For the longest time, I've thought that distinction a bit bogus, but I've recently come to see the point. Theft is deprivation of property, which copyright infringement isn't. Sometimes the distinction seems like hairsplitting, at other times it's relevant. But it can't be denied, it IS a different crime than theft.
Yeah but I think by calling it copyright infringement people don't think anything about it being wrong. People would think of it differently if they thought they were stealing it instead of just copying some bits.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1705674:date=Apr 24 2009, 10:35 AM:name=KungFuDiscoMonkey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KungFuDiscoMonkey @ Apr 24 2009, 10:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1705674"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah but I think by calling it copyright infringement people don't think anything about it being wrong. People would think of it differently if they thought they were stealing it instead of just copying some bits.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree there is a mistake in dismissing it outright, and I think for the majority of copyright infringers this is what happens. However I think trying to equate infringement with stealing or piracy just confuses the issue. Copyright infringement is not a crime like stealing or piracy, but it is a civil offense and against the law.
I think there is validity to the argument that copyright law is no longer sane and does not "promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". But I would not call what the majority of copyright infringers do "civil disobedience". It could be argued that they are because "Rosa Parks was just tired". However I am not a lawyer and it is mostly irrelevant to me.
Full Disclosure: I do not download works with out the author/artist/developers' permission, but I do avoid paying for works that support the RIAA, MPAA, etc. and use Free and public domain works where possible.
"Piracy" is what we call copyright infringement. There's no confusion here, it's an adaptation of a phrase that originally meant something entirely different. We're not "confusing" piracy with copyright infringement, we're giving piracy the meaning "copyright infringement."
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1705678:date=Apr 24 2009, 11:23 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Apr 24 2009, 11:23 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1705678"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Piracy" is what we call copyright infringement. There's no confusion here, it's an adaptation of a phrase that originally meant something entirely different. We're not "confusing" piracy with copyright infringement, we're giving piracy the meaning "copyright infringement."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That was cute until real <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate" target="_blank">pirates</a> started showing up in the news. It is an interchangeable term legally, but that doesn't mean it doesn't confuse the issue.
I disagree, nobody's gonna confuse software pirates with the ship-hijackin' kind. "Piracy" has passed into the vernacular, and nobody's ever gonna say "yeah I copyright infringed Dawn of War 2 last night."
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1705680:date=Apr 24 2009, 11:41 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Apr 24 2009, 11:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1705680"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I disagree, nobody's gonna confuse software pirates with the ship-hijackin' kind. "Piracy" has passed into the vernacular, and nobody's ever gonna say "yeah I copyright infringed Dawn of War 2 last night."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're right; they'd just say they downloaded it. Maybe even DL'd for short. I don't hear people saying "I pirated <blank> last night" either.
Valid. But nobody's gonna say "I'm a copyright infringer and proud of it." Or any other kind of use you could come up with. The term is there, and people will use it to refer to copyright infringement whether you like it or not.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
edited April 2009
<!--quoteo(post=1705692:date=Apr 24 2009, 02:58 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Apr 24 2009, 02:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1705692"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Valid. But nobody's gonna say "I'm a copyright infringer and proud of it." Or any other kind of use you could come up with. The term is there, and people will use it to refer to copyright infringement whether you like it or not.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> News Flash!
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you're playing a pirated copy right now, if you're one of those people on Hamachi or GameRanger playing a pirated copy and have been for more than a few days, then you should either buy it or accept that you're a thief and quit rationalizing it any other way.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Indeed.
remiremedy [blu.knight]Join Date: 2003-11-18Member: 23112Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester
I would say in general, piracy is not thievery. It sucks for a game developer, but it's going to happen and other than the annoyance, it's not actually depriving anyone of property. The one exception is when you are playing on servers owned by the company, because then you are creating extra bandwidth costs to the company without paying for it, or when people playing pirated games decide to call the support line to try to figure out why it's not running right.
I can't believe people actually do the second one, but I've heard several stories about that recently.
<!--quoteo(post=1706033:date=May 2 2009, 12:42 AM:name=Psyke)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Psyke @ May 2 2009, 12:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1706033"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would say in general, piracy is not thievery. It sucks for a game developer, but it's going to happen and other than the annoyance, it's not actually depriving anyone of property.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->So if I make something, and I sell it because it cost me money to make, and you take it for free without my permission, that's not stealing.
Btw is there any investigation on how much the piracy decreases the actual value of the games?
I mean, a few sales for a thousand prevented piracies isn't much, but what if people couldn't move to other pirated products? Suddenly the actual value of the games would skyrocket.
If vending machines 1-3 are giving out free products, the vending machine #4 isn't going to sell much at 2€ prices, even if its product has reasonable price and quality. That's basically what piracy does in addition to decreasing directly the amount of sold games.
He's not taking it Crispy, he's copying it... take would indicate the removal of an item from one space to another. Pardon my pedantics :3
Bac, two problems with the whole "what if they couldn't move to other pirated products?" 1) You're assuming the pirates would pay at all... there's always the other choice of not using it. the stuff in the vending machines might simply be 'ok' so they take it because it's there, but once you remove the easy, free manner then they just shrug and don't take any at all. 2) You're assuming that's even possible. Which it's not. Pirates have always beaten protection in some way, shape or form. Even things like Steam or MMOs. Contained among the pirate legions are a number of those who are willing to host pirate servers for free. Whether you consider that ironic or a true show of altruism is up to you (I never play on pirate servers personally... I prefer having everyone in a concentrated place and with the original rules of the game.) My point is that a world of 'un-pirate-able' games is a fantasy. To be honest, the same applies to almost any sort of security; if someone REALLY wants to break into your house, they can and with the proper tools there's nothing you can do to stop them.
It seems to me that a large part of the problem is a sense of entitlement. I often hear the argument "I'd buy it if I thought it was worth paying for" and that is a completely valid argument - unless you're already playing it anyway.
If you'll note the statement I quoted earlier, specifically the first bit: "If you're playing a pirated copy right now, if you're one of those people on Hamachi or GameRanger playing a pirated copy and have been for more than a few days[...]," it seems to me that he is effectively excluding those who pirate the game to see if it's worth buying, and throw it out if it isn't. And I have a hard time arguing against that practice when demos are often non-existant.
But those who keep playing the game for longer periods of time yet claim it holds no value for them are lying through their teeth. They least they could do is pay the folks who made a game they enjoy for their trouble.
remiremedy [blu.knight]Join Date: 2003-11-18Member: 23112Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester
<!--quoteo(post=1706037:date=May 1 2009, 10:17 PM:name=Crispy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Crispy @ May 1 2009, 10:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1706037"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So if I make something, and I sell it because it cost me money to make, and you take it for free without my permission, that's not stealing.
Yeah, right.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo(post=1706061:date=May 2 2009, 05:39 AM:name=Geminosity)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Geminosity @ May 2 2009, 05:39 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1706061"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->He's not taking it Crispy, he's copying it... take would indicate the removal of an item from one space to another. Pardon my pedantics :3<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly. It's not stealing because it's not being taken. It's offensive to the creator and frustrating, but it's still not stealing. It is also going to happen, so as a game developer it is best to accept it and try to find a way to leverage that, or at least to prevent pirates from causing you actual costs (bandwidth or support), and focus on selling to the ones who are going to buy.
I have thought for a while that it would be a good idea to release a pirated copy as a publicity stunt, or with some additional code in it that would mention "hey, you're playing for free. Why don't you consider donating or buying the game?" If you beat the pirates to market, I would think you would be able to leverage it in some way.
remiremedy [blu.knight]Join Date: 2003-11-18Member: 23112Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester
<!--quoteo(post=1706066:date=May 2 2009, 07:43 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ May 2 2009, 07:43 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1706066"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It seems to me that a large part of the problem is a sense of entitlement. I often hear the argument "I'd buy it if I thought it was worth paying for" and that is a completely valid argument - unless you're already playing it anyway.
If you'll note the statement I quoted earlier, specifically the first bit: "If you're playing a pirated copy right now, if you're one of those people on Hamachi or GameRanger playing a pirated copy and have been for more than a few days[...]," it seems to me that he is effectively excluding those who pirate the game to see if it's worth buying, and throw it out if it isn't. And I have a hard time arguing against that practice when demos are often non-existant.
But those who keep playing the game for longer periods of time yet claim it holds no value for them are lying through their teeth. They least they could do is pay the folks who made a game they enjoy for their trouble.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I used to think that that excuse was a valid one. The problem with it is that "worth paying for" is such an abstract concept, and most people do play it for more than a few days without buying it, not realizing that it's "worth it". Referring back to my old post, if a developer was to release an "official pirate copy" that had a donation link, it could be interesting... "How much do you think this is worth? Donate!"
If donation >= price of game, you would give them a copy of the game in return. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1706066:date=May 2 2009, 07:43 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ May 2 2009, 07:43 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1706066"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It seems to me that a large part of the problem is a sense of entitlement.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I know I'm taking this out of context, but I think that's exactly the problem. People feel entitled to control ideas they thought of, while other people think society is ultimately entitled to those ideas so they can be built upon. It's a question of what you think the purpose of copyright law should be: "to promote the progress of arts and sciences" or "provide an artificial monopoly for the author/artist". <!--quoteo(post=1706066:date=May 2 2009, 07:43 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ May 2 2009, 07:43 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1706066"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But those who keep playing the game for longer periods of time yet claim it holds no value for them are lying through their teeth. They least they could do is pay the folks who made a game they enjoy for their trouble.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> True.
The original purpose of both copyright laws and patent laws has been both of those, as I understand. To first provide an artificial monopoly that can be exploited (this provides incentive for original thought - you think of it, you own it), then to subsequently pass the idea/knowledge/etc. into the hands of the public to promote progress. It seems, however, that in the last half century or so this has shifted increasingly towards the monopolies.
<!--quoteo(post=1706074:date=May 2 2009, 02:43 PM:name=Psyke)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Psyke @ May 2 2009, 02:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1706074"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I used to think that that excuse was a valid one. The problem with it is that "worth paying for" is such an abstract concept, and most people do play it for more than a few days without buying it, not realizing that it's "worth it". Referring back to my old post, if a developer was to release an "official pirate copy" that had a donation link, it could be interesting... "How much do you think this is worth? Donate!"
If donation >= price of game, you would give them a copy of the game in return. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
hm... interesting idea.
Or, perhaps a pay as you play system. If you donate, extra stuff will be unlocked, like the rest of the game or something to be downloaded. Similar to how StarDock doens't patch unlicensed games. Of course, it can be annoying to have to shell out more money every times you want to progress, so you'd have to have a system where if you pay enough to get more than 1 chunk at a time. Pay above a certain threshold, you get full copy.
Plus, people who buy the official copy might get a nice extra for paying up front instead of the incremental "maybe this is worth it" system.
<!--quoteo(post=1706025:date=May 1 2009, 11:55 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ May 1 2009, 11:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1706025"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->They're not supposed to feel better, they're supposed to feel ashamed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I meant the developers would feel better... (except they wouldnt because sarcasm) <!--quoteo(post=1706072:date=May 2 2009, 04:21 PM:name=Psyke)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Psyke @ May 2 2009, 04:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1706072"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have thought for a while that it would be a good idea to release a pirated copy as a publicity stunt, or with some additional code in it that would mention "hey, you're playing for free. Why don't you consider donating or buying the game?"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Like Shareware?
remiremedy [blu.knight]Join Date: 2003-11-18Member: 23112Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester
edited May 2009
<!--quoteo(post=1706113:date=May 3 2009, 05:20 AM:name=Align)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Align @ May 3 2009, 05:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1706113"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I meant the developers would feel better... (except they wouldnt because sarcasm)
Like Shareware?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, Shareware was normally just like a demo of the game. The pirates would be getting the full game because otherwise you would be offering less than what other pirates could offer.
<!--quoteo(post=1706061:date=May 2 2009, 10:39 AM:name=Geminosity)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Geminosity @ May 2 2009, 10:39 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1706061"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->He's not taking it Crispy, he's copying it... take would indicate the removal of an item from one space to another. Pardon my pedantics :3<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->It's a fair point, let me be more precise:
The product would not be available at all if the creator had not made it and released it. They decided to release it under certain conditions; legal conditions that prohibit unauthorised copying and redistribution of derivitive works.
So, if you're going to get technical, no a pirate isn't not a thief, but they are a crim, and they are leeching off other people's hard work. They are taking something for free that wasn't made available for free. Whatever you think about the quality of someone's work, if they decide to put a price tag on it, you must respect that price tag out of basic human decency. Others decide to make their work free but only under certain conditions, in which case these conditions must be respected. Simply put, whatever the conditions of availability and distribution, you must respect them or you are a criminal.
Imagine, at the end of the month, your paycheck came through and you realise there are a couple of days missing. You talk to your HR/finance representative and they simply say 'Sorry, someone stole those 2 days of work you did'. You seek clarification 'What do you mean they stole the work I did?'. 'Well,' she replies, 'actually they didn't steal it, they just copied it. But it means you aren't going to get paid for those two days, because your labour over the month has been shown to less productive by two days' pay. We can't pay you with money we don't have and that you didn't earn.' 'But I <i>did</i> earn it!' you protest. 'I'm sorry but your work for the month was duplicated, devaluing it to the degree of 2 days' pay.'
So, yeah, you're only copying it, not stealing, so nobody gets hurt really.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I know I'm taking this out of context, but I think that's exactly the problem. People feel entitled to control ideas they thought of, while other people think society is ultimately entitled to those ideas so they can be built upon. It's a question of what you think the purpose of copyright law should be: "to promote the progress of arts and sciences" or "provide an artificial monopoly for the author/artist".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->But a computer or videogame is not an idea, it is an application that exists in the physical realm. If you have two empty hard-drives, A and B, and you then store a game on HDD A, the two HDDs will no longer be physically identical. A game is not a thought, it is a physical product.
Or, look at it another way. A game is like a patent for a specific application. The application is to create a set of outputs (O) using a range of hardware (H), via game software (g).
<i>I don't know how to represent 'via' in a calculation, but to simplify:</i> <b>H + g = O</b>
If someone else reproduces this specific method of achieving that experience, they are violating a patent; they are copying the exact same method without sufficient alteration to provide the same product. I'm pretty sure this is not how copyright infringement is detailed, but if this was the law to prevent piracy, what would your argument then be? People are not selling an idea, they are selling software that results in a specific set of outputs, and this is their proprietary method of achieving those outputs. A very similar set of outputs can still be achieved by writing in a different code on a different engine, so you're not stopping anyone from doing the same thing. The only thing you're stopping is someone directly copying your work.
What's wrong with that idea, if we just look at it from a hypothetical ethical standpoint, accepting that this isn't the way game piracy is protected in the current situation. Would that be a better way to rationalise the laws against piracy?
KassingerShades of greyJoin Date: 2002-02-20Member: 229Members, Constellation
Are there no artists here? Certainly as an artist you could imagine how it would be if someone copied your work and spread it all over even though "nobody stole it". Not the same thing as pirating, but I also would call it stealing if someone took credit for your orignal work, even though you didn't lose anything physical.
In our digital age, I don't think it's unfair to call pirating at least on the borderline of stealing.
Silly Crispy, I wasn't arguing the criminal intent nor whether it 'hurts' someone or not, I was merely pointing out it wasn't stealing; it was pure pedantics, not an argumentative counter :3
The 'no pay for copied work' thing was a tenuous example though. If you make a game and don't take piracy into account in your estimated earnings then you're very silly. Criminal or not, moral or not, it happens. It will always happen. We can argue morality all day but no level of indignation or agreement will stop piracy nor turn back the tides. I guess, In theory, you could stop the tides... you just need to blow up the moon, but... well... yeah. It's about at realistic as expecting anything to stop piracy or change social views enough to eliminate it.
Maybe I come across as a bit dispassionate but don't let that you fool you; I am a member of the games industry and our company is fuelled by sales. This all directly effects me in a real way. But... I really don't see the point in gnashing teeth over something you really can't change. When I see something I think is wrong and know I can change it I'm all fire and passion but piracy? really? No chance. Why don't you try to eliminate all crime and world hunger while you're at it?
We can talk about cultures of shame but theft and housebreaking are frowned upon but did it stop someone trying to crowbar open my flat door while I was at work? Did it stop another walking into my room and stuffing DVDs in his bag when I was at university even though one of my flatmates was in? I think you know the answers to those without me saying :p
While despicable and unwanted, crime seems to be a part of the human condition. Piracy, theft, whatever. I at least take solace in the fact it only makes those moments of kindness and generosity all the sweeter; without the lows there's not really any highs... just a long flat plain.
That's not to say I condone crime, but that I merely understand it's not going anywhere. It's like realising that not everyone is trustworthy; you don't necessarily condone betrayal but you're aware of its existence and take it into account in your decisions and actions.
Kass, piracy is piracy. Judge it by it's own merits. whether piracy is a less or more of crime compared to some other crime it doesn't change what it is. Piracy is piracy. Stealing is stealing. If Piracy is bad then it's bad, it doesn't really matter if it's worse or better than some other bad thing. Trying to justify or deny it on such terms is to risk missing the point that the real alternative is to have not done something bad in the first place at all :p
Comments
I agree there is a mistake in dismissing it outright, and I think for the majority of copyright infringers this is what happens. However I think trying to equate infringement with stealing or piracy just confuses the issue. Copyright infringement is not a crime like stealing or piracy, but it is a civil offense and against the law.
I think there is validity to the argument that copyright law is no longer sane and does not "promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". But I would not call what the majority of copyright infringers do "civil disobedience". It could be argued that they are because "Rosa Parks was just tired". However I am not a lawyer and it is mostly irrelevant to me.
Full Disclosure: I do not download works with out the author/artist/developers' permission, but I do avoid paying for works that support the RIAA, MPAA, etc. and use Free and public domain works where possible.
That was cute until real <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate" target="_blank">pirates</a> started showing up in the news. It is an interchangeable term legally, but that doesn't mean it doesn't confuse the issue.
You're right; they'd just say they downloaded it. Maybe even DL'd for short. I don't hear people saying "I pirated <blank> last night" either.
News Flash!
People do things I don't like all the time.
Details at 11.
Interesante, no?
Indeed.
The one exception is when you are playing on servers owned by the company, because then you are creating extra bandwidth costs to the company without paying for it, or when people playing pirated games decide to call the support line to try to figure out why it's not running right.
I can't believe people actually do the second one, but I've heard several stories about that recently.
Yeah, right.
I mean, a few sales for a thousand prevented piracies isn't much, but what if people couldn't move to other pirated products? Suddenly the actual value of the games would skyrocket.
If vending machines 1-3 are giving out free products, the vending machine #4 isn't going to sell much at 2€ prices, even if its product has reasonable price and quality. That's basically what piracy does in addition to decreasing directly the amount of sold games.
Bac, two problems with the whole "what if they couldn't move to other pirated products?"
1) You're assuming the pirates would pay at all... there's always the other choice of not using it. the stuff in the vending machines might simply be 'ok' so they take it because it's there, but once you remove the easy, free manner then they just shrug and don't take any at all.
2) You're assuming that's even possible. Which it's not. Pirates have always beaten protection in some way, shape or form. Even things like Steam or MMOs. Contained among the pirate legions are a number of those who are willing to host pirate servers for free. Whether you consider that ironic or a true show of altruism is up to you (I never play on pirate servers personally... I prefer having everyone in a concentrated place and with the original rules of the game.) My point is that a world of 'un-pirate-able' games is a fantasy. To be honest, the same applies to almost any sort of security; if someone REALLY wants to break into your house, they can and with the proper tools there's nothing you can do to stop them.
If you'll note the statement I quoted earlier, specifically the first bit: "If you're playing a pirated copy right now, if you're one of those people on Hamachi or GameRanger playing a pirated copy and have been for more than a few days[...]," it seems to me that he is effectively excluding those who pirate the game to see if it's worth buying, and throw it out if it isn't. And I have a hard time arguing against that practice when demos are often non-existant.
But those who keep playing the game for longer periods of time yet claim it holds no value for them are lying through their teeth. They least they could do is pay the folks who made a game they enjoy for their trouble.
Yeah, right.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1706061:date=May 2 2009, 05:39 AM:name=Geminosity)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Geminosity @ May 2 2009, 05:39 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1706061"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->He's not taking it Crispy, he's copying it... take would indicate the removal of an item from one space to another. Pardon my pedantics :3<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly. It's not stealing because it's not being taken. It's offensive to the creator and frustrating, but it's still not stealing. It is also going to happen, so as a game developer it is best to accept it and try to find a way to leverage that, or at least to prevent pirates from causing you actual costs (bandwidth or support), and focus on selling to the ones who are going to buy.
I have thought for a while that it would be a good idea to release a pirated copy as a publicity stunt, or with some additional code in it that would mention "hey, you're playing for free. Why don't you consider donating or buying the game?" If you beat the pirates to market, I would think you would be able to leverage it in some way.
If you'll note the statement I quoted earlier, specifically the first bit: "If you're playing a pirated copy right now, if you're one of those people on Hamachi or GameRanger playing a pirated copy and have been for more than a few days[...]," it seems to me that he is effectively excluding those who pirate the game to see if it's worth buying, and throw it out if it isn't. And I have a hard time arguing against that practice when demos are often non-existant.
But those who keep playing the game for longer periods of time yet claim it holds no value for them are lying through their teeth. They least they could do is pay the folks who made a game they enjoy for their trouble.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I used to think that that excuse was a valid one. The problem with it is that "worth paying for" is such an abstract concept, and most people do play it for more than a few days without buying it, not realizing that it's "worth it". Referring back to my old post, if a developer was to release an "official pirate copy" that had a donation link, it could be interesting... "How much do you think this is worth? Donate!"
If donation >= price of game, you would give them a copy of the game in return. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
I know I'm taking this out of context, but I think that's exactly the problem. People feel entitled to control ideas they thought of, while other people think society is ultimately entitled to those ideas so they can be built upon. It's a question of what you think the purpose of copyright law should be: "to promote the progress of arts and sciences" or "provide an artificial monopoly for the author/artist".
<!--quoteo(post=1706066:date=May 2 2009, 07:43 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ May 2 2009, 07:43 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1706066"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But those who keep playing the game for longer periods of time yet claim it holds no value for them are lying through their teeth. They least they could do is pay the folks who made a game they enjoy for their trouble.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True.
If donation >= price of game, you would give them a copy of the game in return. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
hm... interesting idea.
Or, perhaps a pay as you play system. If you donate, extra stuff will be unlocked, like the rest of the game or something to be downloaded. Similar to how StarDock doens't patch unlicensed games. Of course, it can be annoying to have to shell out more money every times you want to progress, so you'd have to have a system where if you pay enough to get more than 1 chunk at a time. Pay above a certain threshold, you get full copy.
Plus, people who buy the official copy might get a nice extra for paying up front instead of the incremental "maybe this is worth it" system.
I meant the developers would feel better...
(except they wouldnt because sarcasm)
<!--quoteo(post=1706072:date=May 2 2009, 04:21 PM:name=Psyke)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Psyke @ May 2 2009, 04:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1706072"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have thought for a while that it would be a good idea to release a pirated copy as a publicity stunt, or with some additional code in it that would mention "hey, you're playing for free. Why don't you consider donating or buying the game?"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like Shareware?
(except they wouldnt because sarcasm)
Like Shareware?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, Shareware was normally just like a demo of the game. The pirates would be getting the full game because otherwise you would be offering less than what other pirates could offer.
The product would not be available at all if the creator had not made it and released it. They decided to release it under certain conditions; legal conditions that prohibit unauthorised copying and redistribution of derivitive works.
So, if you're going to get technical, no a pirate isn't not a thief, but they are a crim, and they are leeching off other people's hard work. They are taking something for free that wasn't made available for free. Whatever you think about the quality of someone's work, if they decide to put a price tag on it, you must respect that price tag out of basic human decency. Others decide to make their work free but only under certain conditions, in which case these conditions must be respected. Simply put, whatever the conditions of availability and distribution, you must respect them or you are a criminal.
Imagine, at the end of the month, your paycheck came through and you realise there are a couple of days missing. You talk to your HR/finance representative and they simply say 'Sorry, someone stole those 2 days of work you did'. You seek clarification 'What do you mean they stole the work I did?'. 'Well,' she replies, 'actually they didn't steal it, they just copied it. But it means you aren't going to get paid for those two days, because your labour over the month has been shown to less productive by two days' pay. We can't pay you with money we don't have and that you didn't earn.' 'But I <i>did</i> earn it!' you protest. 'I'm sorry but your work for the month was duplicated, devaluing it to the degree of 2 days' pay.'
So, yeah, you're only copying it, not stealing, so nobody gets hurt really.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I know I'm taking this out of context, but I think that's exactly the problem. People feel entitled to control ideas they thought of, while other people think society is ultimately entitled to those ideas so they can be built upon. It's a question of what you think the purpose of copyright law should be: "to promote the progress of arts and sciences" or "provide an artificial monopoly for the author/artist".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->But a computer or videogame is not an idea, it is an application that exists in the physical realm. If you have two empty hard-drives, A and B, and you then store a game on HDD A, the two HDDs will no longer be physically identical. A game is not a thought, it is a physical product.
Or, look at it another way. A game is like a patent for a specific application. The application is to create a set of outputs (O) using a range of hardware (H), via game software (g).
<i>I don't know how to represent 'via' in a calculation, but to simplify:</i> <b>H + g = O</b>
If someone else reproduces this specific method of achieving that experience, they are violating a patent; they are copying the exact same method without sufficient alteration to provide the same product. I'm pretty sure this is not how copyright infringement is detailed, but if this was the law to prevent piracy, what would your argument then be? People are not selling an idea, they are selling software that results in a specific set of outputs, and this is their proprietary method of achieving those outputs. A very similar set of outputs can still be achieved by writing in a different code on a different engine, so you're not stopping anyone from doing the same thing. The only thing you're stopping is someone directly copying your work.
What's wrong with that idea, if we just look at it from a hypothetical ethical standpoint, accepting that this isn't the way game piracy is protected in the current situation. Would that be a better way to rationalise the laws against piracy?
In our digital age, I don't think it's unfair to call pirating at least on the borderline of stealing.
The 'no pay for copied work' thing was a tenuous example though. If you make a game and don't take piracy into account in your estimated earnings then you're very silly.
Criminal or not, moral or not, it happens. It will always happen.
We can argue morality all day but no level of indignation or agreement will stop piracy nor turn back the tides. I guess, In theory, you could stop the tides... you just need to blow up the moon, but... well... yeah. It's about at realistic as expecting anything to stop piracy or change social views enough to eliminate it.
Maybe I come across as a bit dispassionate but don't let that you fool you; I am a member of the games industry and our company is fuelled by sales. This all directly effects me in a real way. But... I really don't see the point in gnashing teeth over something you really can't change. When I see something I think is wrong and know I can change it I'm all fire and passion but piracy? really? No chance. Why don't you try to eliminate all crime and world hunger while you're at it?
We can talk about cultures of shame but theft and housebreaking are frowned upon but did it stop someone trying to crowbar open my flat door while I was at work? Did it stop another walking into my room and stuffing DVDs in his bag when I was at university even though one of my flatmates was in? I think you know the answers to those without me saying :p
While despicable and unwanted, crime seems to be a part of the human condition. Piracy, theft, whatever. I at least take solace in the fact it only makes those moments of kindness and generosity all the sweeter; without the lows there's not really any highs... just a long flat plain.
That's not to say I condone crime, but that I merely understand it's not going anywhere. It's like realising that not everyone is trustworthy; you don't necessarily condone betrayal but you're aware of its existence and take it into account in your decisions and actions.
Kass, piracy is piracy. Judge it by it's own merits. whether piracy is a less or more of crime compared to some other crime it doesn't change what it is. Piracy is piracy. Stealing is stealing. If Piracy is bad then it's bad, it doesn't really matter if it's worse or better than some other bad thing. Trying to justify or deny it on such terms is to risk missing the point that the real alternative is to have not done something bad in the first place at all :p