Piracy

[ShadowSoldier]

The video game industry is a particularly difficult area due to the fact that the target audience is likely to be underage and studying, and thus in most cases not working, or at least not professionally, so they don't reach "minimum wage" yearly. It's funny when you think about it - the gaming industry hangs on very thin strings that parents could cut any moment, really. Adult gamers are in the minority, people often forget about that.

Except a lot of games are intended for 17 and up, and chances are, you have a job. If your parents are paying for your games and they cut you off, that still doesn't give you a right to steal a game.

I mean in Canada, minimum wage is 10 bucks, so anybody could easily afford a game within a day's work.

 

[JulietStMoon]

In any case, it's only stealing if you'd buy given media if you couldn't pirate it, and in most cases that is not true - I know that I wouldn't buy 99% of the media I pirate, and I know it for certain. It is wrong though as you're seizing the results of someone's hard work without being entitled to them in any way. It's not a morally-grey area - it's wrong, plain and simple. There is no gradation here whatsoever, and it doesn't matter if the media is coming from a bigger or smaller studio - the constituents are the same - hard work -> result -> will to sell result -> as*hole downloading result for free, the issue here is whether you're bothered by petty offenses or not.

I've been an ex-pirate for the past few months... and you know what's one of the first things I did once I made that decision and got a job? Go out and start buying most of the DS games I pirated on my flash cart. Just saying. There definitely ARE people who would buy most of the things they pirated, if piracy wasn't an option, and if they could afford it.

 

[Foxi4]

Except a lot of games are intended for 17 and up, and chances are, you have a job. If your parents are paying for your games and they cut you off, that still doesn't give you a right to steal a game.

I mean in Canada, minimum wage is 10 bucks, so anybody could easily afford a game within a day's work.

Piracy is not stealing. Stealing entails a loss on the victim's part, be it financial or in property - you take something that is in the possession of the victim and the victim no longer possesses it. With piracy, this does not occur as rather than seize said property, you duplicate it without permission to do so.

I'll be honest with you - I study at uni, I practically get one day off, and when I can, I work. Even if I do make those $10, it would take me 5 weeks to make enough money to buy a video game, and that doesn't cover the costs of hardware - just the software. For all intents and purposes, gaming is too posh and luxurious for me at this point in my life, but I am unwilling to part with it.

There definitely ARE people who would buy most of the things they pirated, if piracy wasn't an option, and if they could afford it.

In other words, you pirated because you had no means of obtaining media at that time, but once you started making enough income, you stopped pirating. That was the whole point of what I was saying. Once I reach the level of income that will allow me to stop pirating, I am likely to stop as well as the need to do so will vanish.

 

[DiscostewSM]

Having priorities and realizing gaming is a luxury?

I can't really see people justifying their piracy based on prices. This isn't bread, water, or electricity. It's a complete luxury. You don't need video games to survive, it's actually one of the most useless past times to have.

Also, accounting for inflation, aren't game prices back then more than they are now?

I remember paying $80 for my copy of Chrono Trigger on the SNES back in 1995, which is even more than games nowadays, dollar for dollar. Add in inflation, and that $80 would have hte buying power equal to $121.43 this year.

 

[JulietStMoon]

In other words, you pirated because you had no means of obtaining media at that time, but once you started making enough income, you stopped pirating. That was the whole point of what I was saying. Once I reach the level of income that will allow me to stop pirating, I am likely to stop as well as the need to do so will vanish.

Not really. I didn't get a job until after I made the decision to stop pirating, and even in the past when I HAD money to afford games, I pirated.

Anyway, my last post was directed specifically at the bit where you said that people who pirates games generally wouldn't buy what they were pirating if they couldn't pirate them. And I was just pointing out that, at least in my case, that wasn't true, because I was pirating regardless of whether I could afford to buy DS games or not. The fact that I was employed not long after I decided to stop pirating was a coincidence (even though that probably did help a bit to stop me from "caving" on my decision).

 

[ShadowSoldier]

Piracy is not stealing. Stealing entails a loss on the victim's part, be it financial or in property - you take something that is in the posession of the victim and the victim no longer posesses it. With piracy, this does not occur as rather than seize said property, you duplicate it without permission to do so.

I'll be honest with you - I study at uni, I practically get one day off, and when I can, I work. Even if I do make those $10, it would take me 5 weeks to make enough money to buy a video game, and that doesn't cover the costs of hardware - just the software. For all intents and purposes, gaming is too posh and luxurious for me at this point in my life, but I am unwilling to part with it.


In other words, you pirated because you had no means of obtaining media at that time, but once you started making enough income, you stopped pirating. That was the whole point of what I was saying. Once I reach the level of income that will allow me to stop pirating, I am likely to stop as well as the need to do so will vanish.

Right, and when you download their game for free, and play it, they lost money on something that was intended to be bought.

 

[Foxi4]

Right, and when you download their game for free, and play it, they lost money on something that was intended to be bought.

That's the thing - they didn't lose money. If the pirate has no intention of buying the media and only pirates it because he or she has the opportunity to do so, the same pirate wouldn't buy the media if he or she didn't have the forementioned opportunity - said person didn't want to buy the media in the first place, for whatever reason. Removing the capacity to pirate does not entail any form of financial profit.

Anyway, my last post was directed specifically at the bit where you said that people who pirates games generally wouldn't buy what they were pirating if they couldn't pirate them. And I was just pointing out that, at least in my case, that wasn't true, because I was pirating regardless of whether I could afford to buy DS games or not. The fact that I was employed not long after I decided to stop pirating was a coincidence (even though that probably did help a bit to stop me from "caving" on my decision).

Re-read - I said that "It's only stealing if you'd buy the media otherwise" - most pirates don't have that intention... so in your case, you were, metaphorically-speaking, "stealing", and now you seek retribution by purchasing the media you previously "stole". I'm using inverted commas here since, as mentioned earlier, it's not theft per-se.

 

[ShadowSoldier]

That's the thing - they didn't lose money. If the pirate has no intention of buying the media and only pirates it because he or she has the opportunity to do so, the same pirate wouldn't buy the media if he or she didn't have the forementioned opportunity - said person didn't want to buy the media in the first place, for whatever reason. Removing the capacity to pirate does not entail any form of financial profit.

Except (I'm using games as an example here), in order to start turning a profit, DS games need to sell I think it was around 100k to make a profit. Roughly 10-15 bucks goes towards devs/publishers for each new copy bought. But if 100k people downloaded the game instead, and no money went to the team who made the game on the intent of making money, then their game was stolen, and they lost a lot of money. They basically made that game that you are enjoying along with the other 100k people, for free, which is not what the point of their project was.

 

[pyromaniac123]

Except (I'm using games as an example here), in order to start turning a profit, DS games need to sell I think it was around 100k to make a profit. Roughly 10-15 bucks goes towards devs/publishers for each new copy bought. But if 100k people downloaded the game instead, and no money went to the team who made the game on the intent of making money, then their game was stolen, and they lost a lot of money. They basically made that game that you are enjoying along with the other 100k people, for free, which is not what the point of their project was.

We have a piracy expert right here.

 

[ShadowSoldier]

We have a piracy expert right here.

We also have a smart ass right here.

 

[pyromaniac123]

We also have a smart ass right here.

What a witty and clever comeback.

 

[DiscostewSM]

I agree it isn't stealing/theft/etc in the same manner as physical one-copy products, but unless both parties are benefiting, one of them is losing out on an opportunity.

 

[Foxi4]

Except (I'm using games as an example here), in order to start turning a profit, DS games need to sell I think it was around 100k to make a profit. Roughly 10-15 bucks goes towards devs/publishers for each new copy bought. But if 100k people downloaded the game instead, and no money went to the team who made the game on the intent of making money, then their game was stolen, and they lost a lot of money. They basically made that game that you are enjoying along with the other 100k people, for free, which is not what the point of their project was.

This is not about economics, this is about the legal definition of theft. Piracy is not theft as it is an instance of duplicating the goods in question, not of taking possession of said goods by removing them from somebody else's possession.

There are too many variables here to simplify it to the example you just gave - you have to imagine a mathematical situation here. I'll do my best to boil it down again - if a pirate hasn't got any intention to buy, removing the opportunity to pirate does not strenghten the motivation to buy a game, at least not by itself. What strenghtens the motivation to buy said game is the desire to play it, which is directly connected with its quality.

I agree it isn't stealing/theft/etc in the same manner as physical one-copy products, but unless both parties are benefiting, one of them is losing out on an opportunity.

What opportunity? If the pirate didn't want to buy, there was no opportunity to begin with - that's the whole point.

This only makes sense in the "I'd love to play this game but I can't afford it, I'll have to pirate it" scenario which is actually quite rare, and even in this scenario, the pirate is likely to but the game once he can afford it and provided that it meets his or her quality standards.

In this scenario, you can even entice the pirate to buy the game later by presenting additional content - DLC and Online capabilities which usually works only with original copies of the game.

 

[ShadowSoldier]

This is not about economics, this is about the legal definition of theft. Piracy is not theft as it is an instance of duplicating the goods in question, not of seizing the posession of said goods by removing them from somebody else's posession.

There are too many variables here to simplify it to the example you just gave - you have to imagine a mathematical situation here. I'll do my best to boil it down again - if a pirate hasn't got any intention to buy, removing the opportunity to pirate does not strenghten the motivation to buy a game, at least not by itself. What strenghtens the motivation to buy said game is the desire to play it, which is directly connected with its quality.


What opportunity? If the pirate didn't want to buy, there was no opportunity to begin with - that's the whole point.

This only makes sense in the "I'd love to play this game but I can't afford it, I'll have to pirate it" scenario which is actually quite rare, and even in this scenario, the pirate is likely to but the game once he can afford it and provided that it meets his or her quality standards.

In this scenario, you can even entice the pirate to buy the game later by presenting additional content - DLC and Online capabilities which usually works only with original copies of the game.

And like I said in my first post in this thread, it's a gray area. People like me, believe that the definition fits, others like you don't. It's hard to define it, if not impossible.

What a witty and clever comeback.

What a Stupid Pointless Annoying Message... ah yes, known as spam. Something that doesn't add anything to the thread. Good job.

 

[pyromaniac123]

This is not about economics, this is about the legal definition of theft. Piracy is not theft as it is an instance of duplicating the goods in question, not of seizing the posession of said goods by removing them from somebody else's posession.

There are too many variables here to simplify it to the example you just gave - you have to imagine a mathematical situation here. I'll do my best to boil it down again - if a pirate hasn't got any intention to buy, removing the opportunity to pirate does not strenghten the motivation to buy a game, at least not by itself. What strenghtens the motivation to buy said game is the desire to play it, which is directly connected with its quality.


What opportunity? If the pirate didn't want to buy, there was no opportunity to begin with - that's the whole point.

This only makes sense in the "I'd love to play this game but I can't afford it, I'll have to pirate it" scenario which is actually quite rare, and even in this scenario, the pirate is likely to but the game once he can afford it and provided that it meets his or her quality standards.

In this scenario, you can even entice the pirate to buy the game later by presenting additional content - DLC and Online capabilities which usually works only with original copies of the game.

Unless said pirate only cares about the core game and not about extra features etc...

 

[Foxi4]

Unless said pirate only cares about the core game and not about extra features etc...

Of course that remains true, however a developer has the DLC/Online option. I believe that if the DLC is substantial, for example an actually meaningful additional campaign that adds a lot to the core experience, it's a strong incentive to buy. Not saying that games should studdenly start missing core elements and require DLC, but if used in a smart manner, it can be quite beneficial.

 

[Hyro-Sama]

Just be honest with yourself.

You pirate cause you don't give a fuck.

 

[Foxi4]

Just be honest with yourself.

You pirate cause you don't give a fuck.

Well, considering that on many systems, you have to go to great lenghts to pirate... Perhaps pirates pirate because they do care... about pirating.

 

[pyromaniac123]

And like I said in my first post in this thread, it's a gray area. People like me, believe that the definition fits, others like you don't. It's hard to define it, if not impossible.



What a Stupid Pointless Annoying Message... ah yes, known as spam. Something that doesn't add anything to the thread. Good job.

And your completely made up example did?

 

[DiscostewSM]

I wonder how much time/money is spent towards anti-piracy measures by developers...