need in the world. But because we all still need to eat, and we eat by buying food with money that we worked for, it would make logical sense that there is a serious problem when people can't make money because their work has lost it's value because it's being passed around like herpes.
EDIT: IN A PERFECT WORLD that'd be so effing rad, dude! But guess what?
Exactly my point. And that would be a good thing, because people wouldn't have to starve to death.
...no...see. In this instance. It's not a food company, it's a video game company. And by going out of business...its employees starve to death. You know, since oranges aren't free.
...no...see. In this instance. It's not a food company, it's a video game company. And by going out of business...its employees starve to death. You know, since oranges aren't free.
Which maybe wouldn't happen if we didn't try to rip off our customers by selling air for $60. That's my point. We should be selling it for a fraction of the price, directly to the consumer. But instead we're overcharging and then are surprised when people resort to piracy.
And like I said before, this isn't an argument advocating piracy. I do realize it's a big problem. It's just not morally a crime, in my opinion.
Dude, if you could copy oranges, I would have all the OJ that my heart desired!
Oh, but wait...
Sure games seem overpriced, but game standards these days overworks their employees. I think they're worth the price, every penny. I don't work for discount wages, good sir.
I really dont know why companies like EA and Activision havent created a deniable off the books team to flood torrent sites with broken or trojaned versions of their games and the destroy all the pirates computers. The way to stop piracy in my eyes is either make it too difficult or too dangerous to download torrents, and if there was a huge risk of computer infection, even just imagined risk, you'd see the torrents drop pronto......
You see it nowadays, ppl asking all over torrent sites if this or that has a virus. Get a team to stick in a backdoor that is inside pirated copies of the game, release as a bona fide 'cracked' version, then a bit later pipe down horrific crippling viruses to them......
Of course it would have to be done on the quiet, but i dont see a moral problem with it really! People are using the internet to rip off soooo much revenue, perhaps the thing to do is turn the tables and start hurting them back.
Sonys rootkits method worked out real well for them didn't it?
Seriously though that kind of thing would open them up for major PR and legal backlash.
Dude, if you could copy oranges, I would have all the OJ that my heart desired!
Oh, but wait...
Sure games seem overpriced, but game standards these days overworks their employees. I think they're worth the price, every penny. I don't work for discount wages, good sir.
Yeah, I get all that, and I totally agree. And I do buy games all the time too. When I have a job and get a paycheck, which I currently do.
But other people don't. These so called "pirates". And when someone copies our games, they do it because they're fans. I don't believe they're evil for doing so, and the problem lies within our own industry (and music, and film) for staying behind the times.
Yes, publishing companies are a lot of times, assholes. I don't buy a game when it comes out for $60 unless it's superfucking awesome, like, I'd pay $60 for the next Elder Scrolls title. But...I'm also not interested in being an asshole and putting people out on the street.
So I don't pirate things.
If you want to buy a game, and then give it to a friend, ok I can maybe see that. I bought the first Fable, played it a little and didn't like it. I tried to give it to a friend awhile back but he didn't want it.
But copying it and distributing it for free while still retaining your own copy at the same time...that...that's really an asshole thing to do. In my opinion, by my morals. So I guess this might be one of those "agree to disagree" things.
Bigjohn: This is entertainment! It's not a product that someone's life depends on, you can live without it! It's an unnecessary service that simply enriches life for recreational purposes. There is no justification for pirating games, money or not. Consumers can live without it. I do agree that we could market selling games in a more up-t-date way (well, actually we DO). And I don't call someone evil for pirating. But there is no excuse, no valid justification.
Which actually, I saw something a couple of weeks ago about one of the publishers trying to stop EBGames from selling used copies, using exactly that kind of backwards logic that I'm against. That when people buy a used copy, EBGames makes a profit, and yet not EA.
The irony with piracy is that the pirates have went out of their way, and really utilized technology in an amazing way and built this massive infrastructure to deliver terabytes of information with ease. They basically did the industry's work for it. Which the success of services like Steam are evidence for.
Okay, that is stupid. But this is utterly different. At least those copies are still being purchased. With orang....I mean money.
But I don't care how genius these people are, what's wrong is wrong. Some people are impressively good at pick-pocketing, and it's amazing how masterfully subtle they are. But it's still wrong. I feel like I'm repeating myself. I need an orange...
Well your outlook is certainly suited towards the opensource mind set BigJohn, but most of the industries don't share it. It's about making money, and for some of the bigger companies the money is all they care about.
I know I only purchase what interests me, and what i need.
The thing is, while you may sell your models, and not mind if they are then distributed freely. You are selling and giving the buyer ownership.
Games are licensed usage, not ownage.
In the EULA of the game, it clearly states that you may not distribute it, when you click accept, you are essentially signing a legally binding document, that gives you the right to use the software / play the game. You own the physical disks.
But you don't own the content, you don't own the right to distribute. You don't own the game, you have Permission to play it. Can you resell the game - that is a grey area, you can resell your physical disks yes, but, like the case with BC2, you then have to buy a new serial to use them(license) unless the person sells his account alongside it, then the previous owner has no way of using it.
Digital copies, I don't think it would work the same way.
Arguing whether or not it's theft, is semantics, in the end it's illegal, a breach of contract/license etc.
Sonys rootkits method worked out real well for them didn't it?
Seriously though that kind of thing would open them up for major PR and legal backlash.
Hmm interesting read on Sonys rootkit, thanks for that.
Ye I agree, actions like that can never be linked back to a responsible parent company, and Sony was pretty retarded to think no-one would notice.
However, we live in a world where governmants run all sorts of deniable stuff, large financial corporations do pretty questionable stuff all the time, and with the money involved in games I am surprised a group hasnt tried to take on piracy in a more blunt manner yet.
Finally, as Yozora mentions, I am surprised that some group hasnt got together and tried to sort this out on their own. I realise the pirate and hacking groups are very intelligent people, as well as some of the distributers, but the large majority of people downloading pirated games are dumb as fck, and definitely open to scares/rumours, especially if there is some occasional evidence to back it up....
So, to use the Sony example, if instead, a 'third party' group added that rootkit to their torrent iso, distributed it on the web for a few months, then toasted 10,000 computers with it, I wonder how many people would be up for downloading the next big game?
I really dont know why companies like EA and Activision havent created a deniable off the books team to flood torrent sites with broken or trojaned versions of their games and the destroy all the pirates computers. The way to stop piracy in my eyes is either make it too difficult or too dangerous to download torrents, and if there was a huge risk of computer infection, even just imagined risk, you'd see the torrents drop pronto......
You see it nowadays, ppl asking all over torrent sites if this or that has a virus. Get a team to stick in a backdoor that is inside pirated copies of the game, release as a bona fide 'cracked' version, then a bit later pipe down horrific crippling viruses to them......
Of course it would have to be done on the quiet, but i dont see a moral problem with it really! People are using the internet to rip off soooo much revenue, perhaps the thing to do is turn the tables and start hurting them back.
They tried this in the early years, wasn't successful since only the stupid people downloaded the non-scene releases. I believe recently it was done with Batman, where you had to jump over a gap, you couldn't and you would just die. Somebody complained on their forums and got called out for it.
This stuff isn't all bad, a lot of people tend to get a 'cracked' version of the game because they hate DRM. Other people get the pirated version to check it out, because they wanted to know a bit more than just what the demo shows, then they'll go out and purchase the game. And of course some people just download the game without any thoughts of ever purchasing it, but really thats not a cut out of the business, its just somebody getting the game that they would never purchase anyways. So the revenue gained and lost is $0.00
Games I've worked on have been pirated, but that doesn't bug me, because there a lot of people out there who will go out and purchase it legitimately. Oh well.
But I think there's a strawman being built here. If you look not at piracy as a whole, but at an individual doing the pirating for instance.
You can't prove that the person would have bought the game had he not pirated. It's just as likely that he wouldn't have. And that he pirated the game didn't reduce that game's inventory out there by 1, there are still just as many copies available for it, so it's not like by pirating it he's preventing them from selling it to a third person. So under no theoretical situation is the individual pirate a criminal. None that I can think of anyway, and again, talking morally here, not legally, since this is a theoretical debate.
So then if you look at piracy as a whole instead of the individual, you can plainly see that it's a big problem. That it's eating away profit from developers. That it's hurting the industry.
And what people seem to do is to translate that situation of the macro (piracy in general) into the micro (one person pirating) and make that pirate into a criminal not because he himself stole, but because the activity in general is harmful. Whereas if you look at each individual case, they're really not thieves, they're fans.
And it's no different than buying a used game, which a lot of people do. The whole argument against piracy in the first place is that it hurts us the developers, cause when someone pirates, we're not getting paid. Well, when someone buys used we're not getting paid. And I say there's no crime in either of those. Just because when someone buys used he padded EBGames' wallets doesn't make it right.
Well your outlook is certainly suited towards the opensource mind set BigJohn, but most of the industries don't share it. It's about making money, and for some of the bigger companies the money is all they care about.
I know I only purchase what interests me, and what i need.
The thing is, while you may sell your models, and not mind if they are then distributed freely. You are selling and giving the buyer ownership.
Games are licensed usage, not ownage.
In the EULA of the game, it clearly states that you may not distribute it, when you click accept, you are essentially signing a legally binding document, that gives you the right to use the software / play the game. You own the physical disks.
But you don't own the content, you don't own the right to distribute. You don't own the game, you have Permission to play it. Can you resell the game - that is a grey area, you can resell your physical disks yes, but, like the case with BC2, you then have to buy a new serial to use them(license) unless the person sells his account alongside it, then the previous owner has no way of using it.
Digital copies, I don't think it would work the same way.
Arguing whether or not it's theft, is semantics, in the end it's illegal, a breach of contract/license etc.
Just because something is illegal, doesn't make it immoral. And just because it's legal doesn't make it moral.
"licensing" in my opinion, is bullshit. They charge the full sum as if they're selling it to you, but then they basically lie, and all you get is the dubious privilege of using the thing you fully paid for. It's legal, and immoral.
There's no legitimate reason for a developer to sue their customers for then selling the license, or giving it to a friend. People can get sued for selling a used copy of a program, and that's wrong, no matter how legal it is.
Sonys rootkits worked out real well for them didn't they?
Likewise, the same tactic was used for Titan Quest where cracking the game would break the quests, causing the game to crash. Result? Pirates have spread the bad word and many would-be buyers avoided the game expecting a bugfest.
Whatever you do to counter pirates don't try to harm them or they will bite you back. If you want to convert them into buying customers then don't try to make them hate you (I'm looking at you Ubisoft) but offer the paying customers a better deal instead. Team Fortress 2 is a grand example of how to fight piracy in case of which getting an illegal copy is simply not worth it. Hell, one of the reasons why Minecraft is so damn popular is because Notch took a very similar approach.
If I'm reading BigJohn's posts right, he's saying that piracy is not necessarily a crime due to the fact that the harm caused by it is only hypothetical, and that it actually increases the exposure of the product in question, and that any moral questions are moot as per his perspective on property rights.
Now this may seem like a bit of an overtly extended simile, but I've always treated buying a videogame like buying a themepark ticket, and piracy like counterfeiting. A pirate is, effectively, sneaking into magical fun-land without paying the gateman, which means that the janitors can't maintain the slip'n'slide. This applies more to subscription based and online games, true, but the thought is still there.
If I'm reading BigJohn's posts right, he's saying that piracy is not necessarily a crime due to the fact that the harm caused by it is only hypothetical, and that it actually increases the exposure of the product in question, and that any moral questions are moot as per his perspective on property rights.
Now this may seem like a bit of an overtly extended simile, but I've always treated buying a videogame like buying a themepark ticket, and piracy like counterfeiting. A pirate is, effectively, sneaking into magical fun-land without paying the gateman, which means that the janitors can't maintain the slip'n'slide. This applies more to subscription based and online games, true, but the thought is still there.
There needs to be a youtube version of this. Awesome!
Which actually, I saw something a couple of weeks ago about one of the publishers trying to stop EBGames from selling used copies, using exactly that kind of backwards logic that I'm against. That when people buy a used copy, EBGames makes a profit, and yet not EA.
The irony with piracy is that the pirates have went out of their way, and really utilized technology in an amazing way and built this massive infrastructure to deliver terabytes of information with ease. They basically did the industry's work for it. Which the success of services like Steam are evidence for.
You might find it interesting to note that Bram Cohen, the creator of Bittorrent also worked on the original version of steam for Half-Life 2s release. So in some ways your actually right about that.
Im also going to agree with you that selling (not copying though) used games is the right of whoever owns that particular disc/cart, and anyone who trys to revoke that right is a jackass. Digital distrobution doesnt include this right, hence when I think of buying any digital-only goods I weigh them in as a service, not a product. Stealing (or pirating in your words) a service is both immoral and illegal , whether its as bad as stealing a tangible product however is a little bit trickier to figure out.
If we look at theft from the perspective of the legal system, piracy is liable to get you massive fines the likes of which could take a lifetime to pay off when caught (upwords of a million $ for a single music CD, although I think this has been brought more into the realm of sanity in the last few years), while as stealing from a store is liable to get you some jailtime and possibly a small fine. Which one is more morally reprehensible is something to determine on your own, but the legal system clearly does not see them as being the same thing.
if 'digitally copying' is theft, then we're all guilty of theft.
The same rules would then apply to simply downloading images onto your computer. A photo I snap is my intellectual property. I share it with the world by posting it online. You like it and save it. You did not get my permission. If we're so quick to call 'making digital copies' theft, then I could sue you for saving my picture without my consent. The internet could turn into one big legal mess.
'piracy' is theft, however 'digitally copying' by simple definition of theft shouldn't be. We need to keep those two very separate from each other and figure out where the line is drawn between the two.
Of course it all depends on the context.
I believe that 'making digital copies' is ok, however 'piracy' is not. The EULA very specifically says what you can and can't do. Violation of that is illegal and should be prosecuted.
There's no legitimate reason for a developer to sue their customers for then selling the license, or giving it to a friend. People can get sued for selling a used copy of a program, and that's wrong, no matter how legal it is.
In the above example, some companies are just draconian in their practices.
I'm not against 2nd hand sales or lending games to friends, the whole thing of licensing is BS, i agree, if i'm going to pay so much money on a piece of software, I want to be able to use it without worrying about losing it.
I'm against the large scale piracy of a title. In the end, it's about supporting the devs so they can make more games, whether or not the piratee would have bought the game doesn't matter, some people are just lazy. I've seen some people state they didn't buy game X because they don't have a credit card... so they just pirated it.
As for physical disks costing more than online distribution, I recently bought Mafia 2, my internet connection is 384k, so it's pretty slow, I bought the physical disk, in the end, it was cheaper than buying the digital version directly off steam - even though the physical disk still needs steam to run.
Another instance, I recently bought CS5 Master collection, it cost me a shit load of money, and I have 2 activations, if my hard drive crashes and i'm unable to deactivate CS5, I loose an activation - that happens twice, and adobe states on their site that I will need to buy a new license, which will cost me R26 000. Though they say through customer service i could probably get my activations reset if I did lose one through hdd fault.
It's BS, I do graphic design, so i need that software, I don't use open source equivalents, because for me, they don't function as well. And corel is utter rubbish - Painter being their only decent app in my experience.
Piracy in the end is something I don't support, personally I see it this way, you get what you pay for.
In my above example i paid a shit load for CS5, but i recieved excellent service, and support and regular updates. While autodesk might have problems with licenses being resold, not all have that problem. Adobe you can quite easily transfer a license to someone else when you sell it, the only adobe license you can't transfer/sell is the student license, and considering a student license costs a fraction of a professional license, thats understandable.
The EULA very specifically says what you can and can't do. Violation of that is illegal and should be prosecuted.
I HIGHLY disagree with this. The EULA in recent times has been enforced by the courts, but the fact remains that its a contract forced on the user post purchase, which by default should make it void. You buy a product, get home, and then find that in order to use said product you need to sign a contract that states you dont own it. Retroactive one sided contracts should be illegal.
I HIGHLY disagree with this. The EULA in recent times has been enforced by the courts, but the fact remains that its a contract forced on the user post purchase, which by default should make it void. You buy a product, get home, and then find that in order to use said product you need to sign a contract that states you dont own it. Retroactive one sided contracts should be illegal.
That's true.
Though, I guess one can argue that if you don't agree with the EULA, you can take the game back for a full refund.
Kaptain, if it's about supporting the devs (us), then selling used copies is an even worse "problem" than piracy. If it was really about supporting the devs, then we'd figure out ways to slim the industry down, and not over-charge our customers so much.
But it isn't about that. It's about padding the wallets of the big entertainment corporations. And I find it fascinating that in most other fields in our lives, people are generally anti big-business screwing over the common person. In everything except entertainment for some reason. In our industry, it seems like everyone is siding with the corporations abusing government power to enforce bizarre contracts retroactively. Putting fans in prisons, or slapping them with millions of dollars in fines because they're horrible pirates. I don't understand this.
Retroactive one sided contracts should be illegal.
Fair enough, and completely agree about that contract, and considering if you want to play the game you have to play it, you have to sign it is unfair.
I AM saying, that in my personal opinion, it's not theft, and therefore not a crime.
At this point we disagree.
I was supporting your point of view because I thought you were being objective about the use of the term "Theft". But saying piracy is not a crime is just as imprecise. Software piracy is crime. It may not be theft, in the strict sense of the word, but it's crime.
It may not be all black and white, there may be lots of grays in the middle, but it's against the law.
I was supporting your point of view because I thought you were being objective about the use of the term "Theft". But saying piracy is not a crime is just as imprecise. Software piracy is crime. It may not be theft, in the strict sense of the word, but it's crime.
It may not be all black and white, there may be lots of grays in the middle, but it's against the law.
Yeah, I respect that. Each has their own opinions on these things.
From my point of view, it seems to me like the entertainment industry scored so many wins, and are playing the victim so much, that we're all falling into it and buying into the notion that they're the poor guy, and that pirates are hardened criminals.
But when I look at it objectively, I cannot plainly see who gets hurt by piracy. You know something's up when if I go into a store and straight-up steal a video-game or a CD and get busted, it's a matter of a fine and maybe a bit of jailtime. Yet if you download that same content and get busted, you get slapped with millions of dollars and potential long-term prison time.
I believe that we're supporting this kind of behavior not because we really believe there's something deeply immoral about software piracy. After all, we don't mind second-hand sales of video-games, which can be more easily demonstrated to take profit away from developers. But we're against piracy simply because the big entertainment corporations paint themselves as the helpless victims, while at the same time grossly over-charging their customers.
Normally I stay far away from this hornet's nest, but I'm just gonna make a couple comments, and leave.
@skankerzero: As far as I know, you can NOT return opened software, of any kind, to any store. It has to be opened in order for you to read the EULA, so after that you're shit out of luck whether you agree to the EULA or not.
Also, am I wrong thinking that with certain programs freely available, you can install the software without agreeing to the EULA, therefor not be bound to it? I've had to use one of those programs, just because Lost Planet that came with my pc, wouldn't install on windows xp 64bit. After searching I found out it can run on it, just fine, and there's no problems with it of any kind, they just didn't program the installer to work with xp64. So I got the program, extracted the installer data, and bypassed the os check. It worked just fine.
That's a real example, happened to me a couple of years ago. Is that illegal? Serious question, not a piss-take. Thanks
I like to think of this issue as the "Robin Hood" syndrome.
People like the story of Robin Hood. It is about oppressed people being rescued from their economic trials by a capable hero who takes from the rich and gives to the poor. Technically, this is a story about communism, where wealth is redistributed as needed. But it is the "ideal" form of communism, not the kind that fails continuously. During these hard economic times, it is very easy to sympathize with the citizens, and with the daring hero who works to provide them with resources.
Software pirates who hack games and applications and then redistribute them free of charge probably like to think of themselves as modern-day Robin Hoods. After all, they aren't financially profiting form their efforts. It is easy to portray themselves as being altruistic. And in this day and age, it is easy to portray large businesses as the Prince Johns and Sheriff of Nothinghams of the world. And it is undeniable that game development has shifted into a big-business model. This is how the majority of commercial games are made these days.
However, the reality of the situation is quite a bit different. downloading copies of games without paying for them does not directly attack the "villains" in this scenario. Corporate executives rarely feel the sting of such actions. Usually, the costs of such actions are passed onto the paying customers, and to the developers who produce the games. (in the form of increased retail prices or reduced salaries) And if the situation gets bad enough, upper management will just switch industries. It's quite common for managerial types to change which industry they are working in. Most of the most notorious faces in the game industry used to work in different fields.
So the real issue isn't whether or not copying games is legitimate. You need to think of who you may be hurting if you acquire and play a game without paying for it. Also, you need to accept that distributing a game that you've copied results in making it easier for other people to play that game without paying for it.
From what I can tell EULA's are more about leverage than an enforceable agreement, it's not ironclad but it gives them something they can use against you if you ever have to go to court.
I don't see software piracy as an activity to hurt the villains, as much as I see it as providing a service that the villains just refuse to provide.
You have two things going on here. People want to download games from the internet. It's easier for a lot of people, and more comfortable. At the same times, games are getting much more expensive at $60 a game now. Couple those two together, and piracy looks real tempting. Not only do you get what you want, which is to download the thing without bothering with waiting in line at the store, delivery charges, etc. Plus, it's cheap. Very cheap.
Had the industry provided that service itself, they could lower the cost by cutting out the bulk that exists within that $60 price-tag, sell the games directly to the public through the web, and keep that profit. Piracy wouldn't be needed. It's happening because the people up top refuse to move ahead with the times because it's still making them nice profits.
I like to think of this issue as the "Robin Hood" syndrome.
This is a surprisingly common view... and 99% false. When I was in high school I knew a couple people who were deep into the pirating scene, guys that ran the backbone FTP servers the cracking groups used. Terrabyte servers run by normal dudes back in 2001, plugged directly into the fiber lines that serve comcast and verizon.
They did that shit because they liked subverting the system. That's it. Just like a climber climbs mountains for the rush of climbing the mountain, not some lame existential bullshit that a lot of people like to imagine. It's a simple adrenaline rush, beating the system, breaking the law. Most hackers I've met worked that way, they'll break into some super-secure site and just post up a tag so other hackers can see how badass they are. Same thing with graffiti artists.
This is going to be a moot point soon anyway, once DRM is hardwired into our processors by intel and AMD. Might as well pirate that shit while you can, because soon it's going to nearly impossible. Be able to tell your grandkids you used to be able to get anything you wanted for free on the internet... they won't believe that shit for a second. (no, I'm not endorsing piracy)
selling used copies is an even worse "problem" than piracy.
No, used games by them selves are not a major problem, its the method of distribution employed by chains like Gamestop that is. This is a common misconception, and if your wanting to argue semantics over piracy vs theft I cant believe your unable to make this distinction.
@skankerzero: As far as I know, you can NOT return opened software, of any kind, to any store. It has to be opened in order for you to read the EULA, so after that you're shit out of luck whether you agree to the EULA or not.
Also, am I wrong thinking that with certain programs freely available, you can install the software without agreeing to the EULA, therefor not be bound to it? I've had to use one of those programs, just because Lost Planet that came with my pc, wouldn't install on windows xp 64bit. After searching I found out it can run on it, just fine, and there's no problems with it of any kind, they just didn't program the installer to work with xp64. So I got the program, extracted the installer data, and bypassed the os check. It worked just fine.
That's a real example, happened to me a couple of years ago. Is that illegal? Serious question, not a piss-take. Thanks
On the topic of returns, absolutly correct. Very few stores will let you return a game or other disc based media once its been opened. No checking the EULA and then bringing it back if you disagree.
As for bypassing the EULA, the law is really messed up in this case basically states that until you agree to the EULA you don't own a license for that software, hense it could be considered a form of piracy/theft.
No, used games by them selves are not a major problem, its the method of distribution employed by chains like Gamestop that is. This is a common misconception, and if your wanting to argue semantics over piracy vs theft I cant believe your unable to make this distinction.
Meaning what exactly? That when retailers sell used copies they should give a cut to the publishers?
I don't see software piracy as an activity to hurt the villains, as much as I see it as providing a service that the villains just refuse to provide.
You have a couple of misconceptions here that need to be cleared up. For starters, we have this service concept. You think that companies, organizations ostensibly designed to acquire and accumulate capital, are beholden to provide the services and goods they produce without charging for them? I would think they would be well within their rights not to provide a service where they distribute their hard work for free. Getting compensation for effort is a fundamental part of modern economics. Without this, many of the games we enjoy would not exist today. You can't really expect corporations, or even indie developers, to provide anyone with free services or products. Experiments in this area have conclusively proven that if customer's aren't required to pay, the overwhelming majority of them won't.
At the same times, games are getting much more expensive at $60 a game now.
This is a common misconception. The truth of the matter is that games are cheaper now than they've ever been. The end consumer is drowning in a sea of gaming value. Less than 20 years ago, it was quite common for games to be initially sold for more than $60 dollars. And if a game was noteworthy, companies would quite willingly charge more for them, rather than conforming to some arbitrary standard. The idea that all games should be sold at the same price initially is a construct promoted by retailers. And when you take inflation into account, it is easy to see that the cost of games has been dropping steadily for the past few decades. We're getting far more games these days, and we're paying a hell of a lot less for them.
Had the industry provided that service itself, they could lower the cost by cutting out the bulk that exists within that $60 price-tag, sell the games directly to the public through the web, and keep that profit.
This argument assumes that high-speed internet is ubiquitous. But the truth is that it is not. You can't assume that every household has the necessary bandwidth to download games. Especially when modern games can easily take up multiple gigabytes each. (and far more in the case of some Blu-Ray titles) And what about the situation outside of the U.S.? In many Asian countries, internet access is commonly restricted to internet cafes. Do you expect people to bring their home consoles to a place like that and pay per minute to download their favorite titles? Or what about people who simply prefer the security of owning physical copies?
And what about the existing download services? Are you trying to argue that services like Steam aren't ALREADY providing what you've described? I would say that the service is already there. You just seem hung up on the idea that someone is expecting you to pay for the service in question.
No, having used copies of a new title available in the same store within a day or so of its release is a serious problem. Gamestop SHOULD be treated as a pawn shop and be under the same regulations where items that are traded in have a holding period (typically about a week).
You know I never really had a problem with pirating and never really cared about it at all until I shipped my first game. A leaked copy of the game was pouring out on to the p2p a week before release. Ultimately the game never really did very well but I had to ask my self how well it would have done if it was never pirated to begin with. Maybe it would never have changed anything with sales. I will tell you one thing though, it felt like someone punched me in the face and killed my dog when I learned people where stealing something I had worked so hard to help create.
No matter how you try to spin it, pirating is stealing not sharing and stealing is still fundamentally wrong in a civilized society.
You think that companies, organizations ostensibly designed to acquire and accumulate capital, are beholden to provide the services and goods they produce without charging for them?
I never said anything like that, and I don't think like that at all. Who said anything about free? You're going from one extreme to the other.
I'm saying that the current price of games is over-priced, when you take into account the new distribution model that's emerging (digital through the internet).
How is it that if I go to a game store and buy a copy of a WoW expansion (for instance) it's $40, and yet when I go online to Blizzard's own website and buy it directly from them, no box, no shipping, no anything, it's still that same $40?
That means that there's a huge amount of overhead here. Overhead that could be minimized by moving to purely digital distribution, at least as an option, for games.
This argument assumes that high-speed internet is ubiquitous. But the truth is that it is not. You can't assume that every household has the necessary bandwidth to download games.
We know that cannot possibly be true, because then how are pirates getting away with their shenanigans? It's the other way around actually. Pirates are proving just that, that there's robust and steady distribution method out there that has near zero cost to operate. We should adopt that system, not shun it.
And what about the existing download services? Are you trying to argue that services like Steam aren't ALREADY providing what you've described? I would say that the service is already there. You just seem hung up on the idea that someone is expecting you to pay for the service in question.
No I'm not. This isn't about games being free, I never said that. In fact, that's downright ridiculous.
Steam is a great step forward, and where I think it's ultimately heading. But the bulk of the issue is the waste that comes from the current boxed distribution model, and the developer/publisher relationship, that's causing huge overhead and pushes the price for games up.
Consider that if you had the option to buy the game for a full price and get a box, or half-priced and download it, which would you choose? Seems pretty obvious to me.
And services like Steam are just one way to do it. Gamefly is another for example. And if Netflix can offer Watch-it-Now, why can't the video-game industry? My xBox has a hard-drive. Why can't I pay a subscription, and then just download games into that HD?
The industry is behind the times. That's my point.
Piracy is just getting bigger, bigger, and bigger. Yes, its a crime. But saddley, if everyone is punished to the fullest extent of the law - the majority of people living in north america would be in jail, or homeless from the fines (or whatever the punishment is.)
Piracy is always going to be around.
And some places are actually taking the steps to put some incentive into buying games (ie - downloadable content thats free if you buy, don't get if you don't buy). I honestly think that the best solution isn't punishing people or being really harsh on them - rather finding a bonus that authentic copys offer.
easier said then done. I know. (no pitch forks please )
I read an article a long time ago (I knida thought i got the link from PC...?) but it made the best solution - use it to an advantage.
If one person pirates a game. they like it. they show 3 of there friends the game. chances are 1 of 3 will buy it. each one of those people will tell 3 people and 1 of 3 of those people will buy etc. etc.
Thats really idealistic, I know.
(for me) I don't buy a game unless I've played that game. period. I have a massive amount of games that are garbage, because I trusted a review. I'm not trying to support piracy - to be honest though theres probably a lot of games that I would buy - but don't because I have never played them, and am typically to timid to pirate, and cant find a demo.
(that leads to a whole new issue, and rant... ...)
The movies, and games that I play/watch - I buy. Because I take pride in physically owning something I think is fucking awesome.
Hopefully someone will someday find a better solution to buying authentic copy's of games, and will be able to create a reasonable solution to curb piracy. We'll see.
Sad to say - but i honestly dont think I know 1 person that hasn't directly or indirectly pirated or supported piracy at some point in there life.
Labeling it a crime, and cracking down on it I just don't think is the best solution for it.
How is it that if I go to a game store and buy a copy of a WoW expansion (for instance) it's $40, and yet when I go online to Blizzard's own website and buy it directly from them, no box, no shipping, no anything, it's still that same $40?
That means that there's a huge amount of overhead here. Overhead that could be minimized by moving to purely digital distribution, at least as an option, for games.
Steam is a great step forward, and where I think it's ultimately heading. But the bulk of the issue is the waste that comes from the current boxed distribution model, and the developer/publisher relationship, that's causing huge overhead and pushes the price for games up.
Consider that if you had the option to buy the game for a full price and get a box, or half-priced and download it, which would you choose? Seems pretty obvious to me.
Digital copies on most services are overpriced, true, that's why steam does so well with its sales. However, saying we should go pure digital is just foolish at this point in time. The infrastructure simply isn't there yet in most parts of the world, and even in developed nations it can be spotty. Even without that problem, unlike with PC titles theirs the problem of generation shifts in technology and design making 'digital collections' a major issue to maintain and move from one gen to the next.
Aside from that their are many people that like having boxed copies of what they buy, myself included. If/when the industry goes all digital I'll be doing a lot more retro gaming, and only buying digital titles when they are priced very low.
This argument assumes that high-speed internet is ubiquitous. But the truth is that it is not. You can't assume that every household has the necessary bandwidth to download games.
We know that cannot possibly be true, because then how are pirates getting away with their shenanigans? It's the other way around actually. Pirates are proving just that, that there's robust and steady distribution method out there that has near zero cost to operate. We should adopt that system, not shun it.
I have to disagree with this, not everyone has high speed unlimited internet connections. South Africa for most people who are lucky enough to have internet connection is 384k, shaped with a cap of 1gb. Some people are still using 56k dial up. And the others are using mobile internet with caps of 250mb or 500mb. Purely digital distribution method isn't viable here, and i'm sure there are other places that have a similar situation. There are still places in South Africa where there is no DSL access - and these are urban middle income areas. Fastest speed in SA is 10mb - but in certain limited areas, and mid is 512k - 4mb.
To put this in perspective, to download a 4gb game on 384k would take me the better part of 2 days if i let it run full time, but i can't run it full time because it would slow down my internet connection. Then the cap, I would need to purchase additional cap to download the game that I already purchased, in some cases - if the game were GTA4, that would double the cost of the game.
And yes some people like having hard copies. It means I don't have to wait 2 days while my game downloads. It means i can go to the shop, buy the game, install it and play, all of which takes me 15 minutes.
Play semantics all day and call it whatever you want. You're using a product you did not pay for, with no intention of purchasing it. Arguing with a "Software Pirate" is like arguing with a troll. There's no sense in it. They will not see it your way. You won't win. They won't stop.
It's despicable and and it's immoral.
I also think that the word "Pirate" is way too awesome of a term to use for these pathetic little thieves. There is such minimal effort involved in "pirating" a piece of software it's a joke. Log onto a Bit Torrent site, click a button, pray you're Anti Virus Software (which is most likely also pirated) catches whatever malicious software may be hidden.
Funny enough, most of the people who pirate these games are the first people to bitch and moan when some new "OMG INVASIVE!" DRM comes out that makes cracking the latest game they want to download take a little longer. "Whaaa PC gaming is dead, DRM is killing it..whaaaaa."
You can't say at the same time that the technology isn't there, and yet it's there enough for piracy to be an issue. That contradicts itself.
If piracy is an issue, then the technology is there. At least partially. Maybe switching to 100% digital isn't the best idea, agreed. But if we're gonna say that piracy is an issue, then obviously there's a significant number of people out there that have the means, and choose to go with digital distribution rather than buying the game legit.
Those should be the target audience for an online distribution model.
And I see nothing wrong with selling the game for $X, and $X+Y if you want a boxed copy.
I'm saying that the current price of games is over-priced, when you take into account the new distribution model that's emerging (digital through the internet).
But when you make that argument, you are assuming that all games should be priced similarly. (or at least that there should be some manner of arbitrary price cap) Are you honestly trying to tell me that a game like StarCraft II is NOT worth $60? I would argue that Blizzard is entitled to every cent of every $60 purchase.
How is it that if I go to a game store and buy a copy of a WoW expansion (for instance) it's $40, and yet when I go online to Blizzard's own website and buy it directly from them, no box, no shipping, no anything, it's still that same $40?
That means that there's a huge amount of overhead here. Overhead that could be minimized by moving to purely digital distribution, at least as an option, for games.
Do you honestly think that is the fault of the game developer? Or even the game publisher? No, that is a decision made by the retail establishment. Retail stores actively place pressure on developers and publishers not to sell their games for less on-line. And they are within their rights to do that. If on-line sales are always lower, eventually the retail chains will be phased out completely. As long as the majority of games continue to be sold at retail, this will not change.
As a bit of an aside, this is exactly why the PSP Go was sold at $250 for so long. This unreasonably high price point wasn't Sony's decision. It was the only way that they could convince retailers to carry the system. No retailer was going to sell the PSP Go unless they were able to make a decent profit off of the hardware.
We know that cannot possibly be true, because then how are pirates getting away with their shenanigans? It's the other way around actually. Pirates are proving just that, that there's robust and steady distribution method out there that has near zero cost to operate. We should adopt that system, not shun it.
I would argue that if pirates can afford to pay for high-speed internet, they should also be able to afford to pay for games. The truth of the matter is that a lot of people pirating games have no legitimate excuse to do so. Also, on-line servers do actually cost money to operate. And the more bandwidth they see, the more that the developer has to pay to maintain them. So millions of people downloading multi-gig packages will actually add up to a tidy bundle. Using non-secure peer-to-peer methods of distribution are only viable for developers who are literally providing a service that you log onto. (like multiplayer games and most MMOs) A developer producing a single-player experience can't use that option.
The industry is behind the times. That's my point.
No, your argument is that the retail establishment is behind the times. The industry is right there with you when it comes to digitally selling games directly to the consumer. Services like Steam have proven that sort of model can succeed. Developers and publishers would LOVE to be able to sidestep brick-and-mortar stores.
The thing is, when you pirate games, you brick-and-mortar stores are the least of the victims involved. Specialty stores like Gamestop don't feel the pinch, because their business model is already geared toward screwing publishers and developers. They WANT to push used content, and your refusal to buy new games doesn't harm them in the least. Major retailers like Best Buy or WalMart also hardly feel a thing. They are the last step in the retail chain, and actually involve some of the least assumed risk. They are far more likely to take a bath on hardware than software. The worst case for them is having a few extra copies of a game on the shelf.
If your objection is to the retail establishment, then pirating games is NOT an effective method of expressing your distaste. Ultimately, piracy is far more damaging to the people making games than the people selling them on shelves. If you want to screw the retail stores, just buy your games on-line from any of the numerous options currently available. Or even go to a developer's on-line store and order a physical copy directly from them. Objecting to retail stores is no excuse for piracy.
No, your argument is that the retail establishment is behind the times.
Really? So then what's stopping blizzard from selling Starcraft2 directly to the players? They could just say to hell with retailers, cut them out of the loop, and sell their games on their websites. It's not the retail establishment. It's the people above blizzard that just wouldn't want to see that happen.
And for that very reason too. If blizzard decides to cut the retailers out of the loop, those retailers lose a lot of money. Blizzard could then sell just as many copies of their games, and keep all the profit for themselves. As a developer, that sounds to me like a desirable situation. And yet, it's not happening. And the only reason I can see is that Blizzard's owners and the people running the show, all enjoy the extra dollars that come in from selling it the inefficient way.
If you want to screw the retail stores, just buy your games on-line from any of the numerous options currently available. Or even go to a developer's on-line store and order a physical copy directly from them. Objecting to retail stores is no excuse for piracy.
Oh I do. I buy games all the time. Bought SC2 (and don't even play it), and you know I'll buy Diablo3 as well. My favorite recent buy was Torchlight. They did it exactly right. You paid $20 for the game, and bought (downloaded) it directly from them. Don't get me wrong, this isn't an argument on my part for piracy. I definitely recognize there's a problem here. But pirates ain't it. It's the way we're running our ship.
Replies
Exactly my point. And that would be a good thing, because people wouldn't have to starve to death.
Exactly. If you paid for it, and then decided to give it away for free, I don't believe that I have further claim to it. I wouldn't feel robbed, no.
That I would have "lost the opportunity of getting paid" argument is pure conjecture. There is no way to prove that the people who you gave it for free to, would have otherwise paid for it, therefore it's not a crime. That's just what I believe personally.
I believe I do have the right to make a profit off of it in the short run. But not forever. Eventually, the stuff you make is just "out there"... once you sell something, it isn't yours anymore.
Again, morally speaking here. Not legally, as reality is obviously quite different.
Nothing can be said. I respect that, and I do the same.
I'm not here advocating piracy. I'm saying that piracy is a symptom whose cause lays with us, the developers, not the pirates. It should be helped wherever possible, and I do spend a lot of my income on games and software that could be gotten through piracy.
Have you posted it on lamebook already?
that would make THE MASSIVE BITCHSLAPPING even more massive and bitchy and slappy
EDIT: IN A PERFECT WORLD that'd be so effing rad, dude! But guess what?
...no...see. In this instance. It's not a food company, it's a video game company. And by going out of business...its employees starve to death. You know, since oranges aren't free.
Which maybe wouldn't happen if we didn't try to rip off our customers by selling air for $60. That's my point. We should be selling it for a fraction of the price, directly to the consumer. But instead we're overcharging and then are surprised when people resort to piracy.
And like I said before, this isn't an argument advocating piracy. I do realize it's a big problem. It's just not morally a crime, in my opinion.
Oh, but wait...
Sure games seem overpriced, but game standards these days overworks their employees. I think they're worth the price, every penny. I don't work for discount wages, good sir.
Sonys rootkits method worked out real well for them didn't it?
Seriously though that kind of thing would open them up for major PR and legal backlash.
Yeah, I get all that, and I totally agree. And I do buy games all the time too. When I have a job and get a paycheck, which I currently do.
But other people don't. These so called "pirates". And when someone copies our games, they do it because they're fans. I don't believe they're evil for doing so, and the problem lies within our own industry (and music, and film) for staying behind the times.
So I don't pirate things.
If you want to buy a game, and then give it to a friend, ok I can maybe see that. I bought the first Fable, played it a little and didn't like it. I tried to give it to a friend awhile back but he didn't want it.
But copying it and distributing it for free while still retaining your own copy at the same time...that...that's really an asshole thing to do. In my opinion, by my morals. So I guess this might be one of those "agree to disagree" things.
But those oranges...
The irony with piracy is that the pirates have went out of their way, and really utilized technology in an amazing way and built this massive infrastructure to deliver terabytes of information with ease. They basically did the industry's work for it. Which the success of services like Steam are evidence for.
But I don't care how genius these people are, what's wrong is wrong. Some people are impressively good at pick-pocketing, and it's amazing how masterfully subtle they are. But it's still wrong. I feel like I'm repeating myself. I need an orange...
I know I only purchase what interests me, and what i need.
The thing is, while you may sell your models, and not mind if they are then distributed freely. You are selling and giving the buyer ownership.
Games are licensed usage, not ownage.
In the EULA of the game, it clearly states that you may not distribute it, when you click accept, you are essentially signing a legally binding document, that gives you the right to use the software / play the game. You own the physical disks.
But you don't own the content, you don't own the right to distribute. You don't own the game, you have Permission to play it. Can you resell the game - that is a grey area, you can resell your physical disks yes, but, like the case with BC2, you then have to buy a new serial to use them(license) unless the person sells his account alongside it, then the previous owner has no way of using it.
Digital copies, I don't think it would work the same way.
Arguing whether or not it's theft, is semantics, in the end it's illegal, a breach of contract/license etc.
Hmm interesting read on Sonys rootkit, thanks for that.
Ye I agree, actions like that can never be linked back to a responsible parent company, and Sony was pretty retarded to think no-one would notice.
However, we live in a world where governmants run all sorts of deniable stuff, large financial corporations do pretty questionable stuff all the time, and with the money involved in games I am surprised a group hasnt tried to take on piracy in a more blunt manner yet.
Finally, as Yozora mentions, I am surprised that some group hasnt got together and tried to sort this out on their own. I realise the pirate and hacking groups are very intelligent people, as well as some of the distributers, but the large majority of people downloading pirated games are dumb as fck, and definitely open to scares/rumours, especially if there is some occasional evidence to back it up....
So, to use the Sony example, if instead, a 'third party' group added that rootkit to their torrent iso, distributed it on the web for a few months, then toasted 10,000 computers with it, I wonder how many people would be up for downloading the next big game?
They tried this in the early years, wasn't successful since only the stupid people downloaded the non-scene releases. I believe recently it was done with Batman, where you had to jump over a gap, you couldn't and you would just die. Somebody complained on their forums and got called out for it.
This stuff isn't all bad, a lot of people tend to get a 'cracked' version of the game because they hate DRM. Other people get the pirated version to check it out, because they wanted to know a bit more than just what the demo shows, then they'll go out and purchase the game. And of course some people just download the game without any thoughts of ever purchasing it, but really thats not a cut out of the business, its just somebody getting the game that they would never purchase anyways. So the revenue gained and lost is $0.00
Games I've worked on have been pirated, but that doesn't bug me, because there a lot of people out there who will go out and purchase it legitimately. Oh well.
You can't prove that the person would have bought the game had he not pirated. It's just as likely that he wouldn't have. And that he pirated the game didn't reduce that game's inventory out there by 1, there are still just as many copies available for it, so it's not like by pirating it he's preventing them from selling it to a third person. So under no theoretical situation is the individual pirate a criminal. None that I can think of anyway, and again, talking morally here, not legally, since this is a theoretical debate.
So then if you look at piracy as a whole instead of the individual, you can plainly see that it's a big problem. That it's eating away profit from developers. That it's hurting the industry.
And what people seem to do is to translate that situation of the macro (piracy in general) into the micro (one person pirating) and make that pirate into a criminal not because he himself stole, but because the activity in general is harmful. Whereas if you look at each individual case, they're really not thieves, they're fans.
And it's no different than buying a used game, which a lot of people do. The whole argument against piracy in the first place is that it hurts us the developers, cause when someone pirates, we're not getting paid. Well, when someone buys used we're not getting paid. And I say there's no crime in either of those. Just because when someone buys used he padded EBGames' wallets doesn't make it right.
Just because something is illegal, doesn't make it immoral. And just because it's legal doesn't make it moral.
"licensing" in my opinion, is bullshit. They charge the full sum as if they're selling it to you, but then they basically lie, and all you get is the dubious privilege of using the thing you fully paid for. It's legal, and immoral.
There's no legitimate reason for a developer to sue their customers for then selling the license, or giving it to a friend. People can get sued for selling a used copy of a program, and that's wrong, no matter how legal it is.
And in case you're thinking this is just in the air, it isn't:
http://gameartisans.org/forums/showthread.php?t=16697
Likewise, the same tactic was used for Titan Quest where cracking the game would break the quests, causing the game to crash. Result? Pirates have spread the bad word and many would-be buyers avoided the game expecting a bugfest.
Whatever you do to counter pirates don't try to harm them or they will bite you back. If you want to convert them into buying customers then don't try to make them hate you (I'm looking at you Ubisoft) but offer the paying customers a better deal instead. Team Fortress 2 is a grand example of how to fight piracy in case of which getting an illegal copy is simply not worth it. Hell, one of the reasons why Minecraft is so damn popular is because Notch took a very similar approach.
Now this may seem like a bit of an overtly extended simile, but I've always treated buying a videogame like buying a themepark ticket, and piracy like counterfeiting. A pirate is, effectively, sneaking into magical fun-land without paying the gateman, which means that the janitors can't maintain the slip'n'slide. This applies more to subscription based and online games, true, but the thought is still there.
There needs to be a youtube version of this. Awesome!
You might find it interesting to note that Bram Cohen, the creator of Bittorrent also worked on the original version of steam for Half-Life 2s release. So in some ways your actually right about that.
Im also going to agree with you that selling (not copying though) used games is the right of whoever owns that particular disc/cart, and anyone who trys to revoke that right is a jackass. Digital distrobution doesnt include this right, hence when I think of buying any digital-only goods I weigh them in as a service, not a product. Stealing (or pirating in your words) a service is both immoral and illegal , whether its as bad as stealing a tangible product however is a little bit trickier to figure out.
If we look at theft from the perspective of the legal system, piracy is liable to get you massive fines the likes of which could take a lifetime to pay off when caught (upwords of a million $ for a single music CD, although I think this has been brought more into the realm of sanity in the last few years), while as stealing from a store is liable to get you some jailtime and possibly a small fine. Which one is more morally reprehensible is something to determine on your own, but the legal system clearly does not see them as being the same thing.
The same rules would then apply to simply downloading images onto your computer. A photo I snap is my intellectual property. I share it with the world by posting it online. You like it and save it. You did not get my permission. If we're so quick to call 'making digital copies' theft, then I could sue you for saving my picture without my consent. The internet could turn into one big legal mess.
'piracy' is theft, however 'digitally copying' by simple definition of theft shouldn't be. We need to keep those two very separate from each other and figure out where the line is drawn between the two.
Of course it all depends on the context.
I believe that 'making digital copies' is ok, however 'piracy' is not. The EULA very specifically says what you can and can't do. Violation of that is illegal and should be prosecuted.
In the above example, some companies are just draconian in their practices.
I'm not against 2nd hand sales or lending games to friends, the whole thing of licensing is BS, i agree, if i'm going to pay so much money on a piece of software, I want to be able to use it without worrying about losing it.
I'm against the large scale piracy of a title. In the end, it's about supporting the devs so they can make more games, whether or not the piratee would have bought the game doesn't matter, some people are just lazy. I've seen some people state they didn't buy game X because they don't have a credit card... so they just pirated it.
As for physical disks costing more than online distribution, I recently bought Mafia 2, my internet connection is 384k, so it's pretty slow, I bought the physical disk, in the end, it was cheaper than buying the digital version directly off steam - even though the physical disk still needs steam to run.
Another instance, I recently bought CS5 Master collection, it cost me a shit load of money, and I have 2 activations, if my hard drive crashes and i'm unable to deactivate CS5, I loose an activation - that happens twice, and adobe states on their site that I will need to buy a new license, which will cost me R26 000. Though they say through customer service i could probably get my activations reset if I did lose one through hdd fault.
It's BS, I do graphic design, so i need that software, I don't use open source equivalents, because for me, they don't function as well. And corel is utter rubbish - Painter being their only decent app in my experience.
Piracy in the end is something I don't support, personally I see it this way, you get what you pay for.
In my above example i paid a shit load for CS5, but i recieved excellent service, and support and regular updates. While autodesk might have problems with licenses being resold, not all have that problem. Adobe you can quite easily transfer a license to someone else when you sell it, the only adobe license you can't transfer/sell is the student license, and considering a student license costs a fraction of a professional license, thats understandable.
I HIGHLY disagree with this. The EULA in recent times has been enforced by the courts, but the fact remains that its a contract forced on the user post purchase, which by default should make it void. You buy a product, get home, and then find that in order to use said product you need to sign a contract that states you dont own it. Retroactive one sided contracts should be illegal.
That's true.
Though, I guess one can argue that if you don't agree with the EULA, you can take the game back for a full refund.
But it isn't about that. It's about padding the wallets of the big entertainment corporations. And I find it fascinating that in most other fields in our lives, people are generally anti big-business screwing over the common person. In everything except entertainment for some reason. In our industry, it seems like everyone is siding with the corporations abusing government power to enforce bizarre contracts retroactively. Putting fans in prisons, or slapping them with millions of dollars in fines because they're horrible pirates. I don't understand this.
Exactly!
Well i've had my say.
At this point we disagree.
I was supporting your point of view because I thought you were being objective about the use of the term "Theft". But saying piracy is not a crime is just as imprecise. Software piracy is crime. It may not be theft, in the strict sense of the word, but it's crime.
It may not be all black and white, there may be lots of grays in the middle, but it's against the law.
Yeah, I respect that. Each has their own opinions on these things.
From my point of view, it seems to me like the entertainment industry scored so many wins, and are playing the victim so much, that we're all falling into it and buying into the notion that they're the poor guy, and that pirates are hardened criminals.
But when I look at it objectively, I cannot plainly see who gets hurt by piracy. You know something's up when if I go into a store and straight-up steal a video-game or a CD and get busted, it's a matter of a fine and maybe a bit of jailtime. Yet if you download that same content and get busted, you get slapped with millions of dollars and potential long-term prison time.
I believe that we're supporting this kind of behavior not because we really believe there's something deeply immoral about software piracy. After all, we don't mind second-hand sales of video-games, which can be more easily demonstrated to take profit away from developers. But we're against piracy simply because the big entertainment corporations paint themselves as the helpless victims, while at the same time grossly over-charging their customers.
@skankerzero: As far as I know, you can NOT return opened software, of any kind, to any store. It has to be opened in order for you to read the EULA, so after that you're shit out of luck whether you agree to the EULA or not.
Also, am I wrong thinking that with certain programs freely available, you can install the software without agreeing to the EULA, therefor not be bound to it? I've had to use one of those programs, just because Lost Planet that came with my pc, wouldn't install on windows xp 64bit. After searching I found out it can run on it, just fine, and there's no problems with it of any kind, they just didn't program the installer to work with xp64. So I got the program, extracted the installer data, and bypassed the os check. It worked just fine.
That's a real example, happened to me a couple of years ago. Is that illegal? Serious question, not a piss-take. Thanks
People like the story of Robin Hood. It is about oppressed people being rescued from their economic trials by a capable hero who takes from the rich and gives to the poor. Technically, this is a story about communism, where wealth is redistributed as needed. But it is the "ideal" form of communism, not the kind that fails continuously. During these hard economic times, it is very easy to sympathize with the citizens, and with the daring hero who works to provide them with resources.
Software pirates who hack games and applications and then redistribute them free of charge probably like to think of themselves as modern-day Robin Hoods. After all, they aren't financially profiting form their efforts. It is easy to portray themselves as being altruistic. And in this day and age, it is easy to portray large businesses as the Prince Johns and Sheriff of Nothinghams of the world. And it is undeniable that game development has shifted into a big-business model. This is how the majority of commercial games are made these days.
However, the reality of the situation is quite a bit different. downloading copies of games without paying for them does not directly attack the "villains" in this scenario. Corporate executives rarely feel the sting of such actions. Usually, the costs of such actions are passed onto the paying customers, and to the developers who produce the games. (in the form of increased retail prices or reduced salaries) And if the situation gets bad enough, upper management will just switch industries. It's quite common for managerial types to change which industry they are working in. Most of the most notorious faces in the game industry used to work in different fields.
So the real issue isn't whether or not copying games is legitimate. You need to think of who you may be hurting if you acquire and play a game without paying for it. Also, you need to accept that distributing a game that you've copied results in making it easier for other people to play that game without paying for it.
You have two things going on here. People want to download games from the internet. It's easier for a lot of people, and more comfortable. At the same times, games are getting much more expensive at $60 a game now. Couple those two together, and piracy looks real tempting. Not only do you get what you want, which is to download the thing without bothering with waiting in line at the store, delivery charges, etc. Plus, it's cheap. Very cheap.
Had the industry provided that service itself, they could lower the cost by cutting out the bulk that exists within that $60 price-tag, sell the games directly to the public through the web, and keep that profit. Piracy wouldn't be needed. It's happening because the people up top refuse to move ahead with the times because it's still making them nice profits.
This is a surprisingly common view... and 99% false. When I was in high school I knew a couple people who were deep into the pirating scene, guys that ran the backbone FTP servers the cracking groups used. Terrabyte servers run by normal dudes back in 2001, plugged directly into the fiber lines that serve comcast and verizon.
They did that shit because they liked subverting the system. That's it. Just like a climber climbs mountains for the rush of climbing the mountain, not some lame existential bullshit that a lot of people like to imagine. It's a simple adrenaline rush, beating the system, breaking the law. Most hackers I've met worked that way, they'll break into some super-secure site and just post up a tag so other hackers can see how badass they are. Same thing with graffiti artists.
This is going to be a moot point soon anyway, once DRM is hardwired into our processors by intel and AMD. Might as well pirate that shit while you can, because soon it's going to nearly impossible. Be able to tell your grandkids you used to be able to get anything you wanted for free on the internet... they won't believe that shit for a second. (no, I'm not endorsing piracy)
No, used games by them selves are not a major problem, its the method of distribution employed by chains like Gamestop that is. This is a common misconception, and if your wanting to argue semantics over piracy vs theft I cant believe your unable to make this distinction.
On the topic of returns, absolutly correct. Very few stores will let you return a game or other disc based media once its been opened. No checking the EULA and then bringing it back if you disagree.
As for bypassing the EULA, the law is really messed up in this case basically states that until you agree to the EULA you don't own a license for that software, hense it could be considered a form of piracy/theft.
Meaning what exactly? That when retailers sell used copies they should give a cut to the publishers?
You have a couple of misconceptions here that need to be cleared up. For starters, we have this service concept. You think that companies, organizations ostensibly designed to acquire and accumulate capital, are beholden to provide the services and goods they produce without charging for them? I would think they would be well within their rights not to provide a service where they distribute their hard work for free. Getting compensation for effort is a fundamental part of modern economics. Without this, many of the games we enjoy would not exist today. You can't really expect corporations, or even indie developers, to provide anyone with free services or products. Experiments in this area have conclusively proven that if customer's aren't required to pay, the overwhelming majority of them won't.
This is a common misconception. The truth of the matter is that games are cheaper now than they've ever been. The end consumer is drowning in a sea of gaming value. Less than 20 years ago, it was quite common for games to be initially sold for more than $60 dollars. And if a game was noteworthy, companies would quite willingly charge more for them, rather than conforming to some arbitrary standard. The idea that all games should be sold at the same price initially is a construct promoted by retailers. And when you take inflation into account, it is easy to see that the cost of games has been dropping steadily for the past few decades. We're getting far more games these days, and we're paying a hell of a lot less for them.
This argument assumes that high-speed internet is ubiquitous. But the truth is that it is not. You can't assume that every household has the necessary bandwidth to download games. Especially when modern games can easily take up multiple gigabytes each. (and far more in the case of some Blu-Ray titles) And what about the situation outside of the U.S.? In many Asian countries, internet access is commonly restricted to internet cafes. Do you expect people to bring their home consoles to a place like that and pay per minute to download their favorite titles? Or what about people who simply prefer the security of owning physical copies?
And what about the existing download services? Are you trying to argue that services like Steam aren't ALREADY providing what you've described? I would say that the service is already there. You just seem hung up on the idea that someone is expecting you to pay for the service in question.
No matter how you try to spin it, pirating is stealing not sharing and stealing is still fundamentally wrong in a civilized society.
I never said anything like that, and I don't think like that at all. Who said anything about free? You're going from one extreme to the other.
I'm saying that the current price of games is over-priced, when you take into account the new distribution model that's emerging (digital through the internet).
How is it that if I go to a game store and buy a copy of a WoW expansion (for instance) it's $40, and yet when I go online to Blizzard's own website and buy it directly from them, no box, no shipping, no anything, it's still that same $40?
That means that there's a huge amount of overhead here. Overhead that could be minimized by moving to purely digital distribution, at least as an option, for games.
We know that cannot possibly be true, because then how are pirates getting away with their shenanigans? It's the other way around actually. Pirates are proving just that, that there's robust and steady distribution method out there that has near zero cost to operate. We should adopt that system, not shun it.
No I'm not. This isn't about games being free, I never said that. In fact, that's downright ridiculous.
Steam is a great step forward, and where I think it's ultimately heading. But the bulk of the issue is the waste that comes from the current boxed distribution model, and the developer/publisher relationship, that's causing huge overhead and pushes the price for games up.
Consider that if you had the option to buy the game for a full price and get a box, or half-priced and download it, which would you choose? Seems pretty obvious to me.
And services like Steam are just one way to do it. Gamefly is another for example. And if Netflix can offer Watch-it-Now, why can't the video-game industry? My xBox has a hard-drive. Why can't I pay a subscription, and then just download games into that HD?
The industry is behind the times. That's my point.
Piracy is just getting bigger, bigger, and bigger. Yes, its a crime. But saddley, if everyone is punished to the fullest extent of the law - the majority of people living in north america would be in jail, or homeless from the fines (or whatever the punishment is.)
Piracy is always going to be around.
And some places are actually taking the steps to put some incentive into buying games (ie - downloadable content thats free if you buy, don't get if you don't buy). I honestly think that the best solution isn't punishing people or being really harsh on them - rather finding a bonus that authentic copys offer.
easier said then done. I know. (no pitch forks please
I read an article a long time ago (I knida thought i got the link from PC...?) but it made the best solution - use it to an advantage.
If one person pirates a game. they like it. they show 3 of there friends the game. chances are 1 of 3 will buy it. each one of those people will tell 3 people and 1 of 3 of those people will buy etc. etc.
Thats really idealistic, I know.
(for me) I don't buy a game unless I've played that game. period. I have a massive amount of games that are garbage, because I trusted a review. I'm not trying to support piracy - to be honest though theres probably a lot of games that I would buy - but don't because I have never played them, and am typically to timid to pirate, and cant find a demo.
(that leads to a whole new issue, and rant... ...)
The movies, and games that I play/watch - I buy. Because I take pride in physically owning something I think is fucking awesome.
Hopefully someone will someday find a better solution to buying authentic copy's of games, and will be able to create a reasonable solution to curb piracy. We'll see.
Sad to say - but i honestly dont think I know 1 person that hasn't directly or indirectly pirated or supported piracy at some point in there life.
Labeling it a crime, and cracking down on it I just don't think is the best solution for it.
/end rant
Digital copies on most services are overpriced, true, that's why steam does so well with its sales. However, saying we should go pure digital is just foolish at this point in time. The infrastructure simply isn't there yet in most parts of the world, and even in developed nations it can be spotty. Even without that problem, unlike with PC titles theirs the problem of generation shifts in technology and design making 'digital collections' a major issue to maintain and move from one gen to the next.
Aside from that their are many people that like having boxed copies of what they buy, myself included. If/when the industry goes all digital I'll be doing a lot more retro gaming, and only buying digital titles when they are priced very low.
I have to disagree with this, not everyone has high speed unlimited internet connections. South Africa for most people who are lucky enough to have internet connection is 384k, shaped with a cap of 1gb. Some people are still using 56k dial up. And the others are using mobile internet with caps of 250mb or 500mb. Purely digital distribution method isn't viable here, and i'm sure there are other places that have a similar situation. There are still places in South Africa where there is no DSL access - and these are urban middle income areas. Fastest speed in SA is 10mb - but in certain limited areas, and mid is 512k - 4mb.
To put this in perspective, to download a 4gb game on 384k would take me the better part of 2 days if i let it run full time, but i can't run it full time because it would slow down my internet connection. Then the cap, I would need to purchase additional cap to download the game that I already purchased, in some cases - if the game were GTA4, that would double the cost of the game.
And yes some people like having hard copies. It means I don't have to wait 2 days while my game downloads. It means i can go to the shop, buy the game, install it and play, all of which takes me 15 minutes.
It's despicable and and it's immoral.
I also think that the word "Pirate" is way too awesome of a term to use for these pathetic little thieves. There is such minimal effort involved in "pirating" a piece of software it's a joke. Log onto a Bit Torrent site, click a button, pray you're Anti Virus Software (which is most likely also pirated) catches whatever malicious software may be hidden.
Funny enough, most of the people who pirate these games are the first people to bitch and moan when some new "OMG INVASIVE!" DRM comes out that makes cracking the latest game they want to download take a little longer. "Whaaa PC gaming is dead, DRM is killing it..whaaaaa."
Thieves.
If piracy is an issue, then the technology is there. At least partially. Maybe switching to 100% digital isn't the best idea, agreed. But if we're gonna say that piracy is an issue, then obviously there's a significant number of people out there that have the means, and choose to go with digital distribution rather than buying the game legit.
Those should be the target audience for an online distribution model.
And I see nothing wrong with selling the game for $X, and $X+Y if you want a boxed copy.
But when you make that argument, you are assuming that all games should be priced similarly. (or at least that there should be some manner of arbitrary price cap) Are you honestly trying to tell me that a game like StarCraft II is NOT worth $60? I would argue that Blizzard is entitled to every cent of every $60 purchase.
Do you honestly think that is the fault of the game developer? Or even the game publisher? No, that is a decision made by the retail establishment. Retail stores actively place pressure on developers and publishers not to sell their games for less on-line. And they are within their rights to do that. If on-line sales are always lower, eventually the retail chains will be phased out completely. As long as the majority of games continue to be sold at retail, this will not change.
As a bit of an aside, this is exactly why the PSP Go was sold at $250 for so long. This unreasonably high price point wasn't Sony's decision. It was the only way that they could convince retailers to carry the system. No retailer was going to sell the PSP Go unless they were able to make a decent profit off of the hardware.
I would argue that if pirates can afford to pay for high-speed internet, they should also be able to afford to pay for games. The truth of the matter is that a lot of people pirating games have no legitimate excuse to do so. Also, on-line servers do actually cost money to operate. And the more bandwidth they see, the more that the developer has to pay to maintain them. So millions of people downloading multi-gig packages will actually add up to a tidy bundle. Using non-secure peer-to-peer methods of distribution are only viable for developers who are literally providing a service that you log onto. (like multiplayer games and most MMOs) A developer producing a single-player experience can't use that option.
No, your argument is that the retail establishment is behind the times. The industry is right there with you when it comes to digitally selling games directly to the consumer. Services like Steam have proven that sort of model can succeed. Developers and publishers would LOVE to be able to sidestep brick-and-mortar stores.
The thing is, when you pirate games, you brick-and-mortar stores are the least of the victims involved. Specialty stores like Gamestop don't feel the pinch, because their business model is already geared toward screwing publishers and developers. They WANT to push used content, and your refusal to buy new games doesn't harm them in the least. Major retailers like Best Buy or WalMart also hardly feel a thing. They are the last step in the retail chain, and actually involve some of the least assumed risk. They are far more likely to take a bath on hardware than software. The worst case for them is having a few extra copies of a game on the shelf.
If your objection is to the retail establishment, then pirating games is NOT an effective method of expressing your distaste. Ultimately, piracy is far more damaging to the people making games than the people selling them on shelves. If you want to screw the retail stores, just buy your games on-line from any of the numerous options currently available. Or even go to a developer's on-line store and order a physical copy directly from them. Objecting to retail stores is no excuse for piracy.
Really? So then what's stopping blizzard from selling Starcraft2 directly to the players? They could just say to hell with retailers, cut them out of the loop, and sell their games on their websites. It's not the retail establishment. It's the people above blizzard that just wouldn't want to see that happen.
And for that very reason too. If blizzard decides to cut the retailers out of the loop, those retailers lose a lot of money. Blizzard could then sell just as many copies of their games, and keep all the profit for themselves. As a developer, that sounds to me like a desirable situation. And yet, it's not happening. And the only reason I can see is that Blizzard's owners and the people running the show, all enjoy the extra dollars that come in from selling it the inefficient way.
Oh I do. I buy games all the time. Bought SC2 (and don't even play it), and you know I'll buy Diablo3 as well. My favorite recent buy was Torchlight. They did it exactly right. You paid $20 for the game, and bought (downloaded) it directly from them. Don't get me wrong, this isn't an argument on my part for piracy. I definitely recognize there's a problem here. But pirates ain't it. It's the way we're running our ship.