In regards to your Piracy 'joke' - Followup requested


#61

As an afterthought

I think you need to contextualise that bit.

That’s EXACTLY what’s happening to game devs except it’s also costing money before they even get a passenger. They have to factor in potential DRM costs, legal costs for EULA’s, possible enforcement, loss of revenue and/or potential costs for server side delivery etc. because of the potential for pirates, even where none might actually exist.

Piracy costs from the get-go - before a game is even released - it’s not a $7.95 single download lost as many people seem to argue, it could amount to 10’s of thousands of dollars before even the first copy sells!!

EVERY lost sale to piracy is lost revenue just as every lost sale to bad service/bad product is lost revenue. It is not measurable which makes the efficacy of such measures open to interpretation and that’s why I argue why we expect the devs to be punished by the actions of THIEVES?

And for devs, it’s a very difficult and almost incalculable risk.

  • Lost revenue to pirates by doing nothing (to keep honest people happy) is lost revenue,
  • Increased costs by doing something (to combat the pirates) is increased costs but may ALSO generate lost revenue by pissing off your honest customer.

What would YOU do? It’s money that either comes out of your pocket pre-dev or will never go in post-dev. It’s LOST. Period.

And you’re suggesting it’s their fault for “not adapting” (or they must) and want to make it even harder for them - and ultimately for us too?!

Just say NO to piracy… See where I am coming from?


#62

They would have added DRM even if there wasn’t any piracy because they started putting the full game online as downloads and they are a business remember the copy protection used to be on the disc.


#63

Ok, firstly, I apologize for my snide sounding post above. I was having a bleh day.

One of the points I was trying to make is that supportive fans are more willing to ‘be supportive.’ There’s a difference, again, between a Mars Bar and digital software, as digital software can be copied for free, and a Mars Bar requires an upfront cost, but for this example, we’ll ignore that.

If a sign was placed next to the $1.50 Mar Bar saying ‘proceeds will go to finding a cure for cancer,’ you’d be surprised how many people would donate the $1.50.

While I support your effort and the idea youre conveying, I am much more pessimistic about the outcome. Its the nature of the beast that code can be cracked and duplicated. Now, a closed system, outside Windows, might prove to be more difficult (was the ps3 ever cracked?), but I don’t think thats the argument.

Regardless, the truth is, the only thing that will stop it is harder enforcement of the law.

Adapting is part of the business place. No one looking to succeed can ignore reality because it doesn’t suit them. So even if its not their fault, it’s still happening and they need to (and have been) reacting to it.


#64

If there wasn’t piracy, why have DRM at all?

I think people are forgetting that piracy is the reason for DRM. DRM is not the reason for piracy.


#65

Warning: Wall of text:

@Ricky_Mason Thanks, I like to look at piracy as an act of nature, and quite frankly eventually you just study and prepare for it rather than trying to fight the tide of the ocean. The more we understand human nature and it’s effect on the digital market, the more we will be able to know about the impact of Piracy and how to reduce that impact. There’s no reducing piracy, only it’s impact. You can increase piracy though by making bad decisions like Sim City 4 though.

I watch Extra Credits each week and I recommend watching the video @Manak posted too. Just because I’m ocean-centric doesn’t mean I’m pro-ocean.

What’s to keep them from buying it?
Same argument, same answer. Only difference is the question.

Your question implies that they must put some sort of restriction into the game.
My question implies what does the game/company do to keep or push away people.

It depends on the technological know-how of the person you are recommending the game to, and their outlooks as well as precautions they want to take. Quite frankly the most accurate answer is that the majority of people will pay for it if they want it (especially if on sale). It’s a human nature thing studied before for ages.

Sites dedicated towards piracy are full of bad things that could mess up your computer, you might get an infected file, etc. People stay away from these sites and I refuse to give out anything unless they specifically ask for the same file I used, in which I only do it if they know about the dangers. I’d rather them ask me then look themselves and infect their computers.

Console piracy is another ballgame of magic voodoo that even I don’t participate in because that’s a $200 piece of machinery I could break forever. Well, except for my Dreamcast that’s having laser issues, just gotta burn and play with that thing.

Another argument is that the legitimate version has features that even the pirated version cannot support without a hassle. You might have the stones for the super linux double hack, but in that case it’s just easier for everybody to have them buy the game.

Supply of product remains at: ∞-n where n= "number of pirated copies"
Sales are lost when supplies are removed from circulation not via payment transactions (aka via theift)

By that logic, the universe owes every company that distributed digitally every money ever.

But you are forced to pay $60 for something you’ll never get the full $60 back. (A reason for demos or intensive gameplay preview from video demos or a letsplay demo <- good idea for marketing btw)

That’s not the reason. The reason is that the supply can be created ad infinitum. Because there is no sustainable loss of product, even if someone does take it the company does not lose a sale. (They lose a sale if you remove from their possession 1 physical object that could have been the object of transaction)

One cannot judge the nature of the action towards an infinite item based on laws originating from a world of finite supply.

Wow, this is the most dangerous argument for any sort of authority ever. If I wouldn’t ever accept this line of reasoning for my government, why would I accept it to be a good argument for anything else?

The easiest way to answer this is just look back on the Xbox One debacle and figure out the reasoning behind their decisions. (Protip: They obviously didn’t expect that backlash, go from there.)

Those are services, and expenses are used. The taxi is limited in the number of vehicles, time, gas cost, payment for the active time used, these things are finite, there’s a finite supply of taxis and taxis availability. Sneaking into movies is trespassing, taking up a seat/room (finite supply), and due to copyright laws, the theater has to manage viewcount, because of the security, it’s easier to buy a ticket than sneak in. Plus they usually just kick people out for sneaking in.

A video game is a finished product that the acquisition of such in a manner that it does not prevent others from acquiring or using the service, nor does it’s acquisition cost the origin company anything. Theft deprives, you can’t deprive an infinite supply

[quote=“Maverick, post:58, topic:2172”]
DRM and it’s associated evils become a self-fulfilling prophecy and I made that point. The difference here is that large publishing houses have the power to bring the change.
[/quote]They may have the power, but while the business world is still used to interacting with a physical finite supply, they’ll continue using the same measures that ensured the safety of those finite physical products. Not to generalize, but basically they’re old and don’t understand today’s world (Same kind of people who are in the government.) This is especially true even if they have a young board and management, as if they’re a public company their shareholders (shares are a finite supply) would demand these counter-productive security measures.

[quote=“Maverick, post:60, topic:2172”]
But in answer, yes they might change. No, they shouldn’t need to. This “digital environment” you speak of is not a sudden new phenomena. Software has been pirated since it was on 5 1/4 floppy disks. It’s just easier now due to torrent etc. It was not legal then and is not legal now. It was theft then, it is still theft now.
[/quote]Yes and no. Back then data storage was a finite supply, and distribution of data was harder. Software modifications were harder too and DRM required physical copies of manuals and such. (a hassle, but nothing too major due to the nature of software/gaming back then). Piracy back then, due to the finite supply, usually also sold the product they copied, which is a big nono for 2 reasons: 1) Profiting 2) Distributing. (while most piracy nowadays is don via torrent and thus 90% of the people upload (distribute), obtaining in itself isn’t the violation of copyright law.)

Just because something has technically been out for 20-30 years doesn’t make it not new. For an environment that is different than the physical environment, it’s still at it’s infancy. Infancy means recently born/created, thus new.

[quote=“Maverick, post:60, topic:2172”]
Simply because the theft does not have a direct and attributable cost, it’s now being trumpeted as “OK theft”.
[/quote]Well the only thing here is, how does one modify the punishment for distributing a product that it’s illicit distribution does not provide any solid sort of loss towards the copyright owner? They could sue them based on violation of copyright law, but what if 1000s of people do it at once, all for personal use?

Direct download sites, downloading from then is not a crime, however them hosting illicit goods and copying them to you when you request is against copyright law, especially so since the hosting service itself profits from the traffic, users that upload these files are also subject to this (although they do not profit from it and anyone can make an account, still violation of copyright law and their IPs are logged by the server). Torrent sites the same thing, but the users of the torrent sites are a different matter as it’s entirely anonymous other than IP address which is not stored by any central server

It’s not that’s it’s “OK theft” but “No viable actions of recourse” (other than shutting down the sites which they do in the most viable way already anyway)

[quote=“Maverick, post:60, topic:2172”]
Yes piracy will happen. No it shouldn’t and if the models you’re suggesting were the only option then the gaming community will be the poorer for it.
[/quote]Piracy will happen and it will always happen. Human nature. Businesses need to change to use human nature better, not fight against it. The reason everything is up in the air is because this is a new reaction businesses don’t know how to deal with. It’s a new reaction because human nature has not come across something so useful that is easily attainable and has infinite supply.

[quote=“Maverick, post:60, topic:2172”]
So in short, business does NOT and SHOULD not modify THEIR behaviour, they didn’t cause the problem. When they DO attempt to stop the issue they are slammed by the community for draconian measures etc.
[/quote]Businesses that fail to adapt fall
Businesses that treat and restrict their paying customers fail (while pirates remove and play the game unhindered)

If you knew anything about business you would NEVER suggest a business should stay stagnant and refuse the change. That is the #1 reason why big companies lose their place in the market. It’s also the #1 reasons why governments fall.

Stop piracy or the government will make out games
What.

Both of those are not measurable, yet companies don’t seem to be fixing the latter.
Quite frankly, those two are also linked. They’re 60% or more the same issue. If you could measure “sales lost” due to piracy, and have a god-given measure of “sales lost” due to your product being shit, you’d see a huge overlap.

But those will never be measured ever because piracy relies on human nature, while a shit product is their fault. Easier to blame human nature while forgetting that human nature is also the reason people like their products and buy it.

The only lesson from the statement you made there is that “sales lost” for people pirating games are less if you make a not-shit product.


In the end it’s a debate on your personal morals. It’s not about recourse for something that is illegal or not as individually not viable, but more of a philosophy of right and wrong.

From the business standpoint, this means that the whole issue isn’t an issue of someone stealing something as you can go “That’s a lost sale” and it be true. It means you have to look at the bigger picture and understand human nature and it’s reaction towards the digital environment.
This means: Make you way the easiest and most satisfying.

Easiest way: Provide services for paying customers that pirates would not have access to.
Steam Games and Minecraft. They provide reasons to use their product legitimately, and their DRM is completely non-intrustive (but still DRM).
The biggest surprise: They both are insanely easy to pirate.

They’re both centrally controlled call home DRM styles, but they don’t require constant connections and they provide an auxiliary experience that enhances the core product.

Due to the finite nature of the material world, Products are the main source of trade.
Due to the infinite nature of the digital world, Products are essentially costless to reproduce and distribute.

So for the digital world, you have to supply something that is limited and satisfactory, a service. This means the digital world is service driven because there are still a few limited resources they can use: Time, Money, People.

The material world uses this too, but the best way to explain it is: A Service is a Product (Warranty), but a Product isn’t a Service(the car you have the warranty for).


I don’t advocate piracy, but I will not condemn it.
I really do recommend reading my above posts, and if you haven’t, watch the Extra-Credits video. (Watch all their other videos too, they’re great)


#66

This is a huge misheld belief. Software does have a cost upfront. And unlike a Mars Bar, once it has life it also has ongoing costs. It’s not suddenly a benign intangible.

And yes, absolutely people will pay for a $1.50 “cancer” bar, but that is altruism, not a business transaction.

Unfortunately, people have no sympathy (or empathy usually) for business and often consider business as “them” and “us”, almost as though they don’t have people behind them or within them.

What people might not realise is that fully 70% of business is Momma and Poppa, not Big Joe corporate and yet we treat all business as though they’re all money gouging rip-offs who deserve to have stuff stolen.

Right, we’re getting somewhere and you are right to some degree.

Enforcement is a key but, and you point this out yourself, while it is easy to crack and hack, it is also 1) very difficult to detect and 2) very expensive to enforce. Attacking the pirates directly is pretty well pointless.

I am a big believer in education and setting standards at every level to induce proper behaviour. And if you go right back to post #1 from me on this topic you’ll see that’s where I am at. Piracy has to become a not-for-negotiation topic from the outset. We need to change the user thought process and behaviour, not set up more traps and pitfalls to combat the pirates - an expense incurred by the developers and one we all have to bear - at the checkout. We’re targetting the honest and not addressing the problem.

Firstly we need to set piracy unequivocably as theft (which it is) and stop labelling it with passive terms like classical, traditional, OK or whatever. Peer pressure is a huge force and piracy is simply “that thing you do” - we need to change this mindset.

And food for thought. Why doesn’t the software industry bring it all back to grassroots mum and dad televison advertising simply asking if they know what their kids are playing and more importantly, where they got it from?

They need to stop trumpeting business as the victim of piracy (which you raised) and make parents think the kids are the victims of piracy. You might be surprised at the reaction.

As an educator and a father, one serious issue I quickly identified is that most parents are not tech savvy and have no idea what their kids are doing. Kids are pirating - often unbeknownst to them - and parents have no idea it is happening. The law is being broken and no-one knows.

I trust that the nextgen of parents will be far more tech savvy and we can expect parental education and better control to start flowing into bad online behaviour.

I cannot argue on that premise but I think you’re missing my point (and I am sorry to capitalize) but WE DO NOT WANT BUSINESS BEING IN CHARGE OF SOFTWARE SECURITY.

There are inherent problems with this and I raised them before. It will almost immediately impact every small dev on earth. It will impact everyone with slow/no good net access.

My biggest beef is that it removes responsibility for poor choices away from the individual and back to the Big Brother/Big Stick approach.

WE DO NOT WANT THAT. This is BAD mmmkkk…

…oo00oo…

You know, it’s worth considering that the Klugs have proved a valuable lesson with their little ploy. Their software landed on the machines of pirates and broadcast back.

Now just think for one moment what that could be used for. Pirates (passive and active) could be detected and “warned”. The ignorant learn, the deliberate will sweat.

And that’s all that needs to happen. Make pirates sweat. Make them think that at anytime there might be a knock at the door. Mix some guilt and fear into unlawful software acquisition and watch the change.

Some very clever techniques to simply detect and educate pirates is very easily done and will shift the “comfort factor” away from torrent and the like.

Failing that, impregnate root :slight_smile:


#67

Because it is a business that is what a big business does as I said it doesn’t matter if there is piracy or not there could never have been any piracy in the history of the world they would have still added something like that because it is a mindset that they have and will always have when they put a full product online for downloads.

Edit:DRM is there because they changed how they sold games not because of piracy.


#68

And to nutshell my entire rant, that’s EXACTLY what I am saying.

And for the record, I was a software dev - a business owner. I was also an educator. I had a custom package installed illegally on many machines pre-WWW days. I sought to educate my pirates firstly, and when that failed (about 2%) I sought leave to address the issue through the courts.

Presentation of said appearance date to answer copyright violation (a euphemism for you stole it!!) prompted private sittings - and private settlements.

Problem solved. And just so ya know, the vast majority of people that pirated my custom software had no idea it was pirating or even unlawful.

How did I find out about the pirated software? Doing cold-calling to sell the package tailored for the business. In one place I was presented with "

“We already have something in place”
“Mind if I quickly look?”
“Sure, go right ahead…”

I think you can guess the rest. Had I not gone there and seen it, it was LOST REVENUE because they already owned it and had no need to BUY it from me.

Regardless, you need to stop regurgitating that software is an intangible and piracy is not lost revenue. That’s just plain wrong. A service or product fee not paid is lost revenue. Whether that has an initial cost, a direct attributable cost or an ongoing cost, it costs. It’s purely by degrees.

And your responses lack the one basic premise - the acceptance of piracy as unlawful behaviour.

The whole topic condenses to 3 simple questions.

  1. Is it in your possession?
  2. Did you pay for it?
  3. Were you supposed to?

Everything else is just faffing and to clarify, bits and bytes are tangible and the possession - yes - POSSESSION of those bits and bytes constitute a transaction, direct or indirect, between the creator and the owner of the physical location of said bits and bytes.

The legal question is not about the bits and bytes, tangibility or otherwise, it’s down to the lawfulness of the transaction to acquire said bits and bytes.

And I am NOT saying business SHOULD NOT adapt to changing conditions. What I am saying is it is largely pointless to some degree - IF - we change the mindset in the first place. Now we’re right back to paragraph one - the bit we do agree on.

And my comment re: government and games. You need to stop being so bullish and naive. COPYRIGHT LAW is made by governments to protect BUSINESS. If copyright violation cannot be curtailed BY business it WILL come back to government.

Business simply needs to mount a case for government to act (we all agree it’s too hard to gauge) and THIS is what the loud public noise is about piracy. I asked before if a move was on and I am betting it is. (see Napster V2.)

The net is being used to conduct unlawful activity. There is only one force on earth that has the power to stop global unlawful activity. Governments.

Case in point is child exploitation being used as the catalyst to put all sorts of tracing and storage rules in place for ISP’s worldwide. Child porn is illegal and is an easy topic to engender public support for internet control. (as it should)

Unfortunately, piracy is also unlawful and if it doesn’t stop, big business WILL lobby governments to tighten the net even further.

I’ve said from the outset, we need to be careful what we wish for. It’s not about whether big business/government SHOULD fight, having big business and/or government take on pirates is a deep, deep concern with many facets. It’s not as simple as you might think.

Start at home. Say NO to piracy.


#69

Answer this simple question. What is DRM?

When you work that out tell me what else is it good for if not for combating piracy?


#70

Digital Rights Management right?My point is they would add it even if they didn’t need it when they switched over to downloads because it is a big business and the full product is online being downloaded to them it is a safety measure.

DLC seemed to get big when they added it too since they could keep everyone online to play their game.

Edit:If you are wondering what they use it for having it gives them a lot of control over the games such if they stop supporting a game ten years from now it just vanishes it doesn’t have to be a great idea to do so but any Big business would love that control.


#71

You’re not getting it. “Safety measure” for what? DRM has no other purpose than to combat piracy because it forces validation of licence. That’s it. (and oddly enough, that’s exactly what you said)…

And has been pointed out, it is easily stepped over by a hack which gives rise to putting the content server side and quite possibly making it subscriber fees to prevent piracy. Which it can and does.

But such measures exclude many, many customers the world over because of it. Some not because they can’t, but because they won’t succumb to an “always on” demand placed on them by software companies.

On your penultimate comment, you don’t need DRM if you want people to play a game. You simply give them access to the game and make it a good experience. You can’t “keep” people online with DRM. That’s not it’s purpose.

And truly. I think you lack the understanding of what “control” is. We are not subject to some Orwellian conspiracy here. Business has no need to “control” anything, there isn’t anything to control.

But I will add that if we keep pushing the responsibility of self control and moral judgement back to business and government we WILL end up with an Orwellian future.

WE created the problem. WE need to fix it before someone does it for us.


#72

I do get what you were saying you were saying piracy is so bad and that is why they made DRM I’m saying it isn’t because piracy is so bad it is something that is added because they changed how the games were sold because they had some form of copy protection on the games physical disc till they went online with it then they had to make something new.

I’m not in favor of DRM I’m trying to explain that is why they made it not because of how bad piracy is they may have made it for piracy but they didn’t add it because of the Amount of games being pirated.

With DRM most forms do force people to go online to play some aren’t to bad about but a lot of them are but even the better ones can stop you from being able to reinstall a legit game if they stopped supporting it.

I’m not explaining Morals or anything like that I’m explaining why they added it and that it is all.

Uh…huh A business will always control whatever they can it is how All businesses work it is how they compete with other businesses.


#73

Let’s not confuse DRM with “always on”. In fact, “always on” and server side content don’t actually need DRM.

DRM takes many guises. In it’s various forms it is still purely a content use and copying inhibitor. aka. anti-piracy.

And yes, in it’s various forms it is bad for the honest guys, easily circumvented and largely pointless. It also technically constitutes a repositioning of the law on copyright and I raised this point when I posed the question that software EULA’s etc. have not had any serious precedents to set the LAW properly,

Business has set the law standard and this will need to be challenged. DRM is bad and as far as I am concerned is illegal or at the very least immoral.

Until then, we get what has been dished out and click Accept. Blindly…

(and no, business does not need to control to compete successfully. Control might stifle competition initially but it’s actually bad for business and innovation and they know it).


#74

True but with always on or having just to authenticate your game if the server to do it isn’t there the same thing happens.

True it does hurt it but that doesn’t stop it from happening as the company gets bigger it is why the ones that used to be awesome are now the most hated.


#75

If DRM and the business model is not to your liking, don’t use the service. They will get the message very quickly. Pirating only gives them greater impetus to be even more invasive and controlling.

This fact alone needs to be hammered home to ALL software users, legitimate or otherwise. We’re condoning the restrictions simply by acceptance with continued use or trying to bypass. They cannot FORCE you to spend your money on anything at anytime. Yet we do and then we complain about what we receive.

WE NEED TO STOP CLICKING ACCEPT SO BLINDLY

…oo00oo…

The only danger here is where virtual monopolies hold sway and then - as happened in Microsoft V US government - we required the government to intervene on our behalf. MS practices increased the number of Linux users no doubt but not enough switched away from MS (they couldn’t) to make the impact. So government jumped in.

That is not going to happen with game companies because games are not an “essential service” so the only power YOU have against game companies is to NOT USE.

Software purchasers need to challenge or ignore the demands being placed on them or simply pay the price, accept the terms and stop whining about it.

(and the irony here is the slogan “challenge everything” comes from the most invasive DRM software company in existence. Where they daring us to try?)


#76

Just picked up on this and I see why we’re at odds here. It’s the definition of the word theft.

I urge you to cast your eyes to the US N.E.T. Act 1997 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Act) - please note the anagram. It’s also interesting that it required government intervention to clarify the intent of copyright infringment in response to a student (LaMacchia) who played games around the intent and ended up exposing a loophole that had to be closed.

LaMacchia’s original legal argument sounds much like your obfuscation - although I do say this in jest :slight_smile:

I paraphrase for quick reference. Please also note the wording bolded.

QUOTE
…The indictment held that LaMacchia had devised a scheme to defraud the software manufacturers and copyright owners whose software had been distributed on Cynosure without paying proper licensing fees and royalties, thereby causing losses totaling over one million USD. There was no allegation that LaMacchia had derived any personal profit from the scheme, which is why the indictment was not made on grounds of copyright infringement…
UNQUOTE
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._LaMacchia)

…ooo000ooo…

Despite this, I concur and agree that the terminology around the word “theft” might be deemed ambiguous but the intent remains the same and we need to focus on the intent, not the suitability of the words used.

Theft has it’s meaning associated from the pre-digital age where the “ether intangible” simply did not exist. In the true sense of the word no deprivation of property exists but I think we must surely agree that deprivation of income certainly does.

(and if that income could have been used to acquire property?? a bit circular I know but there ya go…)

On a lighter side…

Here’s a little irony while we’re playing word games. You’re using “theft” in the pre-digital axiom to refute “piracy” as theft.

“Piracy” meant the boarding and subsequent deprivation and liberty of a sea going vessel, the inhabitants and her cargo. Terminology and intent is all from the pre-digital era, not mine.

Piracy itself is thus the wrong word if pedantry is to be the way this is played.

Queen to A4 :slight_smile:


#77

The problem with this is back then no one was educated on it, nor was copyright law towards software a media deal. It happened, some DRM showed up and etc. Basically you’re basing your experiences of loss on the wild west of software deployment and use, where data storage and transfers were essentially limited.

Nowadays there are licenses every install and businesses get into big trouble for using illicit software and they audit themselves to make sure they are not doing things they cannot get away with in court.

Also back then people bought pirated software and because of that most of the anti-piracy actions was towards the people profiting off from the sale, which are numbers of lost sales for you because no matter what, in the end the victim company that bought the pirated software is a paying customer that you didn’t receive the money from.

Yes, however businesses and governments will not get much compensation nor will they prevent the distribution of software for personal use. They only care about the distribution of the product that produces profit at the loss of the original maker. File sharing sites with ads, torrent sites (which have ads). Businesses selling pirated games (Even then, in placed like Brazil due to governmental taxes on imports, places sell pirated games) still exist because if there was a way to get the product with profit to the original creator, they would insist on the pirated materials be gone.

All anti-piracy measures are, are to ensure that no one is profiting off from someone else’s work. Aside from that other than the token attempt, they don’t care because they can’t do anything about personal use.[quote=“Maverick, post:76, topic:2172”]
Bunch of stuff …Queen to A4 :slight_smile:
[/quote]
And with that you’ve essentially jumped the shark you’ve been hanging air over.
Anyway, you’re all boy scout “Say no to priacy” condemning it, and having all these arguments all over the place.

So I just have one request:
Digital Software Piracy is morally ambiguous as while it’s not right, it’s not wrong. (See Extra Credits video above for good examples). Distributing Digital Software without permission from the original copyright holder is the act of Digital Software Piracy. This distribution 99% of the time is not for the profit of the soul individual who is distributing it (especially so with torrenting, unless you block all uploading)
It does go against US Copyright law, however laws are laws, and not morals.

Stealing is wrong. There’s science behind why it is wrong.
If Piracy is wrong, give non-theorhetical numbers with science on how modern piracy hurts a business.

Then submit those numbers to EA because they obviously can’t find them, and they’re a company that has guaranteed to “Lose Sales” due to piracy. Guaranteed.

(not that I’m saying it’s right by any means)


Honestly the way you’re arguing, it’s the same arguments people use to defend their personal beliefs with circular logic, saying something is bad because it’s bad. The reason it’s a debate is because no one can prove how bad it is.

Many people still think piracy is the old way where people profit from the copy and distribution of it. That age has passed.
The age we are now are people downloading cars. Everyone would download a car, few people would steal a car. (See previous post about downloading cars and 3D printers, guarantee it’s gonna be a hotbutton issue in the next decade.)

I think we’d be better off accepting that due to the digital environment that the current trend of “download a car” piracy is just another asset of human nature, and we should use fire against fire. Use human nature to make people not pirate. As stated before, DRMs like Steam and Minecraft do this perfectly, despite the ease of bypassing it.


#78

Nice try but beep… Fail. You may as well ask me how much bottled water is not consumed because water exists in taps.

You don’t need data or “proof”. You just need perception and a few powerful and willing believers. Money talks and big money talks big.

Stop kidding yourself with some grandiose notion that nothing will happen because of “lack of data”. In software it already has and I can also name several other examples of complete domination of agendas based purely around perceptions with no presentable facts to support the agendas.

If we refuse to firstly acknowledge and then address the problem it will be addressed for us. Proof or otherwise.

We’re dealing with money here. Not necessarily brains.


#79

Exactly. Money doesn’t listen.It’s the reason why people hate EA. It’s also the reason why people who interact with the pirate community get tons of support from a demographic that is said to “want free stuff fuck the dev”

A debate is about brains, not money. If it was about money we’d call it an election.

No one should say that piracy is right and look for ways to have people legitimately purchase their product, but if you can’t prove it’s harm other than theoretical numbers and ignore all the numbers except the ones that you like, then it’s not a debate but a yelling contest.

EA would figure a way, if it was in the bottled water business. Hell that’s a great analogy because other than water shortage in geographical areas, for first world countries having water is like piracy to bottled water manufacturers. They have a monopoly on distributing their unique product, and then everyone at home can get the same thing.

You can’t stop people from drinking water, you don’t know how many sales lost to it because there’s no way to measure consumption VS never buying bottled water again. All you need to do is make a clean product, easy to access and drink, offer special things (flavors) and advertise and prey on human nature (design and marketing) to get them to drink the same thing they get for free at home.

Perhaps they’re worried about their pipes, perhaps they’re worried about the local mineral content of the water. Perhaps they would buy a water filter instead and not buy EA water.

This is all analogous of piracy, as because it’s literally impossible to stomp it out. Treat it like human nature and competition. Sure publicly condemn it as it’s not the right thing to do and insist if you like the game it’s moral to buy it, but don’t go around sabotaging your own product to the point where the competition’s product is cheaper(Free) AND more fun(usable).


If you looked at the posts above that’s been my entire point, it’s a reaction of human nature and it’s only disastrous to bluntly fight against it, but use it. They’ve been doing it for centuries in the normal marketplace, it’s not hard. The hard part is mentally separating Digital and Non-Digital products. The digital world is a large oasis and you can’t stop people from sneaking drinks from your spot.

Focus on things that attract customers as this is a tale as old as customer service.


#80

Obviously the whole “piracy” discussion is a very complex one and as somebody stated earlier: If you find a simple answer that (in your opinion) resolves the whole topic in just a few sentences, you aren’t any smarter than those who write long posts, approaching the argument from different perspectives. All you do, is ignore every aspect that goes beyond what you can understand within a minute or two.
This doesn’t make you smart, it only makes you lazy!

Still, i see a point in those intuitive judgements about “piracy” but that’s only as input for the real discussion and not as a final solution to it.

There’s one kind of argumentation that has no use at all though:
If you declare any argument that you don’t like (as it stands against your opinion) invalid without giving any reasons and then base your whole argument on this made-up situation, all you achive is looking really stupid.

One common example is when people just insist on software “piracy” being theft while it is a fact(!) that this is not true.
There really isn’t a lot of room for discussion here, as there is a definition of theft and this definition includes something being taken from its original owner. If you copy a piece of software, the original stays with the owner which means that there is no theft by definition(!).
Of course this doesn’t justify “piracy”: Killing another person just for fun isn’t theft either. It’s a different, much more serious crime but still it’s no theft!
If you want anyone to take you seriously in this discussion, stop insisting on things that are just wrong and instead focus on what you are actually criticising:
Illegal copies are a problem to software developers.
If you feel like it, you can also try to define the exact kind of illegal act or moral wrongdoing this is but please stop insisting that copying is the same thing as stealing!

Another example of pseudo-logic i’ve seen here, was someone saying that DRM is a result of software “piracy” and therefore can’t be a reason for it.
Saying it can’t be the original reason, would be perfectly fine but only because something started as a result of a certain problem doesn’t mean it can’t be making the problem even worse.

If companies lose their customers due to illegal copies of their product, declaring war on said customers is just not the best way to win them back.
If i am doing something wrong to someone and said someone explains to me why i am hurting him, i might realize that my behaviour is wrong and decide to change it.
If that someone instead declares me his enemy and tries to make me do what he wants by force, i will do everything i can to defend myself against this attack not because this undoes my initial misbehaviour but only because i don’t like being threatened.
Once you result to violence, it doesn’t matter who was right in the first place because from the point you started acting aggressively, you became the bad guy.

Now you can say that including basic copy protection in your games can hardly be called an act of aggression and you’re right but modern copy protections tend to do cross the border between rightfully defending your intellectual property and invading the user’s private space in a way that often isn’t even legal anymore and at that point software companies stop acting moral themselves and therefore put themselves in a position where asking for moral behaviour from people they act immoral to loses its justification.

I could now keep on arguing about copyright protection measures and their moral (and sometimes legal) rightfulness but this goes far beyond my actual point which is:
The whole “piracy” discussion is a very complex one and if you want to be taken seriously in it, you have to accept that you can’t just insist on one basic point while ignoring everything else that is part of the discussion.

So please, take your opponent’s position as serious as you take your own and maybe you will be able to convince them of your opinion.
Calling every argument that you don’t agree with false without actually giving arguments for that position only makes you look ignorant but doesn’t help your case at all…

If you can’t win in a fair fight, maybe you are just not entitled to a win and should therefore try to find a solution somewhere in the middle of your position and the one of your opponents.
Achieving a victory that only you can see as such, isn’t a victory at all; it’s just a dillusion.